Talk:Relief of Douglas MacArthur

Heavy MacArthur bias in the material.

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)

Note this is only the first 20% of the article. Even if I am biased sounding in the opposite direction, its to make a point- this article is not at all a scholarly sound source of information. Ba18070 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• The notion that MacArthur was soft on war criminals is wrong. More Japanese were convicted in Tokyo than Germans in Nuremberg, and MacArthur did not shake hands with Homma or Yamashita - he hanged them.
• MacArthur did not hate Roosevelt, and the two men got along very well, most notably when then met in Hawaii in September 1944.
• Custer, Patton and MacArthur are contrasted with Lee, Eisenhower and Bradley. So being an unprosecuted war criminal like Lee was not something that Truman cared about; nor was being political, or was being a good general, as the inclusion of Bradley attests. Being self-promoting apparently was. (Truman would later change his opinion about Eisenhower.)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead issues

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:

• "An apolitical military was an American tradition, but one that was difficult to uphold in an era when American forces were employed overseas in large numbers."

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:

• "The principle of civilian control of the military was also ingrained, but the rising complexity of military technology led to the creation of a professional military."

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)

If no sources for these, I'll edit them Airborne84 (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is fully sourced. If you cannot be bothered reading the footnotes, then you cannot edit the article. Read through Huntington first. Then come back here with a proposed text, together with an explanation of what flaw you seek to address, and with a supporting quote from Huntington. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Since you cannot be bothered with pointing to a source (which I have looked for but do not see), I added citation needed tags. Perhaps that will move the conversation further along. Airborne84 (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 you seem quite combative against someone who started on the talk page asking questions. I don't plan to get in an edit war with you. Please (1) explain to me how adding a citation needed tag to material that seems to be unsourced is a blockable offense, and (2) point to where the material is sourced. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that the article on the citation needed tag guides editors this way: "If someone tagged your contributions with a "Citation needed" tag or tags, and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The most constructive thing to do in most cases is probably to supply the reference(s) requested, even if you feel the tags are "overdone" or unnecessary. Airborne84 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding cn tags to the lead is a blockable offence. The article is fully sourced. The lead is a summary of the body. The sources are in the body, attributable, in this case to Huntington, which is the textbook on civil-military relations. Read through Huntington, then come back here with an explanation of what flaw you seek to address, and with a supporting quote from Huntington. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 I do not see it, and I've looked at the sources, including Huntington. Since you don't want to point it out, I'll seek some outside assistance. Airborne84 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

For your awareness, I have added this at Wikipedia:Third Opinion. Airborne84 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

3O: Adding cn tags to the lead of an FA, when the lead does not require footnotes because the material in the lead is supposed to be a summary of the fully footnoted body, is disruptive and inappropriate. Please engage here on the actual substantive issue in the body you have concerns about, resolve that by discussion or dispute resolution and then engage with how that material is summarised in the lead. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you are the third person to simply say that the sentences in the lead are cited in the article without providing the citation. I do not see it. I laid out my substantive issues at the start of this thread. And I discussed this before adding the tags. I will admit to some frustration here. Fine, instead of assuming good faith and asking for the citations people say are here, I will just say that these statements are not cited in the article. Not as written. If they are a heavy paraphrase combining cited material I have seen, then they might be a violation of WP:SYNTH. But I can't tell, because no one is providing the purported citations.

And since you are commenting on my actions as disruptive and inappropriate, please comment on this guideline I added above which Hawkeye7 ignored, summarily deleting my tags and threatening me with blockage.

• "If someone tagged your contributions with a 'Citation needed' tag or tags, and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The most constructive thing to do in most cases is probably to supply the reference(s) requested, even if you feel the tags are "overdone" or unnecessary."

I only added the citation need tag after I first asked on the talk page for the citation, but Hawkeye refused to point to it, acting dismissive. But no comment here on the appropriateness of Hawkeye7's action?

Now, we have a situation where an editor (me) keeps asking for a source for material in a featured article that appears unsourced, other editors will not provide a source, and will not allow a citation needed tag to further discussion. How does this help make Wikipedia better?

I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, but this entire situation is strange and frustrating. And if people keep pointing fingers at me as the disruptor and not providing a source for apparently unsourced material, I'm going to leave Wikipedia to this new crew who have a different idea about how to improve it. Airborne84 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The first statement you raise concerns about in the lead is clearly referenced in the 'issues' section (current refs 164, 172 and 173). Ditto the second statement (refs 164, 165, 167, 168). Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D. I appreciate it.

This seems to be a violation of WP:SYNTH. In the first sentence, there are three separate sources combined in a two-part sentence separated by "but" which is noted as a word to watch. WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. ... If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources."

Justaposing these two ideas appears to cast doubt on the first cited idea: Editorializing with but "may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." This is a problem for a Featured Article, especially one that appears to have multiple assertions of POV in its talk page archives.

In other words, there is no source that links these ideas together stating that political complications regarding high-level military commands overseas caused it to be difficult to uphold the apolitical military tradition in the United States military. That is a conclusion we cannot draw as editors. If another source can be found to support the combination of these ideas, fine. But the article does not contain it.

