Talk:Douglas MacArthur/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Whitewash History

This article is not "neutral," it is completely biased - with consistent distortions that paint an overly roseate picture of MacArthur's sometimes brilliant, but sometimes horridly flawed leadership. The sources used do not look at any scholarship from the past 20 years, much of which has challenged the glorious self-image that the MacArthur spin-factory created during his years of "divine" leadership. The bibliography and further reading have a range of works - but the sources used, per the citations, draw only on the older, divine-leadership works. To create a more honest assessment of MacArthur's mixture of genius and bumbling (which cost countless men their lives unnecessarily), some more recent work and evaluations need to be factored in here. I suggest, for one, David Halberstam's very critical work, The Coldest Winter (2007). Amazon page, The Coldest Winter -March 23, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.198.36 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was even more fawning back in March 2010. A campaign was mounted to improve it, and from April to May 2010, the article was significantly changed by a group of editors who did not see eye to eye on all points. What you are reading now is the result of that effort—the most balanced representation we were able to produce given the involvement of interested and motivated parties. If you are able to compare sources and show that older ones used in the article have been proven wrong or at least sidelined by recent ones, please do so. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does have its problems; no one is denying that. The Halberstam source was discussed here and was found to be fundamentally flawed on basic facts when compared with two or more other sources. Halberstam's book amounts to nothing more than a hit piece about Mac A. I do wish that we could get this article past FAC but at least it is gigantically improved over the version that was here a year ago. Brad (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not impressed with the level of balance in the article. If you look at the cites, you find that the majority of the footnotes are to either James or Morton. Morton was writing a military history, not a biography of MacArthur, and was doing so shortly after the war. The heavy reliance on James as a source ensures a narrow and not necessarily balanced perspective. Connaughton's critical article is cited only in connection with Yamashita's trial, and his highly critical book on the first Philippines campaign is not mentioned at all; Perrett's critical biography is cited only to establish MacArthur's cause of death; Schaller's otherwise scathing monograph is cited only in connection with MacArthur's attempt to abolish the zaibatsu; Weintraub is not cited at all, though his critical book on the Korean War is nonetheless included in the bibliography of the article.

This heavy reliance on a single source is reflected in the tone of the article. For example, MacArthur's disastrous first marriage, and very ugly divorce, is barely mentioned, though it was widely known about in Washington at the time and had a profound effect on MacArthur, contributing to a prolonged period of depression in which MacArthur repeatedly and dramatically threatened suicide. This period of depression is itself nowhere mentioned in the article, even though it is an important part of the background on MacArthur's decision to become the chief military advisor in the Philippines. The Philippines advisory position is described as civilian, even though MacArthur wore the uniform of a Philippines field marshall, which scandalized the U.S. Army officer corps. The cult of personality at MacArthur's SWPA headquarters is barely hinted at. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Yes, I can try to add this material to the article. Will that drag me into an edit war that I will end up mostly losing? Yaush (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I got your back, Yaush. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yaush, I have no problem with anyone who can help balance this article as long as they have reliable sources to back up the claims. I agree with what you wrote above though I don't recall reading about Mac A playing Suicide Queen though it would match his general Drama Queen persona. I found Perrett's bio to be well balanced and non-judgmental and it's a very good piece of work. However, this article is currently up against a brick wall as far as its size is concerned. Expanding it any further will push it over the accepted limits for a Featured Article if it ever does become nominated again. This article needs to be shaved in order to allow expansion. I copied the WWII section wholesale into Douglas MacArthur in World War II to enable the section here to be shaved. This is after all a bio about Mac A which seems to be filled more with military operations than it is about Mac A as a person. Reading some of the archived talk pages might help you to catch up with previous discussions. Brad (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yaush, you got my vote, too. I never knew any of that, & the hagiography this page amounts to wouldn't even hint at it. The cult of personality also had had significant impact on PacWar, & it needs mentioning there, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yaush, I was the original GA delister several years ago, and I can say from experience that this article is the La Brea Tar Pits of Wikipedia. There exists a set of very persistent editors who seem unwilling to accept edits that reflect badly on Macarthur, no matter how well sourced they are. A simple example - my sourced reference that Macarthur evacuated his son's nanny on the Phillipines PT boat was expunged, while references to military personnel on the boat were left intact. Surely it is POV to mention those participants who reflect well on a subject while deleting those who do not reflect so well. Regardless, the current persistent editors are happy to include large slabs of self-serving prose from two of Macarthur's own speeches, while simultaneously bemoaning the article's length. I gave up on this article a couple of years ago, because Wikipedia shouldn't be about ulcers. If you're going to have go, though, best of luck to you. Just keep a jar of antacids handy - and a rope to drag yourself out of the tar.RichardH (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I admitted here some time ago that I'm an admirer of MacA but I'm not so narrow minded as to be a MacA defender unless the situation really calls for it. It amazes me that someone would disagree with listing Arthur's nanny as part of the PT boat evacuees. Brad (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Existing sub-articles about Mac A

