![]() | Relief of Douglas MacArthur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
There's an intent to reflect negatively on Truman and positively on MacArthur here. 1. Discussing Truman's education the fact that it didnt work out because of his need to help his father on the farm is left out instead leading to the conclusion it was an academic failure. setting the stage for the "dummy Truman, sagely MacArthur" stance. 1.5. Not expanding on just how important MacArthur's nepotism was to his early career, as he inherited a cadre of loyal officers to back him from his father as well as being fast tracked through many more standard positions a junior officer would have to slog through. He had room to do the "Daring, bold, innovative" things that other officers couldn't because he had zero risk of losing status if they failed, effectively allowing him to take the best ideas of better minds and actually apply them. 2. No context for the "Custers Pattons and Macarthur" quote, just an attempt to make him sound like he's maligning big American generals. All three of those men in reality were some combination of unprosecuted war criminals, negligent, self promoting, disregarded the safety of their men, disregarding their position as non-political entities, attempting to usurp a measure of authority that was not given to them and went against the chain of command on their personal whims. In short, they were by definition bad soldiers. 2.5 Macarthur also let war criminals walk free in Japan and threatened to court martial any American who attacked one. Men who had been beaten sadistically for years by guards were expected to shake hands with those guards and say "All's well now, no hard feelings" because of orders from the man who ran away to safety. It was a real slap in the face to American values and American servicemen. 3. "Working closely with herbert hoover and franklin roosevelt." You failed to mention that he attacked the bonus army, veterans who fought with him in WWI, against express orders from the president, refused to read a couriers emergency message from the president that could have said the white house was under attack, and attacked out of his commanded zone. On getting the letter he said "I have no time i'm commanding a battle," clearly knowing what he was doing was against his orders and wrong. Both Hoover and Roosevelt considered this the final seal of Hoovers election defeat. 3.5. MacArthur HATED Roosevelt and tried to avoid him as much as he could, he would use George Marshall as his go between to represent him. He hated the whole democratic party at that time. 4. That medal of honor for the defense of the Philipines was, we have full testimony of this from Marshall, cooked up by Roosevelt and Marshall to get some good news and a heroic story to the reeling public. 4.5. The Philippines were going to be circumvented by allied plans but because of MacArthur's promise and Ego, American lives were wasted confronting them militarily instead of forcing their surrender by blockade. 5. MacArthur, as he was known for from every other conflict of his life, made sure to talk up the North Koreans as ultra fierce so he would look better in defeating them. Personal Note: the only time he went head to head with an equal force under Homma he got smashed. Then he killed Homma in a trumped up war criminal charge for it. This is the kind of danger of pettiness this man presents. 6. Presenting Inchon as a brilliant idea when really it was an incredibly risky maneuver that hundreds of extremely talented men scrambled to make work by the grace of God and luck itself. 7. Presenting Truman as someone making snap decisions on a whim or out of pettiness when really he was very open to counsel, asked questions constantly and considered the representation of the American everyman to be more important than his own feelings. 7.5 Presenting Macarthur as someone who is careful and considered in his ideas.
Sources these claims are drawn from: -WWI Museum and Memorial and many presentations from them -George C. Marshall Foundation's "The strained Relationship of Marshall and MacArthur" by Jim Zobel as well as other materials. -Truman Presidential Library -Marshall's biography -Common motherfreaking sense for a few of them. Ba18070 ( talk) 13:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
From my scan of the article, there does seem to be a POV, although I admit I did not exhaustively weigh the sources. But I will ask what the source of this statement is in the final lead paragraph:
Whatever the source, it appears to be written inappropriately for a featured article in that it links two statements, appearing to cast doubt on the former in the manner of WP:EDITORIAL by juxtaposing two statements with the word "but". If both statements are sourced and relevant, they should simply be presented individually, not compared (assuming an RS did not compare them). This is the same case for the next sentence:
In the second sentence, the relationship between the two statements is unclear besides the comparison, making it doubly problematic for a featured article. I welcome comments. Airborne84 ( talk) 23:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I find the "Civilian control of the military" section to be lacking. This does not align with Featured Article criterion 1.b. and perhaps 1.c. Comments:
I invite comments. Airborne84 ( talk) 23:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.Also note the essay Verifiable but not false:
True to common sense – An article cannot claim, "All Americans think Hitler was evil" or state, "All marriages have rough periods", or any other issue which applies to all members of a vast group. There are limits to what is logically verifiable, even if stated in 17 sources. Text should not contradict general common-sense notions about a topic.Moreover, does this accurately reflect Huntington's views? "objective civilian control is the form required by the conditions of modern western society" [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
References
The YouTube video "MacArthur, Nukes, and the Korean War" has been tagged in the article as an unreliable source. I'm inclined to agree with this. I suggest that the video should be moved to the "External Links" section but not used as a citation within the article itself. I want to take out the parts of the article that refer to the video; I don't think the MacArthur Memorial is a neutral party when it comes to characterising MacArthur as "a madman who was trying to use nuclear weapons during the war." Ikuzaf ( talk) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Relief of Douglas MacArthur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
