Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:43, 16 February 2012.

President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

General MacArthur's relief in 1951 remains a controversial topic in the field of civil-military relations. Article has been through peer, good article and a-class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor comment. I saw this on my watchlist and the title made me chuckle. So I took a look at the talk page and the A-class review, and found much discussion about the title. While "relief" may be the correct military term, the way it is used in the title suggests not only a sculpture of the MacArthur, but also a sigh that "Thank God he's not sending me back to Korea again". In military terms, "relief" also suggests wartime reinforcements or rescue.
 * My tentative suggestion is that this article is as much about Truman as MacArthur, and so much of the ambiguity in the title could be resolved by mentioning both people, e.g., "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur" (with first names added if preferred). The "sigh of relief" garden path is thus avoided, while the "sculpture" and "wartime" interpretations become rather unlikely. Geometry guy 20:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This came up during peer review and A-class review but did not achieve any consensus. I thought maybe the wider audience here might be the place. "Relief" is indeed the correct military term, and some editors were dead against the use of more colloquial terms like "dismissal", especially when that word also had a precise military meaning. We wanted to avoid having the article say that it's own title was wrong. I suggested "The Truman-MacArthur controversy" but another editor felt that this "implies equivalence between the Commander in Chief and a subordinate [Commander in Chief]". The whole article is about this very subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it, and agree with some of those concerns. What do you think of a title along the lines I suggest: "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur"? Geometry guy 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would also be acceptable to me. I would like to hear more opinions before making any change. though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, not particularly au fait with military stuff, I have to say I understand exactly what the title signifies – that MacArthur was relieved of his military command. The nominal ambiguity is one that I don't think many would puzzle over. If the consensus is to change, I'd say "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur" is a good alternative. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, though, how well do you think it explains the American political-military system to a British reader? How do you feel about the "Foreign Pressure" section? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm torn here; the real-life equivalent of my on-wiki role is "freelance copyeditor", which means I'm here to help, not to set rules. However, I'll repeat that this doesn't seem like a close call to me: given the target readership (most of the English-speaking world), the word "relief" in the title will be misinterpreted more often than it will be interpreted correctly (a majority of our readers aren't familiar with the history, sadly).  Of course, when readers get into the article, everyone will get it pretty quickly ... but central to copyediting is the notion that phrases that may make your target readership stumble ... or worse, chuckle ... should be replaced by phrases that don't. "Relief of command of General Douglas MacArthur" or "President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur" would be fine.  Hawkeye doesn't like "Firing of General Douglas MacArthur", but I can't see the harm, as long as you make it clear in the first two sentences that he was fired from some but not all of his positions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that "relief" in the sense of sculpture is that well known. I would be happy with "President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur". MacArthur was indeed relieved of all of his three commands, but the article makes it clear that he was not actually fired and could not have been. He continued drawing his five-star salary until his death in 1964. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Firing" and "Dismissal" are not appropriate here. I would also note that for me the main garden path was "relief" as in "sigh of relief" or "relief from pain"; I only noticed the "sculpture" interpretation on reading Hawkeye7's introductory comments at the A-Class review! Geometry guy 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur is fine with me, any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this article; Recall of General Doublas MacArthur was a chapter name I had found in one of your sources and I mentioned in the first A review, however, I never pursued this very far because "relieved/relief" isn't wrong just confusing, its used in other sources and the supporters eventually supported that name. You probably could use synonyms in the article for "relief", but other than that its a good article. Kirk (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I supported this article's promotion to A class, and think that the FA criteria are also met. The current title makes sense to me, and is in line with what the various works which cover this topic call it. It would be fairly unusual to change the title of an article which has successfully passed through GA and A class reviews... Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in this case; I sat out the peer review and A-class review over this issue, and more people hang out at FAC than at A-class and peer review who care about copyediting this kind of thing. And I've been involved in several title changes at FAC over the last few months (hyphen to dash, "photographer" to "photography", and ß to ss). - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent date format
 * Fn 86, 135: publisher?