Just a reminder of the number of sub-articles that have been created about Mac A. Maybe some of this article could be shifted into them.

• Douglas MacArthur in World War II
• Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur
• Service summary of Douglas MacArthur
• Places named for Douglas MacArthur

I've only listed the ones that are specifically Mac A articles. Brad (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wake Island Conference Brad (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Coldest Winter

I'm about 100 pages into this book by Halberstam and already I've rolled my eyes about 10 times over statements Halberstam makes. The most annoying one, and one that was argued here last year was that MacA "never spent one night in Korea" and directed the war from Tokyo. There is plenty of documentation and sources from other authors that MacA did spend time in Korea.. during the initial retreat of ROK troops and during the Inchon invasion. Pfft!

Halberstam is writing with a dislike for MacA and the whole Tokyo headquarters itself. So far I've found this book extremely biased but I intend to read the whole work. I've also encountered some critical reviews of the book by others. Ah well.. Brad (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This book is a modern comedy:

• "MacA had Parkinson's disease"
• The B-17s lost after Pearl Harbor were on "Wake Island". What?! Brad (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Laugh of the day:

• When MacA landed in Pyongyang his first words were "So where is Kim buck-Tooth?" Brad (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Halberstam is a journalist, not a historian, so his book is more like a tertiary source. There are a lot of errors. The interesting thing was how much space he devoted to the dismissal, without understanding it all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Halberstam has no source documents listed in his biblio. He relied on interviews and already published sources some of which are already listed in this article. His book would have been more to the point if it had about 300 less pages. It's not even a book directly about the Korean War but focuses more on the politics surrounding it. He actually gives Charles Willoughby a more severe beating than he gives MacA. But Halberstam still has points about the personality cult at the Dai Ichi. Since a couple of other editors have complained that his book wasn't used here at length I thought it was time I read it and fleshed it out. Basically it's dismissible. Brad (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pettinger additions

The style and layout of references should conform to the established style and layout. Please add the Pettinger source to the bibliography and use the harvard templates. It's easier to do this now than have to rework the entire layout later. Brad (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily add Pettinger to the biblio, but I have no intention of using the templates, 'cause I'd just screw up everything. (I always manage to lose a piece somewhere...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you could stick with the citation style that the article currently uses, that would be great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at it, & honestly made scant sense of it... I can only imagine a faulty effort will create even more headaches for all concerned. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I have fixed it all up. I have changed some text along the way to make it sound less essay-like. Your point about the Mark XIV torpedoes is a good one. I have seen it argued that by exascebating the torpedo shortage, it postponed the date at which the torpedoes would be properly tested. The story of the bombing raid by B-17s has this problem too; while it was a titanic stuff up, to go further and argue, in the light of later events, that the B-17s would have found their targets or done any damage has to be doubted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the current reference layout but we have to stick with what has already been done. The article you referenced was a nice read. Thanks for adding the material. Brad (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thx for the fix.

On the Mk14, I haven't heard that particular argument. I'm of the view the shortage put pressure on NTS/BuOrd to increase production, which was impossible, thence on outside contractors; or, forced a switch to mining & the Mk10, which worked, & the sharp contrast helps show up the Mk14's flaws. Arguable both ways, I guess.

On B-17s, I have some doubts about the impact, but seeing the Formosan bases were socked in & a/c on the ground, even a couple of results comparable to Clark Field would be an enormous help, plus it saves FEAF from destruction (probably...). The survival of the B-17s had serious implication for Hart's submarines: he'd intended to rely on them for spotting Japanese shipping. Would this have enebled AsFlt to mount a stiffer defense? Maybe not. And we're back to the Mk14 problem... Also, Hart's dispositions were terrible.

