Talk:Relief of Douglas MacArthur

What do you mean, 'It ain't neutral?'

Wow, four lines under 'Support for Truman', but twenty eight lines under 'Support for Macarthur'. How can it possibly be thought that this article represents a neutral point of view? RichardH (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Ultimatum to China

For the life of me I can't find any primary source or direct text of MacArthur's Ultimatum to China which is supposed to be so important. It's mentioned in almsot every secondary source, but just doesn't seem to exist. Anyone who can find it please say so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timt1006 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a quote of it, but still not the primary document. See what you can do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.95.32 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A full text of the statement was published in The New York Times on 8 March 1951 on page 3. 165.91.65.12 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)RKH DANG IT! wrong statement from Mac. The ultimatum was a few weeks later. Excerpts can be found in Truman's memoirs, volume two, pp 440-441. There's no confusing its tone: "The enemy must be painfully aware that a decision by the United Nations to depart from its tolerant effort to contain the war to the area of Korea, through an expansion of our military operations to its coastal areas and military bases, would doom Red China to the risk of imminent military collapse." All that's missing is the "boo-ya." 165.91.64.118 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

The communique is quoted in the article. Of course MacArthur was not aware that Truman was already attacking China's coastal areas, and was bringing up nuclear weapons. This too is covered in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What's left that needs to be cleaned up?

A tag was placed a couple months ago that the article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Since then, several editors have made improvements to the article. Is there anything else left that needs should be cleaned up? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've noticed the following:

• Not all the references are filled out with publisher, author, date, etc.
• The lede isn't a summary of the article. We need to make sure the info in the lede is also in the body of the article.
• Some sentences are unsourced. The sources may very well be somewhere in the article, but we should try to make sure each sentence itself has a source.

Anything else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the tool I typically use for filling out cite templates is this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

This article is called "Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur"; however, Truman himself refers to it as "relief" and this is the proper military term. The "dismissal" of a military officer is a punishment handed down by a court-martial and is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge in the United States (only enlisted soldiers are "discharged"). General MacArthur was never dismissed. Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds fine to me. If no one objects, I will rename the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start changing the word in the text and see what people think of that.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it looks like you already did many of them, I did a few more, leaving only the quotes and article titles.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But "relief" is a noun that has a different meaning 99.99% of the time. How about "relieving"? - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Less ambiguous possibly, more awkward probably. I'm relatively neutral, either one is definitely better than dismissal.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "relief" which sounds less awkward and more encyclopaedic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking this to the ACR. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ACR?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Relief of General Douglas MacArthur. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave it for a bit and see what other comments come in, we've just made the move. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated at the ACR link, I understand the issue, I have no objection to any reasonable alternative, except ones using "dismiss", I still think we should wait a bit, but maybe some comments will come in from the ACR referral.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The MacArthur Museum seems to prefer "relief". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Relief of General Douglas MacArthur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 22:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Piping the link to Jeep with "¼-ton 4x4 trucks" strikes me as odd, especially since the common name is so well known.

    Done Changed to "jeep" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

   Might be good to note that MSTS Sgt. George D Keathley is a transport - the first time I read it I wondered why we were italicizing the name of this master sergeant, and why he had to carry all that ammunition ;)

    Done added text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

   Shouldn't "post–war" be hyphenated instead of the n-dash? Compound words usually use hyphens.

    Done fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

   Same as above: "semi–barbarous" - there are others that should be addressed as well. Of note, the Spanish–American War should keep the n-dash.

    Done fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

   The quote "I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three–quarters of them would be in jail.[103]" is too short for a block quote. Check the rest for short quotes like this.

   No, according to WP:MOSQUOTE: Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation The quote is 49 words long. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

   I understand quotations are valuable in this article, but there are probably too many. You may run into WP:QUOTEFARM objections at ACR/FAC.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images all check out.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is in excellent shape, just a few things to fix before it's ready for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• All items should be addressed now. Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, looks good now. Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

MacArthur's failure to salute Truman.

The article claims MacArthur shook hands with Truman instead of saluting, which is true. The article also called this "an uncharacteristic departure from protocol for MacArthur." That is not true. According to David McCullough's Truman, MacArthur regarded saluting as archaic, and he preferred a handshake. Whether MacArthur held any animosity toward Truman is certainly open to debate, but his failure to salute Truman was not so unusual.97.73.64.166 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

David McCullough is incorrect. MacArthur was a stickler for protocol. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If MacArthur was such a stickler for protocol, why did he constantly wear his famous beat-up cap, even though it was not regulation headgear? It seems to me the burden of proof is on you. I cited a reputable historian as the source for my information. You cited nothing. 67.237.189.239 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am citing Pearlman, with a page number, unlike you. McCullough is a reputable journalist, not a historian like myself. And you may want to check the article on protocol. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're a historian? Pardon me if I take that claim with a bit of salt (I could claim to have known MacArthur personally, but that wouldn't make it true). That being said, it turns out McCullough wasn't the one who made the comment after all. I'll have to find the correct source, but I know I read that MacArthur regarded saluting as archaic.67.237.189.239 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)