 * Check formatting of quotes within quotes
 * FNs 156-158: you're using three different names for the same publisher
 * Compare formatting of FNs 120 and 177
 * Use consistent wikilinking
 * FN 185: typo
 * New York Times or The New York Times? be consistent
 * be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
 * Be consistent in how you list multiple works by the same author
 * Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals
 * James 1975 is volume 2 of what? Does that volume have a title? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Done
 * 2) Added
 * 3) Okay
 * 4) Corrected
 * 5) Done
 * 6) Okay
 * 7) Corrected
 * 8) Done
 * 9) Difficult! Fortunately, I have written a bot...
 * 10) Done. Not sure if you like the dash format
 * 11) Done.
 * 12) "The Years of MacArthur" Changed "work" to "series"


 * Support I also reviewed this article for A-class, and the comments I had were addressed there. I asked for some rewording and clarity in several places. The piece easily matches or exceeds the detail in scholarly works including the Truman Presidential Library and books I have on the Korean War. As far as content is concerned at least, it contains everything it should. — Ed! (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * I expanded the last sentence in the 4th paragraph of Civilian Control of the Military section because I thought it was confusing since there's no such thing as an 'advanced school' in the US Military. Feel free to change it as needed.
 * I was surprised to find there was no article for professional military; its used in the above section and lead, its related to standing army and I think it deserves a link (and a short definition in the article). I'm not sure if a red link is better than a redirect to standing army. Kirk (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go with the red link. It would be an article like this one or Singapore Strategy, where I have to read through all the literature on the subject, and attempt to summarise it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The main article on professionalism provides a pretty good definition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
 * "Left to right" is preferable to "Left to Right"
 * Source link for File:Truman_and_MacArthur.JPG redirects here
 * Source link for File:Douglas_MacArthur_speaking_at_Soldier_Field_HD-SN-99-03036.JPEG returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Done
 * 2) Done
 * 3) I replaced this with the version that you see here from the Truman Library, but forgot to alter the description. Switched to reference from the Truman library.
 * 4) Link rot. Added NARA information.


 * Support Comment . The sentence "MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination." needs some clarification. Up until that point in the article, I was under the impression that insubordination was precisely what MacArthur was relived for. For example, a few paragraphs before that, Truman is quoted as saying "I could no longer tolerate his insubordination." Maybe it should say something like "According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination." or "Technically, MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination, but for ???." Kaldari (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-worded to make this clearer. It is one of a number of points in the article where Truman says or writes something he knew to be untrue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's much clearer. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My only other criticism is that the article is a bit on the lengthy side, but since I can't come up with anything obvious to remove, I won't withhold my support due to this. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Comments 
 * Whose support is this? The first sig I encounter is the nominators-- please add  or .  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's Ian's. His signature is below, at the end of the Spotchecks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyedited as usual, pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning anywhere. Aside from that, happy with prose now.
 * Level of detail seems fine, as does structure (not necessarily straightforward in an article like this), referencing, and supporting materials.
 * Spotchecks:
 * Checked sources against citations #29, #41, #47, #165, #177, #179, #182 and #190; tweaked a couple of things from an informational and page range point of view as a result but found no instances of copyvio or close paraphrasing -- no action required.
 * Couldn't find the documents referenced at citations #38 and #39 when I followed the links to the Truman Library site.
 * Don't think we can attibute "However, MacArthur did say things that would later come back to haunt him" to citation #65, as the source is simply a primary record of a conference. It's probably worth you checking each of the other instances you've used a primary source to make sure you haven't employed commentary that is not in fact part of the document (but which could well be cited to secondary sources).
 * 1) The structure of the article was difficult to determine, given the nature of the subject. This was the third attempt.
 * 2) The Truman library seems to have reorganised its documents, but fortunately the old ones are still available, at least for now; changed the links.
 * 3) Added a reference for the comment.
 * Okay, re. 2, I can see the missing documents now, tks. Re. 3, that one's fine. Aside from this and the citations I've already listed above, can you just let me know you've double-checked other instances of primary sourcing to ensure we haven't attributed more to them than they actually contain, e.g. later analysis that should in fact be cited to a subsequent book, article, etc? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've conducted an audit of all of them:
 * 56, 78 and 87 reference a fact only. Added to reference to fix 78, similar to 66, so it now only references a fact.
 * 37, 47, 66, 83, 98, 118, 129, 121, 126, 137 and 142 are quotes only.
 * 19, 36 and 159 also include facts, which are covered by the document concerned.