There's an intent to reflect negatively on Truman and positively on MacArthur here. 1. Discussing Truman's education the fact that it didnt work out because of his need to help his father on the farm is left out instead leading to the conclusion it was an academic failure. setting the stage for the "dummy Truman, sagely MacArthur" stance. 1.5. Not expanding on just how important MacArthur's nepotism was to his early career, as he inherited a cadre of loyal officers to back him from his father as well as being fast tracked through many more standard positions a junior officer would have to slog through. He had room to do the "Daring, bold, innovative" things that other officers couldn't because he had zero risk of losing status if they failed, effectively allowing him to take the best ideas of better minds and actually apply them. 2. No context for the "Custers Pattons and Macarthur" quote, just an attempt to make him sound like he's maligning big American generals. All three of those men in reality were some combination of unprosecuted war criminals, negligent, self promoting, disregarded the safety of their men, disregarding their position as non-political entities, attempting to usurp a measure of authority that was not given to them and went against the chain of command on their personal whims. In short, they were by definition bad soldiers. 2.5 Macarthur also let war criminals walk free in Japan and threatened to court martial any American who attacked one. Men who had been beaten sadistically for years by guards were expected to shake hands with those guards and say "All's well now, no hard feelings" because of orders from the man who ran away to safety. It was a real slap in the face to American values and American servicemen. 3. "Working closely with herbert hoover and franklin roosevelt." You failed to mention that he attacked the bonus army, veterans who fought with him in WWI, against express orders from the president, refused to read a couriers emergency message from the president that could have said the white house was under attack, and attacked out of his commanded zone. On getting the letter he said "I have no time i'm commanding a battle," clearly knowing what he was doing was against his orders and wrong. Both Hoover and Roosevelt considered this the final seal of Hoovers election defeat. 3.5. MacArthur HATED Roosevelt and tried to avoid him as much as he could, he would use George Marshall as his go between to represent him. He hated the whole democratic party at that time. 4. That medal of honor for the defense of the Philipines was, we have full testimony of this from Marshall, cooked up by Roosevelt and Marshall to get some good news and a heroic story to the reeling public. 4.5. The Philippines were going to be circumvented by allied plans but because of MacArthur's promise and Ego, American lives were wasted confronting them militarily instead of forcing their surrender by blockade. 5. MacArthur, as he was known for from every other conflict of his life, made sure to talk up the North Koreans as ultra fierce so he would look better in defeating them. Personal Note: the only time he went head to head with an equal force under Homma he got smashed. Then he killed Homma in a trumped up war criminal charge for it. This is the kind of danger of pettiness this man presents. 6. Presenting Inchon as a brilliant idea when really it was an incredibly risky maneuver that hundreds of extremely talented men scrambled to make work by the grace of God and luck itself. 7. Presenting Truman as someone making snap decisions on a whim or out of pettiness when really he was very open to counsel, asked questions constantly and considered the representation of the American everyman to be more important than his own feelings. 7.5 Presenting Macarthur as someone who is careful and considered in his ideas.
Sources these claims are drawn from: -WWI Museum and Memorial and many presentations from them -George C. Marshall Foundation's "The strained Relationship of Marshall and MacArthur" by Jim Zobel as well as other materials. -Truman Presidential Library -Marshall's biography -Common motherfreaking sense for a few of them. Ba18070 ( talk) 13:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
From my scan of the article, there does seem to be a POV, although I admit I did not exhaustively weigh the sources. But I will ask what the source of this statement is in the final lead paragraph:
Whatever the source, it appears to be written inappropriately for a featured article in that it links two statements, appearing to cast doubt on the former in the manner of WP:EDITORIAL by juxtaposing two statements with the word "but". If both statements are sourced and relevant, they should simply be presented individually, not compared (assuming an RS did not compare them). This is the same case for the next sentence:
In the second sentence, the relationship between the two statements is unclear besides the comparison, making it doubly problematic for a featured article. I welcome comments. Airborne84 ( talk) 23:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I find the "Civilian control of the military" section to be lacking. This does not align with Featured Article criterion 1.b. and perhaps 1.c. Comments:
I invite comments. Airborne84 ( talk) 23:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.Also note the essay Verifiable but not false:
True to common sense – An article cannot claim, "All Americans think Hitler was evil" or state, "All marriages have rough periods", or any other issue which applies to all members of a vast group. There are limits to what is logically verifiable, even if stated in 17 sources. Text should not contradict general common-sense notions about a topic.Moreover, does this accurately reflect Huntington's views? "objective civilian control is the form required by the conditions of modern western society" [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
References
The YouTube video "MacArthur, Nukes, and the Korean War" has been tagged in the article as an unreliable source. I'm inclined to agree with this. I suggest that the video should be moved to the "External Links" section but not used as a citation within the article itself. I want to take out the parts of the article that refer to the video; I don't think the MacArthur Memorial is a neutral party when it comes to characterising MacArthur as "a madman who was trying to use nuclear weapons during the war." Ikuzaf ( talk) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)