Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United Nations Command-Rear

The following discussion 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.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

United Nations Command-Rear edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk)

Gog the Mild previously passed this to GA and it was previously featured at DYK (Did you know that a Royal Australian Air Force officer is the head of the UN's rear?). Given the paucity of sources I'm not 100% sure this is, or could ever be, A class but I thought I'd give it a shot. This article is about UN Command-Rear, which is a fictitious military command notionally consisting of two Australian and Canadian officers, and two American enlisted personnel, whose existence is designed to prevent the expiration of the 1954 Status of Forces Agreement between the USA and Japan (the SOFA automatically expires when no "UN forces" remain in Japan). It is really only just barely even a military article and is probably more of an international relations article, but they don't have A class review, so here I am. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Catrìona) edit

I will be doing the source review on this, more later. Catrìona (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The memoir by Chiasson is self-published but I don't see this as an issue since it is only being used to cite his opinion. All other sources are institutional or from mainstream media or publishers; assuming reliability. No additional sources found with extensive Googling on English language keywords. A spot check on refs 8, 14, and 16 found that they supported the content. I could not load the web page for ref 19. Potentially, Japanese sources could exist but the Japanese perspective is already sufficiently covered in this article.

Support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A passing comment. I ran this article past a friend who has recently started a PhD on North Korea and its foreign relations. (OK, not exactly on topic, but in the area.) They were unable to suggest any additional sources. I think that this annoyed them. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D edit

"According to the United States, the Korean War broke out in 1950 after what it describes as "invading hordes"[4] from North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel of the Korean Peninsula, following which the United Nations Security Council authorized armed intervention on the side of South Korea" - this sentence is a bit odd. The date of the start of the Korean War or nature of the invasion aren't controversial, so don't need to be presented as "according to" and there's no needs to use quotes from UN Command for this. I don't think that "hordes" is particularly accurate.
"Upon the conclusion of active hostilities, the UN Command relocated from Japan to South Korea" - can you please provide dates for when the fighting ended and the command moved here?
" In recent years, Australia has traditionally made an officer available to the United States to be placed in command of UN Command-Rear" - this is a bit imprecise. Can dates be provided for when Australia took this up, and have all the commanders since then been Australian? Also, this says that the US Army filled this role until 2010, and Australians have filled it since then (please see page 8)
Please merge the single sentence "Later history" section into the "Formation of UN Command-Rear" section.
"regarding the entrance of military forces from any of the nine SOFA co-signer states" - this is the first time it's mentioned that the SOFA was signed by multiple countries - I'd suggest explaining this earlier. Am I right in thinking that these are the countries who were bound to defend South Korea as part of the treaties which ended the Korean War?
More material on the Japanese perspective on this command would be helpful. Presumably the legal fiction which this command represents has been/is still considered useful by the Japanese Government, or they would have sought to have ended the UN‐GOJ SOFA. As Japan is unable to come to the aid of South Korea unless it is also directly attacked due to provisions in its constitution, the arrangement presumably works for the Japanese by providing a means for its territory to be used as a base to repel any attacks on South Korea.
There's what looks like a very useful article on this topic in this 1987 issue of the Australian Defence Force Journal (starting on page 40). The material on the role of the command as acting as a point of contact between incoming foreign military units and the Japanese military and government is particularly interesting and suggests that, at least at that time, the organisation had a useful function (edit: I see that this is already being used, but I think that more could be made of its description of UNC-R's role, as it presents it as being much more substantive than what the article describes). Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D - thanks very much for this review. I've made all these changes with a few notes:

The introduction of SOFA signer states earlier in the article I put in a footnote for ease of reading since the list of countries started to get long. LMK if you think that's okay.
I agree entirely that additional information on the Japanese perspective would be desirable, however, unfortunately I don't have it as Japan seems to avoid commenting on UNC-R. I suspect Japan is not happy with the agreement. At UNC-R's only operational activity (an annual cake reception on UN Day held in a ballroom at the New Sanno Hotel in Tokyo), Japan always sends as its delegate a junior minister in its North American Affairs Bureau. If I were to engage in original analysis, I would say this is diplomatic signalling that it concurs with the UN Secretariat's opinion that UN Command, and thus UNC-R, is a United States military operation and not a UN military operation.
I think the part in Air Force about the US being in command of UNC-R until 2010 is incorrect as it is at odds with all other sources which mention other countries such as Thailand, UK, Philippines, etc., prior to 2010. (My guess is the writer confused UNC-R with UNC.) However, I added specification to note Australia has been in charge since 2010.

