Talk:General of the Air Force (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Old article gone?

There used to be a major article here. Now it seems to be gone along with the history and a new one put up in its place. What happened? -OberRanks 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted it, don't know why. I put this stub up because of all the red links. Richard75 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

From the deletion log: 15:27, 10 July 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "General of the Air Force" (umm...this is a copyvio from http://www.aviationexplorer.com/air_force_rank_structure.htm) (Restore). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Richard75 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should never have been deleted. The website you referenced appears to have taken their text from THIS page...I asked an IT friend of mine to look at thier webpage code and they added the webpage material recently, far more recent than this article was written some 2-3 years ago. The page itself that is the "victim" is not even that old. From what I have seen on this site, that is not at all uncommon for other websites to cut and paste material from Wikipedia. That appears to be the case here. This article should be restored ASAP. Thanks -OberRanks 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More on this...that entire webpage appears to be a rip-off of Wikipedia. The sections on General, Colonel, Major, Airman, Airman First Class, and First Lieutenant all have segments which were copied from Wikipedia. I think some kind of announcement should be made so that people here dont go around deleting articles (like this one) because they think they were copied from that page when in fact the webpage copied from Wikipedia. -OberRanks 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be careful sometimes about deleting content just because the content appears elsewhere on the internet without attribution. I have seen other cases (see Talk:Amy Fisher#Response to alleged copyright violation) where someone grabbed our content and someone else (in that case, me) wrongly asserted that it was a copyvio. If we can verify that our content is older than the other web page, then we should restore the old content. --rogerd 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article recreated from redirect

I have undone the revision which merely redirected this article to General (United States). They are NOT the same rank. And there is no problem leaving them as separate articles. If that was the case, then all military rank articles throughout should be merged into a single article. Um, no. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they are currently the same rank. The General (United States) article explains very clearly that the ranks are currently different. So it's not as if covering them both on the same article will cause people to think they're currently the same rank. But the history of the ranks is intertwined. The General (United States) article already covers all the information that is included in this article, so there's no need to have separate articles. Overlap should be minimized. This is not the same as saying that all military rank articles should be merged into a single article, because the history of all military ranks are not intertwined. It's just these few. For further discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. - Shaheenjim 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name changed during move

To make this article consistent with other articles' naming styles, the (United States) suffix has been added via the page move. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)