Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/George S. Patton slapping incidents


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article successfully promoted --Constantine  ✍  08:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

George S. Patton slapping incidents

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

An interesting insight into military politics. More to come on Patton. — Ed! (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is an interesting topic for an article, and it's a nice piece of work. I have the following comments:
 * "drawing significant nation-wide attention in the United States" - the 'nation-wide' seems redundant here
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "deceiving military commanders of Nazi Germany that Patton would be leading the Invasion of Europe." - this is a bit awkward
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "misleading Nazi Germany leaders into believing" is still a bit awkward and needlessly unspecific. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Patton had already developed a reputation in the U.S. Army as an effective, successful, hard-driving commander who was extremely critical of those under his command" - the 'extremely critical' bit sounds odd
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 'critical' is a good word here. How about "Patton had a reputation in the U.S. Army as an effective and hard-driving commander who punished subordinates for the slightest infraction but also rewarded them when they performed well." or similar? (which removes several surplus words). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "commanders had long noted" - who were these 'commanders'? (do you mean Patton's commanding officers, or other senior officers who served under him, or both?)
 * Primarily Eisenhower and Marshall, but I had wanted to wait on introducing them until the part of the article where they play a major role. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that a large chunk of the US Army is a 'commander' of some sort, this is needlessly vague. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "which results from prolonged severe exposure to death and destruction" - as I understand it, a single incident is enough to trigger PTSD, and it doesn't have to be particularly severe or even involve 'death and destruction' (PTSD can be brought on by other traumatic life events, including medical procedures and childbirth).
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "it is generally less understood in military circles" - should this be "it was generally less understood"? Modern militaries seem to have a good awareness of it (though how well they deal with it varies)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "and had been under Patton's command since March 1943" - this seems an overstatement given the many layers of command between a private and an Army commander
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Patton, unaware of Bennett's condition and symptoms," - why does this matter? There are virtually no circumstances where it is OK for an officer to strike an enlisted soldier, especially well away from the front lines or in a hospital.
 * I think it's critical to note here because Patton did not look down on illness, he looked down on what he thought was "cowardice." Patton took great pains to care for the sick soldiers, and if he had known Bennett had a fever and was dehydrated he probably wouldn't have reacted as he did. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But the article states that Bennett had been hospitalised primarily as a result of PTSD, and that's what he told Patton he was suffering from. This reads like either an excuse for Patton's behaviour or an implication that it wasn't really OK to be evacuated for PTSD (which I imagine isn't what you're getting at). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What was Colonel Donald E. Currier's response to Patton's behavior?
 * Clarified Currier. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What led Lieutenant Colonel Perrin H. Long to write his report, and how did he research it? (this seems a significant missing element)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really: what led this relatively low ranking officer to compile a report into one of the most senior combat officers in the US Army? Why did he do this, and who authorised it? Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added more details. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "A group of news reporters filed a report on the Kuhl slapping incident with Eisenhower's chief of staff," - was this a joint news story, or were they complaining about the incident?
 * Clarified. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No you haven't: what sort of 'report' was this? Reporters file reports all the time - was this intended for publication, or were they complaining?
 * Added more details. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "She appeared in True Confessions" - you probably need to explain what this publication was
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The para which starts with "Patton was passed over to lead the invasion in northern Europe" is a bit confusing; the second sentence seems to undermine the remainder of the material (the distinction between the incidents being public and how the decision was made could be made more strongly)
 * Reworded the graph. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The FUSAG command was in reality an intricately constructed "phantom" army of decoys and props" - and fake signals traffic and material passed to the Germans through double agents and other means
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "As a result of Patton's actions, the German 15th Army remained at Pas the Calais to defend against the expected attack" - this is a major overstatement: lots of factors contributed to this - the deception plan was highly complex, and Patton was only part of it, and the Germans believed that the Calais region was the most logical place for the invasion to be made due to its geographic location
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The formation remained there even after the invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944" - that's true, but several of its combat formations were sent to Normandy Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for your review. — Ed! (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That wording is still there, and still hasn't been changed. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made all of the second round of fixes. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support My comments have now all been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Images - File:Wounded-on wayto-hospital-RG-208-AA-158-A-015.jpg has seemingly contradictory licences about which government agency was responsible. If we are unsure, I think it would be best to explain in the description and confirm that they are the only potential options. Also I think the caption "Patton was passed over to command..." is a little confusing since the first subject is Patton but the photograph is of Bradley. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed both the license and the caption. — Ed! (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Support I had some points, but decided to add some text about the way that neuropsychiatric casualties were handled. Revert anything you don't like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment Really good work here, and makes a nice change from a proper bio/unit/battle article. I've read this one back to front a couple of times now and have only made one minor tweak. The only comments I have to make are: And that's it for me. Zawed (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Battle fatigue section: Huebner replied "The front lines. Should there be a colon after replied? (Because of the cap in The)?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The location of the Atkinson source is given as New York City, New York. None of the other sources published in NYC add the state?
 * Fixed. Thanks for looking it over! — Ed! (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, Ed!, have added my support now. Zawed (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.