At bottom, as I think Willmott points out in Barrier & the Javelin (& I entirely agree), any upset to Japan's schedule has enormous knock-on effets downstream, so even a small effect here could deeply screw up things in Malaysia, Rabaul, Truk... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that they would have been in the air rather than on the ground, although this is not certain. They would have been unlikely to hit the Japanese as the same weather than grounded them would have made it hard for the B-17s to locate the Japanese bases, had they in fact known their locations correctly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

♠I'll accept survival as enough. :)

♠I'm less positive it was impossible to bomb through overcast, or bomb ports before the invasion force sailed. Of course, if it's true FEAF had no idea where the IJAAF bases were (& I've seen claims there was, & wasn't, air recce, so IDK what to think), that's out of bounds, but surely even Army navs could still find the harbors. ;p

♠Of course, this is pretty far into speculation already...& I take an alternate historian's view of "what if"s. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Only 8.636% of the 285 references in this article come from sources published in the last 25 years. Do you understand why people would accuse the authors of this article of hero worshiping and writing revisionist history? Zeelog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• The 52 books in the bibliography have a median publication date of 1989, so more than half are less than 25 years old. Of the 274 footnotes, the median publication date was 1975. This is because the high point of MacArthur scholarship came with James and Petillo in the 1970s and 1980s. James remains the best biography of MacArthur, but William Manchester wrote the more accessible American Caesar in 1978. I have read some more books since then, and will add them to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just found A time for giants : politics of the American high command in World War II by James 1987 0531150461. Maybe that would help. I plan on reading it eventually but it's way down my list at present. Brad (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I read through several books on civil-military relations, and I feel I understand the subject; being able to explain it to others is another story. Have a look at the Relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of false claim

This article falsely claimed that the JCS generals were against the removal of MacArthur from command. This is not true. Halberstam notes in The Coldest Winter that the JCS was unanimously in FAVOR of relieving MacArthur from command. Another editor wanted me to somehow provide a "reference" for my removal of that false claim. As one can't really "reference" a removal of false material, I'm explaining the move here. LHM 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reading through this talkpage, it seems that Halberstam's work is disliked here. Primarily, it seems, because he focused a lot of his attention on a side of MacArthur that many don't like to acknowledge. For all of his genius, though, DM had many flaws as well, particularly in his generalship towards the end. He surrounded himself with sycophants, and allowed himself to be politicized by Truman's political opponents. He made multiple blunders in Korea, and alienated many of his subordinate officers with his blatant favoritism toward Almond. In the end, though, my only point here is that the JCS was not opposed to MacArthur's removal, which Halberstam got right, and this article was getting wrong. Like Halberstam, don't like him, or don't really care about him, he got that right. LHM 15:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have re-checked the sources. The JCS were not opposed to the relief, but saw it as a political rather than a military matter. On political grounds, they opposed the relief. At the meeting at 6 April 1951, Marshall opposed the relief, which he felt would make it difficult to get defense bills through Congress. Harriman felt that MacArthur should be relieved. Acheson wanted to relieve MacArthur, but counselled caution. He said that the unanimous opinion of the Joint Chiefs should be sought. He also felt that "if you relieve MacArthur, you will have the biggest fight of your administration." Truman (p. 447) Bradley wrote "Secretary Acheson and Mr Harriman thought that he should be relieved at once. General Marshall and I recommended against such action." (Bradley, p. 629) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Another fact that Halberstam got wrong? Who would have thought such a thing? LHM this is just another example of why Halberstam's work is very flawed yet people still come charging in here accusing others of bias. Brad (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone understands that you despise Halberstam's work. That does not justify your attempts to include the information in the article without referencing it. LHM 09:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Present in spirit"

It might be impossible to properly gauge the importance the many honors received by MacArthur had for him. One, however, held a special place in his heart: a resolution of the Congress of the Phillipines stating that "his name be carried in perpetuity on the company roll calls of the Philippine Army, and at parade roll calls, when his name is called, the senior non-commissioned officer shall answer 'Present in spirit,' and during the lifetime of the General he shall be accredited with a guard of honor composed of 12 men of the Philippine Army." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.174.28 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult because his career spans the development of the American honors system. Indeed, MacArthur was a major figure in its development in the 1930s. Do you have a source for the quote? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know for sure he mentioned it in his autobio. He said that it was an honor that he held greatly above any other that he had been awarded. I wonder though if they still call his name? Brad (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Arthur MacArthur IV (Son) Born February 21, 1938

