Re-nomination. Has since been through an unsuccessful A-class and successful GA reviews. The article still contains one flaw, in that the term "relief", while technically correct, sounds like a sculpture of the General. In the end, no better wording has been suggested, and the contradiction between common misconceptions and technical and historical correctness lies so very much at the heart of the article that I gradually came to like it this way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Research coverage: As I was composing a Chinese Korean War orbat in my own personal workspace, I can't help but notice that MacArthur issued his March 23 public statement at the exact time when the Chinese lost 4 field armies out of 6 deployed on the front...did this development affected (or impaired) his judgment in issuing the public statement? I know in the peer review you said that this is a political article, not a milhist article, so forgive me if I over step my bounds. Jim101 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Added explanation to the Public statements section. I regard this as a military article; I just wanted the politics people to have a look over it, which would not otherwise occur until it went to FAC. Something that set MacArthur apart from soldiers of the mid-20th Century like Bradley, Clark and Ridgway was that where the latter saw soldiering as fighting the best army in the world in Europe, MacArthur took an expansive in which soldiers gave equal importance to military government, peacekeeping, civic disturbances and civic assistance. In the 1950s, few professional American soldiers would have agreed with MacArthur; in the 2000s, few would not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
"...the Far East Command initiated a program of reclaiming and refurbishing war materiel from abandoned stocks throughout the Pacific had not only recovered...", consider "...the Far East Command initiated program of reclaiming and refurbishing war materiel from abandoned stocks throughout the Pacific had not only recovered..." (remove "a" for "initiated a program").
You might consider rewording this: "North Korea invaded South Korea, starting the Korean War, on 25 June 1950...", perhaps: "North Korea invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950, starting the Korean War..." (suggestion only).
"General Collins considered this a violation of the orders that the Joint Chiefs...", should more simply be "Collins considered this a violation of the orders that the Joint Chiefs...", per WP:SURNAME.
"...at 2000 on 11 April Washington, DC, time, which was 1000 on 12 April Tokyo time...", should be "...at 20:00 on 11 April Washington, DC, time, which was 10:00 on 12 April Tokyo time..." per WP:MOSTIME.
Typo here: "Technology forced soldiers to fight in small groups, increasing far apart from one another...", perhaps: "Technology forced soldiers to fight in small groups, increasingly far apart from one another."
Not sure about the chronology here: "The increasingly unpopular war in Korea dragged on into 1953, and the Truman administration was beset with a series of corruption scandals. Truman eventually decided not to run for re-election. Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic candidate in the 1952 presidential election attempted to distance himself from Truman as much as possible." Specifically you jump from 1953, back to 1952. Could this possibly be reworded?
"General Omar Bradley, doubted that there would ever be another large scale amphibious operation." - What year was this testimony? I think it's important to the context given the mention of the Revolt of the Admirals.
Done Added date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"Newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times opined..." I assume they did so after the fact. In that case, this graph is a little confusing, as it seems to switch from before the act to after. Maybe add another bit of context, or move it to after the "Relief" section?
Done Moved paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"On 5 April, Martin read the text of a letter ... " - was this letter intended to be public or secret? That should be specified.
It was not marked not to be made public. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the United States Government ... " - for some reason, this quote and the proceeding quote graphs are not indenting correctly. Probably something to do with the placement of the left-aligned image. My screen is very wide and this might not be an issue for others, though.
I resized the window on my 30" monitor to 2560px but it is still okay. What browser and OS are you using? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised you didn't include any numbers as to how this affected Truman's approval ratings. Yes, it is mentioned that he did not seek re-election, but there have to be a few polls out there to more strongly tie these together.
Done Added a paragraph about Truman's approval rating. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a few minor details. —Ed!(talk) 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Support My highest complements. I visited the Truman Library and spent a lot of time in its Korean War section last year, this coverage is superior to what even they had on the topic. Well done. —Ed!(talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments This is a very well written and comprehensive account of these events - well done. I think it needs a little bit more work to reach A class though, and would benefit from further expansions before it goes to a FAC. My comments and suggestions are:
Saying that MacArthur was only a 'a popular war hero' in the first sentence is under-selling things a bit: this should note that he was also commanding the UN forces in Korea in a very hot war
Done I hope it is not too long winded now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The second para of the lead should briefly note MacArthur's status in World War II and the occupation of Japan
"So too was the principle of civilian control of the military, but the rising complexity of military technology, and the consequent creation of a professional military class, coupled with the cumbersome constitutional division of powers, made this increasingly problematic." - this could be split into two sentences, I think
"MacArthur had to deal with draconian cuts in the defense budget which had seen his troop numbers decline from 300,000 in 1947 to 142,000 in 1948" - the major cutbacks in the occupation force in Japan were also related to how peaceful the country was.
Have to look into this. Four of the Army's ten divisions were still based in Japan.
