Talk:John Van Antwerp MacMurray

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Van Antwerp MacMurray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 13:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Detailed comments to follow over the next day or so. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and will try to address any problems in a timely way. Also, thanks for the copyediting, etc.[1]. Homunculus (duihua) 17:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with looking through the article, and I think it pretty much meets the GA criteria. I'll make a few suggestions for improvement later, but nothing I've found so far will affect the outcome of the review. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Career

• "Although he had been admitted to the New York Bar, MacMurray also sought out a career in government." Joining the bar isn't a career.

• "MacMurray briefly served as Assistant Secretary of State from 1924 to 1925, but was soon given as post as Minister to China ...".

I think I've resolved these issues[2]. Will take care of the citation style in the next day or so. Oh, and do feel free to give me an example of what you mean about a separate bibliography. Homunculus (duihua) 22:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

References

• I'm not at all enamoured of the way you've presented the references. For instance, why do refs #5, 13, 14 and 15 have a "[" before the url? And why are Google links given rather than a full reference to the actual book? Google links are transient things, but with an ISBN anyone can track down the source. I'd suggest that rather than keep repeating the details for a source such as How the Peace was Lost you consider splitting off a Bibliography section that sources the specific pages you're relying on. If you're not sure what I mean I'll do one or two to give you an idea.

I've cleaned up the references some, but stopped short of splitting out a bibliography. Added ISBN numbers, removed the extraneous [ s, and gave abbreviated citations for How the Peace was Lost after the first appearance. Let me know if that's sufficient. Homunculus (duihua) 03:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It is sufficient for GA, yes. I've split one book out to show you what I'm talking about, but I leave it to you to decide whether to revert or to transfer the others. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dec 2012

With respect this this edit[3], the edit summary represents a misreading of Wikipedia policy. An excerpt from the primary source is quoted directly and at some length. However, analysis or interpretations are best provided by secondary sources. Arthur Waldron is a secondary source and and expert on the subject matter. According to Waldron's analysis, MacMurray's overall argument was not that the United Stated just needed to stop opposing Japan's excursions into China; he argued that Washington needed to recognize Japan's legitimate grievances that the system of international laws to which it had tried to adhere had failed. The previous version was more accurate. Homunculus (duihua) 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I will note as well that no source—not MacMurray, and not Waldron—supports the wording currently given. No one argued that Washington "should accept Japanese domination of China." It certainly does not appear that way in the page cited. Homunculus (duihua) 00:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will note, though, that using the passive voice in the introduction (saying that the Pacific War started rather than clearly stating who started it, and how) is POV and an example of weasel words. I will also edit the wording on the grievances to state the following: "According to Waldron's analysis, MacMurray's overall argument was not that the United Stated just needed to stop opposing Japan's excursions into China; he argued that Washington needed to recognize Japan's legitimate grievances that the system of international laws to which it had tried to adhere had failed." It is important to note that included in MacMurray's arguments was an implicit recognition that part of (or most of) the Japanese grievance with the US rested on Japan's desire to expand into and dominate over China. The article's wording should make that more explicit, and I will change it as thus. Lostromantic (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your concern with the passive voice in the lede, but aside from that, I cannot understand why you would replace the paragraphs you did with my own paraphrasing in response to a very specific question you asked. It does not appear to be an improvement. Moreover, I am unclear on what you're referring to when you say part or most of Japan's "grievance with the US rested on Japan's desire to expand into and dominate over China." I do not recall reading that in the book, and also fail to see how it's germane in the context of MacMurray's writing. Japan's grievances with the United States and China predated Japan's territorial incursions into China; MacMurray describes the latter as a response to the failure of those countries (particularly China) to honor their commitments. Since the version that I wrote is properly sourced with very minimal interpretive liberties taken, I am going to revert to it. If you would like to try to make a case for your version, I would ask that you please point me to page numbers and explain why you believe it is superior. Homunculus (duihua) 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)