Why is General MacArthur's son with Jean Marie Faircloth MacArthur not mentioned as a relative of the General's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.132.199 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the article, but is not in the infobox, because he is not notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Palo MacArthur.JPEG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Palo MacArthur.JPEG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Honours and Awards

Why is it stated in the article that General McArthur was awarded the GCB by Australia? The Order of the Bath is awarded by the United Kingdom. The Governor General of Australia can make recomendations for the award but in the end is awarded by HM The Queen in the UK... Nford24(talk) 09:49, 3 October 2011 (AEST)

The award was by the King acting on the recommendation of his ministers in Australia (not the Governor General). In this case, it was actually done over the opposition of the government of the United Kingdom. The British government had awarded a GCB to General Eisenhower for the campaign in North Africa, and General MacArthur felt that equivalent honours were therefore due to him,self and his senior commanders for the campaign in Papua. The Australian government agreed, overruling its own policy of not recommending imperial knighthoods. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, i've never heard of that happening before, although it sounds like something the Australian Government would do. Regards. Nford24(talk) 14:56, 3 October 2011 (AEST)

was general mac arthur right or left handed?

respond hknbkem@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.212.243 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to ask Yahoo Answers, not Wikipedia. Skiendog (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on the next FAC run

• The previous FAC brought up several complaints; one was size of the article but according to the latest data it's clearly within the guidelines.
• One editor screamed the loudest about neutrality and I'm not sure if that still has any merit. I have to read through the article again.
• After working this year on Abraham Lincoln I believe this article would benefit from some sort of "Historical reputation" section as shown in the Lincoln article. That may indeed be required here in order to gain the neutrality editors claimed was missing. Brad (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure. Read through the Legacy paragraph of Relief of General Douglas MacArthur and tell me what you think. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly in the right spirit. In this article the objective would be to show how opinions of MacA have changed over the years. During WWII and after he was a God in the eyes of the American public. From there he has slowly descended into how Halberstam treated him most recently. Brad (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of renominating, but there will be periods in the next two months when I cannot edit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am uncertain about the reason for the fall in opinions of Big Mac. Part of the problem was that the big biographical effort was undertaken in the 1970s (James, Manchester, Petillo) and this was a time when the US military was in deep disfavour over Vietnam. Whereas Truman was rehabilitated in the early 1960s, in the Kennedy era. If they had waited a decade, Truman would have come off as a proto-Nixon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What readers and reviewers have brought up the most are the Unit 731 pardon, and his dismissal. Somehow Halberstam has become an expert on MacA even though his book wasn't a bio of MacA. I don't understand the obsession with Halberstam. There have also been complaints about the "age" of the references but we know that the majority of the scholarship was done during those years. I would recommend leaning a bit more on the 1996 Perett book. It is a good work with full sources used in its making; much more so than the high and mighty Halberstam work. I will take the time soon to read the article in depth and see if I can spot any other troubles. Brad (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's too weak a reed to lean on. I Just took Perett off the shelf and opened it at a random page. It turned out to be page 544. It says "Robert Eichelberger would eventually get his fourth star, but it bright him no happiness. He was awarded posthumously, after both he and MacArthur were dead." Well, Eichelberger got his fourth star in 1954. He was still alive. So was MacArthur. Typical of that book. In the other hand, I quite enjoyed Frank. It's a new book, a small one from the "Great Generals" series. I wasn't expecting much but it is quite good. I was hoping that I could fob the dismissal crowd off with the dismissal article, which is currently in A class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"I was hoping that I could fob the dismissal crowd off ..." That's a rather remarkable admission of lack of neutrality towards the many scholars who are critical of MacArthur, don't you think? --Yaush (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There's the subject, and there's the article. The problem with the article is that it is already large, and has to cover a lot of ground. We don't want it to be "lumpy", covering some topics in great detail while skimming others. I think it says no more about Unit 731 than is appropriate; the reader is redirected to the subarticle. The same applies to the Tokyo trails and the dismissal. By "scholars critical of MacArthur" we are talking about James and Petillo, not Halberstam or Randy in Boise Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Commander of/for the Allied Powers

