Wikipedia:Peer review/Relief of General Douglas MacArthur/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relief of General Douglas MacArthur[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Hard to get this article together. Cover a number of hard-to-explain subjects.

Thanks, Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The intelligence/counter-intelligence war between Chinese and UN forces during the Chinese intervention and the role in which MacArthur and US government played is not mentioned at all. The main reason why the US Eight Army was defeated at Chongchon River was not because Chinese suddenly crossed the Yalu River in late November without UN air force to intercept them, it is because the Chinese hid their main strength in Korea from mid-October to later November via aggressive deception/counter-intelligence campaign. Although the air strikes on Yalu River bridges worsen the relations between Truman and MacArthur, given that the entire Chinese 13th Army Group (60% of all Chinese forces in Korea) crossed the Yalu River before the Yalu River bridges were bombed, while the Chinese 9th Army Group (40%) crossed the Yalu River by using platoon bridges carrying only light equipment in order to avoid bombing tend to make the discussion of air strike much less significant to the outcome of Chinese intervention. IMO it would be more accurate to either decouple the discussion on outcome of Chinese intervention from the personal conflict between Truman and MacArthur over Yalu River bombing, or expand the conducts of MacAuthur and US government during the intelligence war between Chinese and UN forces. Jim101 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you can recommend a good source on intelligence in the Korean War. The mateerr is very technical, but there were at least two major failures: (1) to anticipate the North Korean invasion; and (2) to anticipate the Chinese intervention. In both cases, FEC produced much better estimates than Washington, but not good enough. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I am not an expert on military history. I assume that what Jim101 describes above is accurate - if so, it should be incorporated into the article somehow.
    • In this particular article, I was not necessarily looking for military history reviewers, as the article straddles the boundary with politics. So I was hoping for some input from editors with acquaintance with the US politics and the US constitution. What Jim101 says is quite right. The matter of intelligence is rather technical and complex. The question is how much discussion is appropriate to the article. I was hoping that putting them in separate paragraphs would decouple the discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of dab links that need to be fixed here
  • I found this to be well-written for the most part, which is good if you want to take this to GAN or FAC. I will try to point out places that need work on prose. *One thing I think should be made clearer is the word "relief" - when I first read the title at PR (and had not yet read the article) I thought it might refer to MacArthur's relief/rescue during WWII (when he was rescued from Corregidor in the Phillipines). I think the first sentence should be something like On 11 April 1951, US President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur of his command, ... I also know in popular parlance Truman is often said to have "fired" MacArthur ...
    • We have not figured this part out yet. One editor commented that the "relief of MacArthur" sounds like a sculpture. It is just that "dismissed" and "fired" are not technically accurate.
  • WP:LEAD says the lead should have four paragraphs at most
  • This quotation needs to be put into context (who said it (Truman) and when) This was a most extraordinary statement for a military commander of the United Nations to issue on his own responsibility. ...
  • I assume Martin read the letter out loud on the floor of the House (read it into the records of the House) - if so this should be made clearer than jsut "read" But on 5 April House Minority Leader Joseph William Martin, Jr. read the text of a letter he had received from MacArthur, dated 20 March, criticizing the Truman administration's priorities.
  • I presume Martin reading the letter was the sraw that broke the camel's back for Truman - if so, the article should say so
    • Probably, but that would be explicitly contradicting Truman's own version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cultural problem: At the time, people believed that the president always told them the truth. A reader of the article will soon realise Truman did not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it odd that the Relief section makes no mention of public opinion - it is all Truman and his advisors - what were members of Congress or the press saying about MacArthur's disagreements with Truman?
  • Policy differences could do a better job of telling us Truman's official policy (even if it is one sentence summary)
    • This would be a lot easier if there was one. Part of the problem was that Truman did not set a clear policy for his administration to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A major problem historians have with Truman is the way he prided himself on his ability to make snap decisions without having to go into all the details (ie poorly thought out, hasty decisions). This has frustrated historians of many issues of the period, as there is no decision-making paper trail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a summary sentence or two on the reasons for relief would help at the start of the Reasons for relief section - show the reader the forest before looking at the individual trees.
  • Confusing sentence - too many years and Truman's age: In a 3 December 1973, article in Time Magazine, Truman was quoted as saying in the early 1960s at age 77:... Perhaps active voice would be clearer A 3 December 1973 Time Magazine article quoted [a 77-year old?] Truman, who had said in the early 1960s:... (not sure the age part is needed - the exact year would allow the reader to calcualte his age if interested)
    • Done. The quote is very famous, and has been in the article from the beginning. Some editors had a hard time tracking it down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is violating a directive not insubordination? Needs to be clarified He had violated the President's 6 December directive, relayed to him by the JCS, but this did not constitute violation of a JCS order."[91]
    • In Truman's mind, the president can issue an order to any general or mess boy; but he cannot. It has to come down through the chain of command. What he had actually done was issue a policy directive, and the JCS did not pass it on to MacArthur or Eisenhower as a formal order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The is some doubt about whether such an order, if issued, would have been a legal order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who were these many people? A bit of a weasel word formulation... Many people believed that MacArthur was removed due to foreign pressure, particularly from the United Kingdom.[101]
  • When did Truman write If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military...?
  • I fail to see how In 2005, General Kevin P. Byrnes was relieved for an adulterous relationship with a civilian woman.[160] is a legacy of this - isn't adultery still techniucally illegal under the UCMJ?
    • Yes, but he was not tried for it, and the punishment was unusually severe under the circumstances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Some suggestions by Dank:

  • The title is ambiguous, as has been mentioned.
  • "full–scale": full-scale
  • "civil-military relations": civil–military relations, per DASH
  • "concluded that "The removal ...": Lowercase, per WP:MOSQUOTE and Chicago
  • "the relief of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Louis Denfeld, and his replacement by Admiral Forrest Sherman.": Would this be inaccurate? "the replacement of Admiral Louis Denfeld as Chief of Naval Operations by Admiral Forrest Sherman." - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We haven't come up with a good replacement for the name
  • Done
  • Done
    • AArgh no can do. Bot changes it back to Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • It would not be inaccurate, but I wanted it phrased that way to draw parallels with this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are no further comments, can this review can be wrapped up now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur/archive1&oldid=1078794277"