Talk:Frederick M. Franks Jr.
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject class rating edit
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Gulf War section edit
I feel that the angrily partisan tone of the second part of this section does a real disservice to Gen. Franks. It comes across as nit-picky and overly defensive. Why not just mention that there was some controversy, list Franks' achievements, and leave it at that? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomseattle (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a partisan tone to this article, all right. And it (d)evolves from a hagiography of General Franks to a brutal indictment of Gen. Schwarzkopf, moving to its breathless conclusion: "Gen. Schwarzkopf was the wrong man, at the wrong time for the job." Is this how an encyclopedia article is supposed to sound? And where are the references for all of these criticisms? Whose opinions do they represent? This is one of the most badly written, partisan entries I have seen on Wikipedia in some time.
- Agree so much ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.205.209 (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The entire Gulf War section needs a thorough rewrite. It needs to be clear and objective. If criticisms are to be made of Schwarzkopf, they must be made by other sources, and those sources must be *cited.* The same must be true for criticisms of Franks, or any other figures. General Franks deserves no less. Muleshoe64 (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I came to this article after reading Warriors Rage by Douglas MacGregor in it. He is very critical of general Franks and his slow advancement of the VII corps. This article is extremely partisan in defence of Franks. And pretty silly considering the insignificant ressistance that the VII corps met. In the book Franks is critizised for an infantry centric view a strict adherence to a slow advance and an attempt to avoid direct combat instead letting armored forces behave like infantry and letting artillery and air power do the damage. A telling example is when macgregor's forces captured an objective ahead of schedule they where ordered to pull back during the night so the artillery could launch a bombardment of the objective the next morning. All because that was the pre made plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.57.113 (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Having read both Franks' and Schwarzkopf's accounts of the controversy, as well as several neutral analyses, I must say the pro-Franks, anti-Schwarzkopf tone of the Gulf War section is very biased. This article should be re-written. Franks faced an inferior foe and won big. What a surprise... hardly the great accomplishment it is made out to be, and the men on the ground in combat deserve the credit. Trashing his commander Schwarzkopf is just petty, just as Franks sounded in his book with Clancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.67.157.170 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)