FYI: Talk:Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers#Requested move. 86.181.170.34 (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per the name change at the above link, I think we should change instances of "Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers" to "Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers" in this article too. 109.151.39.98 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Never fight a land war in asia"

I can find loads of sources that casually attribute this famous phrase to MacArthur, but none that actually provide evidence for the attribution. Does anyone know of a reliable source that supports (or refutes) the attribution? Manning (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The best one is Life Magazine 7 August 1970. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add this to the intro

We are not retreating — we are advancing in another direction.

— --General Douglas MacArthur Oliver P. Smith

I think it shows his character very well, and could help people get into his mindset. Overall i believe it will enrich the intro section to include this quote.

````

MacArthur did not say this. That was Oliver P. Smith See Smith's article for details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unit 731

I think some insight into Unit 731 (the Jap atrocities facility) should be made, and why MacArthur didn't prosecute these Japs for war crimes. The Japs were worse than the Nazis. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already states that MacArthur gave the Unit 731 personnel immunity in return for their data. Is there something more that can be said that is both well-sourced and pithy? The article is already rather lengthy.

Incidentally, "Jap" is considered pejorative by a fair number of editors, and "The Japs were worse than the Nazis" is both debatable and out of place in a discussion of what should be included in a Wikipedia article that is not focused on crimes against humanity. --Yaush (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sho-Wa Emperor? Never heard of that spelling.

Hi. The caption under the famous picture of MacArthur meeting with Japanese Emperor Hirohito reads, "General MacArthur and the Sho-wa Emperor." First of all, I have never seen the reign name "Showa" with a hyphen in it ("Sho-wa.") Have you?

Second, "Showa" is his reign name, and did not become his actual name to the Japanese until he died. Since during his life the emperor was never called "Showa" by the Japanese but rather "Tenno Heika" (or "Current Emperor,") and was only referred to as the "Showa Emperor" (notice-no hyphen) once he had died in 1989, wouldn't it be better to call the then-living man by the name he is best known by in the West (and indeed, which he is listed under at his very own Wikipedia page), namely, "Hirohito?" I'm pretty sure MacArthur himself referred to him like that-but at any rate, definitely not as "Sho-wa Emperor." Thanks124.100.3.121 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The Emperor should be referred to as Hirohito throughout this article, since he was not known by his regnal name until after his death. It might be okay to mention the regnal name once by way of explanation, but only if it can be fit smoothly into the flow of the narrative. --Yaush (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree on all points. AFAIK, Showa only applied to the reign, not the Emperor, in any case, so it'd be "Showa period" but still "Emperor Hirohito". TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

United States Olympic Committee

Not called that yet. It was the American Olympic Committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Useful article on MacArthur's Olympic involvement here, if you ever have any interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional source for more depth and breadth of coverage

I don't think the FAR is the best place for this discussion, so I have brought it here.

I am looking at Pacific Campaign: The U.S.-Japanese Naval War by Dan Van Der Vat (ISBN 0671792172); unfortunately I seem to have mislaid my paper copy so I am using Amazon preview.

Page 166-169 has a potted biography of MacArthur which I think we could use to round out the rather uncritical coverage of the great man. For example, Van der Vat talks about his "indecent haste and gusto" in acting against the Bonus Expeditionary Force, the depths of his animus with Roosevelt (which included a blazing row with the President), and his "supine conduct" in losing his air forces in the Philippines many hours after Pearl Harbor. Later, he describes his awkward and domineering relationship with Australian C in C Blamey (p202-203). Page 269 describes MacArthur's "inability to appreciate the sensitivity of Ultra information, which he leaked more than any other senior Allied commander".

There is also fairly wide discussion throughout the book about the delay (possibly as much as one year) imposed on the Pacific campaign by the necessity, caused by MacArthur's egotism and political influence, of maintaining two separate strategic forces throughout the campaign, complete with separate fleet trains. Finally, on the positive side, I really like MacArthur's description of this flawed strategy as "hitting them where they ain't". (p346)

It's possible I may be able to add more if or when I rediscover my paper copy of this book.

