Classic civil-military confrontation between a general and a politician. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: searching for "ise" and "our", I get: criticise, emphasise, rumour ... appears not to be AmEng, which is fine, it just means I'm sitting this one out (except for a few comments) per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought AmEng was appropriate, but it is difficult for me to do, because my spell- and grammar-checkers are set for AusEng.
"The committees ultimately concluded that ...": In this country, it's been a very long time since seasoned observers gave any weight to what Congress says about the President or vice-versa. Could you maybe use a quote from historians instead, or better yet, a quote from a historian about the consensus of historians? - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Could not agree more, but since the article is about a clash between the President and Congress, both have been quoted. I will add some more material from Pearlman and Huntington. Historians agree that the American political system is flawed. The debate continues. Indeed, it was on again last week. Originally it was Truman who was the polarizing figure, but he has since been rehabilitated, and now it is MacArthur who is the controversial one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're headed to FAC, put en-dashes in for instance "civil-military relations". - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Mostly done, but the problem is dashes in links. The danger is that someone searching for "civil-military relations" with a search engine may not find it if we change all the dashes to endashes.
However, thre is no chance of taking this sort of article to FAC. I even avoided GAN due to its controversial nature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
"At this meeting, Roosevelt had decided the strategy of the final year of the Pacific war.": "decided" doesn't sound right. Maybe "led discussions", or say that he got credit for some decision or decisions; "decided" sounds too unilateral. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not what happened. Roosevelt went to Hawaii to talk to MacArthur and Nimitz and he deliberately left the Joint Chiefs (apart from Leahy) at home. In fact, he sent King back so he could talk to them without him. MacArthur made his case for the capture of Luzon while Nimitz, rather less enthusiastically despite a pep talk from King, made the case for Formosa. In the end, Roosevelt made the decision, and it was for Luzon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the article talk page about the page title. Looking at the first 30 ghits, I get fire/firing, remove/removal, dismissed/dismisssal, axed, sack (verb), and one hit on "relieve" (it's the ghit that starts off "timeline"). There must be tens of thousands of mentions, at least, in AmEng sources of this incident; can anyone find a single one that supports the language "relief" (without following it by "of command")? - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Why the caveat, it was a "relief of command", it was most certainly not a dismissal.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What I'm saying is: can anyone find a single source that supports the current title of this article, "Relief of General Douglas MacArthur"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I have no challenge to that and no particular objection to any of those words except "dismiss/dismissal" which has a particular legal meaning under the UCMJ and historical military law that is completely inapplicable here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and thanks for pointing that out. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Easily. Schnabel's chapter in the official history (Ch XX) is entitled "The Relief of MacArthur". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, on page 365, after it's obvious that the context is Truman's displeasure with MacArthur. You'll see the same thing in a gsearch on "Relief of MacArthur" ... it's all informal comments, or a different meaning of the phrase, or use of the phrase after the context is already clear. Per WP:TITLE, we're supposed to be choosing words that help people understand what the article is about when they don't already know the context. "Firing of MacArthur" gets a lot more hits, including hits in headlines (in which the context hasn't already been established). - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Well when I try googling "Relief of General MacArthur" I get 4,960,000 results; "Firing of General MacArthur"; "Firing of General MacArthur" gives me only 710,000. But more important is accuracy. Under what definition was MacArthur fired, when he continued drawing his 5-star general's pay? But Truman could replace him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to "firing", but "relief" is out. (I'm not wild about "relief of command" either ... some readers won't understand it at first, but that might be something we could compromise on. It's better than "relief".) "Relief of General MacArthur" (in quotes) is giving me about 3100 hits. (When using Google to verify usage, the quotes are important.) And the third hit is "Well when I try googling "Relief of General MacArthur" ...", which means that by getting it wrong, we're inventing bad English language usage (shudder). If you browse through the reliable sources in those hits and the "relief of macarthur" hits, you'll see some think that "relief" means a "raised portrait", some think it means other things, and others use it only after they've used another phrase first (such as "dismissal", which we don't like). Generally, people don't use it unless the context is already clear or the readership is narrow and well-informed. I'm not surprised; the word "relief" is already taken in the English language to mean other things, usually. See WP:TITLE or any style guide that covers how to write chapter headings or compose headlines; the goal is to use words that the reader understands even if they're not familiar with the subject matter and they don't know the context. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm on a break from copyediting while I get some writing done, and I won't have time to finish this review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Back from my break; be happy to do more copyediting, and support on prose at least, if you'll ping me after the current set of reviewers are all either supporting or neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Hchc2009:
A carefully researched piece.