Where did MSTS Sgt. George D Keathley sail from? (Japan I assume)
Done Yokohama. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"MacArthur, faced with a desperate military situation, was forced to commit his forces in Japan to what he later described as a "desperate rearguard action."" - this is a bit repetitive
Done. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"Truman was dismayed by a statement MacArthur made to the 51st National Encampment of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on 26 August," - this implies that he spoke to them in person, which seems unlikely. I'd suggest replacing 'made' with 'sent' or similar.
"Within days, MacArthur encountered the Chinese in the Battle of Onjong and the Battle of Unsan." - I'd suggest tweaking this to 'The forces under MacArthur's command' or similar
"Communist antiaircraft gunners" - replace 'Communist' with 'Chinese and North Korean' or similar
That would imply that we knew which country they were from. There was a tendency at the time to attribute everything that worked properly to the Russians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'nuclear weapons' section needs a stronger link to the material which precedes it, as the transition at present is a bit jarring. You could do this by changing the first sentences to something like 'Despite the deteriorating situation in Korea, MacArthur did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons. However, on DATE Truman stated that the General had proposed using these weapons on Chinese positions.' or whatever the situation was.
"The ethics of a system under which serving generals were compelled to publicly support policies that they felt were potentially ruinous for the country," - 'compelled' seems a bit strong given that these officers can resign in protest, and this has actually happened (including in the lead up to the Iraq War).
If they do though, then they are no longer serving officers. Changed to felt compelled. Of course Donald Rumsfeld would tell you that they should support it in private as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
While not essential for A class, I'd suggest expanding the material on MacArthur's pre-Korean war experience, conduct and political connections as they're under-played at present and are important in understanding the conduct which led to his dismissal (as well as how this is now perceived). It's not surprising that someone who'd operated at the highest levels of the US Army and Philippines government and had strong political connections before World War II, hugely influenced the government of Australia (including manipulating the requests for reinforcements it sent to the US government to his advantage) and seriously considered running against FDR during World War II before going on to become the de-facto leader of Japan for five years would be impossible to control by 1950. His links with the Republican Party should also be fleshed out a bit more. You could also expand upon his wheeling and dealing over grand strategy in the Pacific in 1943-44, which led to both the probably unnecessary Philippines Campaign and this campaign then being prolonged for no clear purpose in 1945, as this was an example of MacArthur being willing to, in effect, negotiate directly with the President and fight his own war rather than fully consider the 'big picture'.
Expanded the bios of Truman and MacArthur, but did not want to go into too much detail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
While possibly being even less relevant to this article, I'm pretty sure that I've read that the command and control arrangements for nuclear weapons also contributed to major changes to the Post-MacArthur relationship between the President and military (eg, as the President alone has authority to authorise the use of nuclear weapons, and may need to do so at no notice while under enormous stress, it became more important for military officers to act in accordance with his wishes and not undermine his authority). If this is the case, it might be worth adding to the last section. The material on Lincoln is also a bit simplistic; from what I've read, he was willing to put up with his generals political ambitions during the first years of the war because he lacked knowledge of warfare and knew that they couldn't make good on their (amazingly frequent) bluster about overthrowing him. By the middle of the war he was exercising direct control over the military (generally quite successfully and sometimes by personally sending orders to individual units) and making firm decisions about grand strategy, and this continued until the apolitical Grant was appointed to head the Army and did a good job of it. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The command and control arrangements for nuclear weapons is a very complex issue, worthy of an article in its own right. (Which does exist: National Command Authority) However there were few weapons in Truman's time. The issue was really one for the Eisenhower administration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
As for Lincoln, I don't know much about that period. It was particularly relevant though because Truman consulted books on Lincoln's handling of McClellan. He should have drawn the lesson that McClellan was not just bluffing; McClellan did indeed run against Lincoln in 1864, and Truman was afraid that MacArthur or Eisenhower would run against him in 1952. But after reading a bit more I think I have misconstrued the conflict between them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about the nuclear weapons issues more in terms of the discussion of the current expectations of, and limitations on, senior officers in the 'legacy' section. But as I said, it's not necessarily relevant to this article. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Support My comments above have now been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Support on sources very happy with citation quality, very impressed with source quality, source reliance, variety, etc. fixits: Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Dingman 1988–1989 compare to the other multi year short citations that are 19XX-XX?
Switched to that form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Consider if Annapolis and Canberra are sufficiently well known publishing cities?
I usually regard a well-known city as one where you type the name into the Wikipedia and it comes up. My experience with foreigners is that they are more familiar with Canberra than the ACT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Something appears slightly wrong with the volume number? Strout, Lawrence N. (1999). "Covering McCarthyism: How the Christian Science Monitor Handled Joseph R. McCarthy, 1950–1954". Journal of Political and Military Sociology 2001 (Summer). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Which is by Hackley, CA; not Strout? Which did you read? Strout or Hackley? Given the page numbers it looks like someone has mucked this citation up, and you actually mean to cite Strout 1999 published by Greenwood Press in Westport, CT if you used the Google Books version?
More likely, it comes from Harry Truman's article, and predates my involvement. Yes: it comes from this edit in April 2010. Replaced with a cite to McCullough (p. 1008). Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.