 * So all are okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, just remembered I'd checked #56 earlier and was fine with it but didn't list in my comment. Anyway tks for double-checking the rest, mate, happy to support now -- great piece of work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very 1st sentence should be plain and inviting. It is a bit convoluted:  "On 11 April 1951, US President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, a popular hero of World War II who was then the commander of United Nations forces fighting in the Korean War, of his commands for making public statements that contradicted the administration's policies."    That parenthetical note within commas could be confusing to some readers.  How about "On 11 April 1951, US President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur of his commands for making public statements that contradicted the administration's policies.  MacArthur was a popular hero of World War II who was then the commander of United Nations forces fighting in the Korean War ..."
 * Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead tease: " Henceforth, all military officers were on notice that they could be relieved at will, with consequences that would unfold over the following decades."  I like the suspense, but for an encyclopedia lead, maybe it would be better just to name a couple of examples right there.
 * Removed "with consequences that would unfold over the following decades" Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wording: "... in which he contradicted Truman's policy..."  Contradict seems more appropriate for witnesses giving different account of facts.  A better word may be undermined?  opposed?  subverted?  undercut? disagreed with?  contravened?   Not a big deal, just thinking out loud.
 * He didn't undermine, oppose, contravene or subverted. He merely said something contrary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "was cool about the idea" - a bit slangy. Some ESL readers may not grasp it.
 * Changed to "unenthusiastic" Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "... come back to haunt him." a bit slangy. Maybe ".. would later regret"?   Just a suggestion.
 * Changed to "that would later be used against him". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Truman did not relieve MacArthur for the military reverses in Korea in November and December 1950. ..." I understand why that is being said at this point in the article, but it is just hanging out there, inviting the question "Okay, why was he relieved, then"?   This text should probably be accompanied by a hint of what he was relieved for.
 * The whole article is about that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * " Congressional inquiry". Capitalization is not uniform throughout the article.  My preference is user lower case when used as adjective.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Truman had touched upon one of the most sensitive issues in civil-military relations in the post-World War II period: civilian control of nuclear weapons. This was enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946." Could those two be merged into one sentence?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nonetheless, the British became alarmed in .." - The "nonetheless" is throwing me for a loop. I dont see how the preceding paragraph is opposed to the subsequent.  Maybe just drop the "nonetheless"?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "In a 3 December 1973 article in Time Magazine, Truman was quoted as saying in the early 1960s..." - Ten year gap. Is the quote corroborated by other sources?  Is there any reason to suspect the quote is not accurate?  If so, why is the date and source (Time) emphasized in the article?
 * What happened was that this was one of the first lines to be put into the article, which was originality just sets of quotes. It came from the Harry S. Truman article. Considerable effort went into tracking down the source of the quote. This is the only source of the quote. The editor who dug it up wanted to emphasise that the quote was in restrospect (ie after Truman's defeat by Eisenhower) and not contemporary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Issues" section: has 3 excellent subsections. But the top-level "Issues" should itself have 1 or 2 introductory sentences, which tie-together the 3 subsections:  What is the common theme?  Why are they together?   I concede that that kind of intro is hard to write.
 * "Relief" in title.  I see the discussion above about this word.  FWIW, my opinion is that article titles should really strive for common English, since we are reaching a global audience.  There are times when technical accuracy should be sacrificed for understandability.  I'd use "Termination" or "Discharged", "Dismissed", etc in the title.  But that is just by 2 cents, and it is not an obstacle to FA status.
 * The problem is the conflict between technical accuracy and popular opinion. This is a thread that runs through the whole article.
 * Confusing author of order: "President Truman drafted an order to MacArthur, which was issued under Bradley's signature: "I deeply regret that it becomes my duty as President and Commander in Chief of the United States ..."".   I'm confused as to how Bradley could sign it if it says "my duty as President"?
 * It just starts off with a preamble that say that the president has asked for the following to be conveyed. The point is Bradley observing the chain of command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent article. Really well written.   Will support when above are addressed.
 * Changed to Support. But I would still recommend adding some text to the start of the "Issues" section explaining what the three subsections have in common (e.g. "The incident involved three important constitutional issues governing the relationship between the military and civilian realms of the Executive branch.  Constitutional scholar Smith contends blah blah" ).  Grouping the 3 subsections together without explanation like smacks a little of WP:Original Research.   Otherwise, fantastic article!  --Noleander (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.