I'd share Dank's feelings about the title. I thought I'd clicked on the wrong page when I first read it. How about "replacement", which is the verb used in the later section on his relief, and is the verb used by Truman?
Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's a letter from Bradley that Truman was involved in drafting, the actual statement to the media by Truman which is in the next paragraph says "relieved". Again, I'm not stuck on "relief" and I see the issues with it, but we need to be accurate about who used what term when. "replace" is a pretty weak term that doesn't really carry the gravity of the situation.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it sounds like we're having a hard time with this. If we can get consensus on the best alternative to "Relief", I'll hand this off to WP:RM; they'll know what to do. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the best place to discuss it is the article talk page and that we're the best ones to come up with the right place. There's no big rush. Let's research it further and get more comments.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead would benefit from a sharper first sentence that sums up the article as a whole; at the moment, you don't get to the relief of MacArthur until the second paragraph.
Reorganized the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"The notion of an apolitical military was a proud American tradition..." Being very picky, can a notion be a tradition? (a notion is an idea, a tradition is an action) I could well be wrong though!
I think you can have a traditional notion... but re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"During the 1948 Revolt of the Admirals..." capitalisation of revolt
No, more than just severe. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"This did not bother Truman; what did annoy the former haberdasher" - the haberdasher bit here was confusing. Who's the former haberdasher? (incidentally, the American and British English meaning of haberdasher are different, so it made little sense to me at first until I looked the US meaning up!)
Linked haberdasher Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this was and still is awkward. It only makes sense if you know that Truman was a haberdasher, otherwise you wonder who the former haberdasher was who was so annoyed; haberdasher is being used here like a pronoun for Truman, but this isn't at all clear. Consider "This did not bother Truman; what did annoy him, being a former haberdasher, . . . " or something else that conveys clearly that the haberdasher and Truman are the same.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Public statements: I thought this section had rather long periods of quoted text that could perhaps be better summarised.
A number of editors thought it was important to quote MacArthur rather than paraphrase him. I also like the quote from Truman, which is typically ironic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Japanese radio stations were soon picked up the story" - missing "on"
Reasons for relief - again, using relief in this context gives the section heading several different potential meanings, which you could avoid by using a different word. Structurally, I'll admit that this section didn't work well for me - the very short subsections meant that it didn't flow; if it became regular paragraphs that linked together into a narrative, you'd then have the opportunity to discuss the various elements, perhaps introducing each with a bit on which historians or commentators support the particular theory.
I don't want to name people who aren't notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You don't necessarily have to name them in the main text. To give an example: "Truman did not relieve MacArthur for the military reverses in Korea in November and December 1950." Fair enough - but if you're starting off the subsection like this, it begs the question "who did say that Truman did relieve MacArthur for the military reverses?" You could say "Some historians have argued that... (footnote with names of said historians). Current historical opinion, however, suggests..." Or "It is commonly thought that... (ref to that effect). Historians are agreed, however, that..." There were no doubt many things that MacArthur wasn't relieved for - the opening sentence or two of the section will give the reader the sense of why you've chosen to discuss these particular ones.Hchc2009 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Many people believed that MacArthur..." what sort of people?
"Following the relief, most of the mail and messages sent by the public..." Sent to who? How were the non-mail messages sent?
