Talk:Joseph Stilwell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, it's Stilwell. Second, I found this article to be a little disjointed and hard to read in some places (notwithstanding the misspellings). The narrative is not chronological in some areas, as well. I agree that the overall tone of the article is negative, and seems based more on opinion than fact - unless the statements can be substantiated with citations as to their source. There are a couple of sentences that can be removed without changing the article. I expect an encylcopedia to present me with facts and be neutral in its position. I think that this article can stand a rewrite.
Is he Stillwell or Stilwell? Google has both. SGBailey 21:54 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting that when he was serving as an officer in the American battalian at Tientsen, the commander of that battalian was George Marshall.
It appears that the editor did not read Tuchman except to handpick a few mean spirited quotes and failed completely to understand Stillwell's position and importance. US aide to China was throwing money into a black hole. China and Chiang remained currupt and entirely useless to the West in the struggle against Japan -- excepting that they did tie up Japanese resources. The project badly needs to get a new editor for this portion of the study.
Incredibly biased view of Stilwell with many inaccuracies. This entry should be rewritten with sources added or deleted completely.
- Like several articles, I'll happily put this on my list to revise, but it won't be for a month or two before I'll have such time to do so. Anyone else coming along with a desire to work on it, please be my guest. RebelAt 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
For openers, the chronology is confusing. We have Stilwell distributing aid to China before he even arrived! I'll try to switch those sections, since nobody else seems to be working on it. --Cubdriver 11:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, did that and removed some of the more contentious undocumented stuff. In consequence some of the Wiki-links are probably in the wrong place. I'll try to get back to it in time if nobody else is moved to mend them. --Cubdriver 11:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] recent reversion
I just wanted to clarify my decision to revert the article back from the editing done by 84.65.188.121. It seems that their revision was an attempt to minimalize and reduce POV in the former version. I recently wrote a thesis on a topic in China in this period and despite going through numerous works and archival material, never saw any evidence that anyone considered the CBI a "sideshow." Roosevelt even sent the Vice-President in 1944, and actively sought to ensure China's place among the Big Four. The other change concerned the change of reflection that the Chinese Nationalist and the British did not engage in many military operations against the Japaneses by choice to being unable due to poor equipping. I believe it is rather well known how reluctant Chiang was to throw his men into combat against the Japanese (or waste any resources that'd benefit him in the stalled Civil War). I cannot comment on the British, except that from the American perspective, they were seen as actively seeking to keep China divided and suitably under the heel of the pre-war international system. RebelAt 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current Article
It seems that there's a problem of POV in the current version of the article, but also prior versions as well. While much blame is attributed to Stilwell, the only scholar referenced is Barbara Tuchman and only as a foil for having too positive an opinion of the general. It'll go a long way to support negative (and positive) statements of Stilwell with references to works about him, or at least to place them in a See Also category below. RebelAt 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikification
While doing dab fixes tonight, I came upon this article and tried to give it a thorough copyedit and wikification. There were dozens of redundant wikilinks (someone linked to Chiang about 25 times), I removed some but not all of the glowing POV statements, and I tried to push it closer to the style guide of the WPMILHIST project. It's still a mess – there are gaping holes in the chronology of his life, and the book cite in the middle of the text has to be dealt with somehow. I graded it as a start-class because it's very disjointed.
I'll put it on my watchlist. I'm working to get another WWII biography to Good Article at the moment, but this is a good candidate as a future project for me. BaseballBaby 07:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Unassessed China-related articles | Unknown-importance China-related articles | WikiProject China | Chinese military history task force articles | United States military history task force articles | World War II task force articles | Start-Class military history articles | Military work group articles | Start-Class biography (military) articles | Unknown-priority biography (military) articles | Start-Class biography articles