Chetsford (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that my comments are now sufficiently addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass edit

All images are appropriately licenced and the rationale for using the UN Command Rear emblem seems acceptable to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian edit

Fascinating little article -- brief but seems comprehensive given the nature of the subject, structure makes sense, and I'm happy with prose after my copyedit (but let me know any concerns). I might hold off supporting till we get Nick's response to your changes but looking pretty good in general. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted other comments/actions and checked changes since my last edits -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. Thanks for your efforts. I have just a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the article title's puncutation is correct. Potentially it should be a spaced endash, not an unspaced hyphen?
in the Personnel section, I wonder if there is any information that could be included about fluctuations in size of the command over time, if this has occured? Or if it has always just been four personnel, perhaps this could be made clearer?
suggest adding alt text to the images: [1]
Yokota Air Base is overlinked
there are no dab links (no action required)
United Nations Command and UNC-Rear Command is basically US organizations: "is" should probably be "are". Can you please check that the quote is correct? If it is, I suggest maybe using square brackets to insert the correction. For instance, "...United Nations Command and UNC-Rear Command... [are]...basically US organizations."
in the subheaders, it is probably not necessary to repeat the name of the article, for instance "Formation of UN Command-Rear", probably could just be "Formation".
same as above for the "Status" subheader

Thanks very much for this review. I've made all these changes with a few notes:

I don't believe this is correctly punctuated and think it should be an endash, however, all of their official material (e.g. [2]) uses a hyphen so I'm not sure what is the correct approach here?

I'd probably just be bold and move it as it is really just a matter of house style (IMO), but it is a very minor point, so happy if you prefer to err on the side of caution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I couldn't find any information about personnel size over time. My gut instinct is it's always been four, but that's just a sense.
I've added alt text but, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be recognizing the alt text in the gallery. From looking at H:GT it appears alt text isn't supported, which sort-of surprises me.

Chetsford (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the alt text appears to be working when I view it here: [3]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright edit

LEAD

The Korean War is mentioned in the body of the article, but it is not mentioned anywhere in the lead.

wouldn't the lead be a proper place to introduce it to a reader?

and Japan which provides for its self-termination

Consider a comma after Japan!

Once in the lead and frequently in the body, quotation mark(s) are used for emphasis or for copyright material. The MOS has this to say about such uses:

Italics are used for emphasis. But overuse diminishes its effect; consider rewriting instead.
Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright).

The article still has an abnormal number of quotes. Suggest you review again the above position of MOS on use of quotation marks. No further action is required, unless you feel othertwise. Pendright (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I could weigh in here, I agree there are perhaps more quotes than one would normally expect in a WP article but I think this can be forgiven as several relate to the legal status of the subject and hence might best be expressed in the exact words of the sources. Not trying to hat the discussion or anything, just saying that, given the circumstances, the number of quotes aren't a stopper for me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your point of view. Pendright (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BACKGROUND

The Korean War broke out in 1950,

Do you think a reader should have to go to another site to learn everything about the war, when a brief summary woud probably put it into context?

Overlooked - Pendright (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

from a headquarters in Japan

Is it from a headquarters from Japan, or from the headquarters from Japan?

FORMATION

Active hostiiies concluded in 1953 and, in 1957, the UN Command relocated from Japan to South Korea.

Is, in 1957, essential to the meaning of the sentence? If it is, you might consider rethinking the punctuation

The block quote is only about 23 words lomg.

MOS says, format a long quote of more than about 40 words.

STATUS ACCORDING TO THE US

Selig S. Harrison has said the United States' reason for advancing this position instead of asserting a bilateral alliance between the U.S. and South Korea is substantially due to its desire to legally maintain perpetual access to Japanese territory, which is achieved via the existence of United Nations Command-Rear, without the requirement to seek prior Japanese approval.

Who is Selig S. Harrison?

While the 1961 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan also gives the United States access to Japanese territory, it requires prior consultation with the Japanese government before American forces can be introduced into Japan.

Introduced: my dictionary defines it as something happening or to happen for the first time. Is that the case here?
Does the 1961 Treaty have any other noteable clauses worth mentioning?

STATUS ACCORDING TO THE UN

In contrast to the United States, the United Nations Secretariat asserts that the UN

Would it be wothwhile to name this person?

General comments:

The first Note is not followed by a source!

Overlooked - Pendright (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Command-Rear is (corredtly) not preseded by the definite article - but the definite article appears before "the United Nations Command" in some cases, and not in others? Pendright (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright - thanks very much for this thorough review. I've updated the article per your suggestions, however, please let me know if I missed anything. Chetsford (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: Thank you for your prompt response. See the above foloow-up. - Pendright (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright - many thanks! Hopefully I got it all this time. I removed note 1, expanded the background, and de-quoted it a bit, but there are some terms I'm not sure I can de-quote since they are titles invoked by the United States to refer to itself but which it's the only one that uses (e.g. "executive agent of the UN" and "the unified command[er]") so I'm not certain we can present them in WP's voice? Please LMK if I've still missed something. Chetsford (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: I made some edits to the new text. If you are uncomfortable with them, undo them. Good work on the additions! It has been my pleasure to work with you and to add my support for this article. Pendright (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.