To the President. They had something called the telegram, which was a way of sending messages electrically. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep. The telegram, phone and mail were used disproportionately by different social groups during the period, so it is usually worth spelling out for the '50s and '60s.Hchc2009 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"On issues like character, integrity, honor and service, the public rated MacArthur..." You might want to expand on this - how do we know what the public thought? (e.g. "public opinion polls indicated that ..."?)
We have the polls, and an analysis of the messages, Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd strongly recommend you mention the polls - otherwise the implication is that the information comes from the preceding sentence (the letters and telegrams to the President). US polls for the '50s weren't too bad, I think, although they did tend to obscure the opinions of significant large social and racial groups. Been years since I studied this though! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Issues - again, I found the section format a little bit "bitty"; it would benefit from each section introducing what the issue is and how it relates to MacArthur's removal from post.
"In fact, civilian control of the military was not guaranteed by the constitution..." This bit assumes the reader knows a bit about the US constitution - who the "framers" are, etc. You might want to consider how this would read for a non-US audience, unfamiliar with the constitution.
Maybe for Americans too... Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Few officers of the period voted..." unclear which period.
The l9th century. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"which was seen as a slight" - seen as a slight by who? (e.g. MacArthur?)
"the Joint Chiefs became viewed as politically attainted." - I'm not sure that "attainted" is the best word here (it can mean being held politically guilty for something, but there might be clearer ways of saying the same thing).
I always use it to mean "a stain, taint or disgrace"; but dictionary.com says that this meaning is obsolete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd lean towards oppose at this stage on the basis of the structural issues with the later sections.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I second rewriting the title, please cite whatever you come up with a note - of the umpteen books about MacArthur it has to be a chapter title. It looks like The Recall of General Mac Arthur is a more common way to describe what happened.
In fact, civilian control of the military was not guaranteed by the constitution. Rather, the opposite was the case; by dividing control of the military between the executive and the legislative, the constitutional and institutional instruments complicated rather than mandated civilian control. This doesn't make any sense to me, but I haven't read the source so I don't know what's wrong. Please rewrite this paragraph and watch for close-paraphrasing. Kirk (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The Master's thesis by Potter probably isn't the greatest source, and there's only one citation anyways which is mostly a quote: They recommended that "the United States should never again become involved in war without the consent of the Congress." - I think you could do better. Kirk (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Need to start checking refs for consistency. First, copy the notes section to text file. Getting the list (including carats but NOT including the number for each note) is a bit tricky. Place the cursor before the first letter of the name on the first ref, but after the carat just before that name. If you get the numbers for each ref, that's a problem because they are extremely tricky to remove using editing tools, because each number is unique.
CTRL-A, CTRL-X, paste to Word document. Replace semicolons with carriage returns ("paragraph mark" on the relevant dialog box), because some articles have multiple refs per line (Coulson, p.69; Bradbury, p.191.)... CTRL-A, Table--sort--ascending. Eyeball to look for long list of named refs (abcedfghijk, with spaces between each letter). Find the longest-looking bunch of abc's after a named ref, CTRL-F to double-check if it really is the longest. If it is, then use that as the text in a CTRL-H. Walk down the text, removing the rightmost empty space and alphabetic character and CTRL-H'ing the remaining string until you have removed all the way down to a space b space. Be careful not to remove the beginning of a title such as "A Better Place"; make sure to keep the space after the "b". OK, now CTRL-A and Table--sort--ascending again. You now have a list that has all the notes sorted alphabetically. Ignore the ones that start with quotation marks. Compare this list to the actual references section. Be sure to compare names AND dates, and watch out for multiple authors and "See also" etc.
problems here: in notes but not refs: casey, challener, cook, james 1975,McCullough, owens, rice, Schnabel & Watson , truman, watson, wiltz 1978. In refs but not notes: dingman, johnson, mackubin, matthews, mossman. – Ling.Nut 01:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Added missing refs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 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.