In the meantime, I recommend the statements be split and dispense with the word "but" in between. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anyone providing a source. I'll wait until tomorrow and if no source forthcoming will edit these statements, leaving them in the lead, but separately, since they are cited separately in the article, to avoid the issue of WP:OR. Airborne84 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no issue with such a change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I made the edits. I had to do some wordsmithing since simply splitting them didn't read well. But I think I retained the information without combining passages sourced separately that imply unsourced conclusions. If someone disagrees, feel free to edit.

As an example, adding large forces overseas created a theater strategic perspective overseas, requiring military leaders to consider how to conduct tactical actions to achieve political objectives within foreign policy, whereas before those leaders may have only needed to consider how tactical actions achieved military objectives. But adding the theater strategic perspective doesn't necessarily lead to an apolitical military. It could simply create another complicating factor for military leaders to consider when advising civilian leaders. I have my own thoughts, but we only include conclusions of RSs. Airborne84 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this article to the editors here. I see various potential improvements by addition of material and context. I have quite a bit in my library. But this was an unnecessarily painful way to make an edit. I should not have to repeatedly explain WP:SYNTH to experienced editors, so something else is going on here. Struggling further into the concertina around this article is not worthwhile. Try keeping an open mind in the future please. Airborne84 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest not using confrontational tactics like this in the future, to be frank. Checking the sources given, and politely and concisely raising any remaining issues works best. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. But I'm not putting my foot in this pond again. I've got the message. In any case, thanks for assisting earlier. Airborne84 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Civilian control of the military

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:

• The quote by Truman seems relevant.
• The comments about MacArthur's character seems relevant for the article, but not in this section. It should focus on civilian control of the military.
• There is much more in the literature on civilian control of the military that should be summarized in this section. Huntington is an important contributor to this body, but one of the three paragraphs of this section focuses only on his thoughts related to the U.S. Constitution. It omits his thoughts on civilian control outside of that. But the biggest gap is a summary of thought on civil-military relations after the period covered in the 4th paragraph.

I invite comments. Airborne84 (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is about the Relief of Douglas MacArthur. Civilian control of the military was one of the issues involved, but it's not what the article is primarily about. Do you have another source on the subject that you think the article should be using? What additional points do you think should be made? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of the section as context is appropriate regarding FA criterion 1.b. I think that Huntington's comment about the U.S. Constitution should be balanced with his entire position on the topic (lest a reader think he opposed civilian control of the military from the material at hand). For example, one of the secondary sources at Civilian control of the military makes the following statement about Huntington: "Like all American scholars of the civil-military relationship, he also recognized the need for civilian control of the military."

The same passage of "Like all American scholars of the civil-military relationship ... recognized the need for civilian control of the military" is a worthy addition to the article, whether from this source or another—with any appropriate caveats. Some expansion of that idea may be appropriate as a summary of the topic. This is an important idea with relevant context for the basis of MacArthur's relief. It is currently lacking in the section/article. Airborne84 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh, well... that is a masters theses and SCHOLARSHIP says 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" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it is a master's thesis, that is why I said that source or another, with appropriate caveats. But besides balancing Huntington's passage, the literature is vast on this topic. Huntington or a secondary source on him is not required to expand on this idea. Perhaps you could comment on my concern that Huntington's presented view is overly narrow and there exists a gap in the section related to a summary of the thought on civilian control of the military? Once we have some sort of agreement on that, we can find appropriate sources to support it. Airborne84 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Rather than digging out my books and articles on this topic, I'll post a relevant web-accessible source here, a consolidated opinion from eight former U.S. Secretaries of Defense and five former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Some relevant passages:

• "Civilian control of the military is part of the bedrock foundation of American democracy."
• "Civilian control operates within a constitutional framework under the rule of law." This provides an alternative view to Huntington's, although only his cited view appears in the article, an issue related to WP:NPOV.
• "The military has an obligation to assist civilian leaders in both the executive and legislative branches in the development of wise and ethical directives but must implement them provided that the directives are legal."
• "Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views."

This is one source, of course. But these ideas, which are not controversial in the literature, do not appear in the section. Airborne84 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

These ideas are controversial in the literature. Huntington did not dispute that civilian control was based on a constitutional framework, but rather noted how this framework was flawed and precluded effective control. Currently there is debate about subjective vs objective control.

The notion that members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views was fallout from the Truman-MacArthur controversy, as described in the article, and also notes that it became controversial again during the Iraq War, when many military leaders felt obliged to speak out against a course of action they felt was unwise. The article mentions that whether restrictions should apply to former as well as serving members came under debate. It also notes how military leaders have been attacked for dereliction of duty over acquiescing to the conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq.

If it is accepted that "the military has an obligation to assist civilian leaders in both the executive and legislative branches" then the dismissal of MacArthur for communicating with Congress was unethical.

The source you quoted is a response to more recent Truman-style assertions that the power of the president is unlimited. There is an assertion that the military must refuse to carry out an illegal or unconstitutional policy/order/action but implicitly must carry out ones that may be unwise, unethical or immoral.

We should consider fixing Civilian control of the military, which largely lacks references, rather than this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I will put some more information together, although it will take some time. Airborne84 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The comment about MacArthur's character was intended as a bridge, letting the reader know why they are being told this. Moved to the next section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

References

MacArthur Memorial video

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)