Meantime, without wanting to make this a hit-piece, I really think we should use other, critical sources like this example to introduce more depth and balance to this article. --John (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1. We cut down a lengthy account of the Bonus March affair, but suffice to say the troops were carefully prepared and trained for it. MacArthur went over contingency plans for civil disorder in the capital. Mechanized equipment was brought to Fort Myer, where anti-riot training was conducted. There was no haste involved.
2. The was no animus towards Roosevelt. The two clashed over the defense budget while MacArthur was chief of staff, but the two had known each other since before World War I. They had a good relationship during World War II. When they met in Hawaii, MacArthur asked how the 1944 election campaign was going, and Roosevelt replied that he was too busy running the war to worry about politics, and both men roared laughing.
3. The "Pearl Harbor in the Philippines" affair is covered in the article. I contemplated giving it its own article.
4. MacArthur did not and could not dominate Blamey. I have written the Blamey article too. (And read through both men's papers in their entirety in Canberra and Norfolk.) There was a great deal of professional respect. Australia is a smaller country than the United States, so the relationship between the two countries is not one of equals. However, in 1942, the Australian Army in the South West Pacific was the larger force. The article mentions this.
5. The division of the Pacific into two theatres was due to the intense inter-service rivalry between the United States Army and Navy. It is wrong to blame any particular person.
6. Someone has misinterpreted the issue regarding Ultra. The point is that Australia had its own Ultra, and attempts by the US to control it generally came to nothing. So MacArthur was a theatre commander with an independent source of Ultra. In practice, this was sort of like having two watches.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• On p169 we find the account of how close MacArthur was to his son, how the National Father's Day Committee honoured him as "number one father of 1942", and how 'MacArthur expressed the hope that when he was dead little Arthur would remember him by saying "Our Father who art in Heaven"'. If this is not considered too schmalzy we could perhaps use it to give a little colour and humanity to this biography. --John (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Added.

• As a pointer to other editors I want to make it clear that I am not yet satisfied with the resolution of this issue; we are not permitted on any article to cher-pick sources to emphasise the positive (or negative) aspects of a subject. We need to reflect what all the reliable sources say. I have proposed another more critical sources which could be a start towards neutralising the article. What do others think? --John (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• It is difficult writing about a subject who is so well known. MacArthur also makes it especially difficult because he was complex and remote. He was also around for a very long time, which makes the article correspondingly long. I am not here to bury or praise him; I am just here to write a important biographical article which is very sorely needed. I have a doctorate on the war in the South West Pacific, and am trying to improve the articles on all the major commanders in the theatre. (My co-editors on the article are working on subjects such as the Korean War, and the Medal of Honor.) It is not possible to cover World War I through such an article; it has its own article. All we can do is recount what MacArthur did. Someone reading an article on the Battle of Saint-Mihiel will be able to see where MacArthur (Menoher, Leach, Donovan etc) came from, and what happened to him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that, respect your learning on the subject and also your hard work. However, I have made several suggestions above to neutralise the article, and referred to a decent source on the subject. You've responded by saying the source is mistaken. Maybe it is, but how we usually work is by summarising a spread of sources to achieve a fair and balanced article. Do you have reliable sources that state that Van der Vat's interpretation of the Ultra issue (for example) is mistaken? --John (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This incident is covered. in detail, in the article:

      MacArthur formed his own signals intelligence organization, known as the Central Bureau, from Australian intelligence units and American cryptanalysts who had escaped from the Philippines.[158] This unit forwarded Ultra information to Willoughby for analysis.[159] After a press release revealed details of the Japanese naval dispositions during the Battle of the Coral Sea, at which a Japanese attempt to capture Port Moresby was turned back,[160] Roosevelt ordered that censorship be imposed in Australia, and the Advisory War Council granted GHQ censorship authority over the Australian press. Australian newspapers were restricted to what was reported in the daily GHQ communiqué.[160][161] Veteran correspondents considered the communiqués, which MacArthur drafted personally, "a total farce" and "Alice-in-Wonderland information handed out at high level."

      Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear threats in Korea; did he or didn't he?

I think this needs to be more adequately explained. It is easy to find sources stating unequivocally that MacArthur requested nuclear forces; an example would be Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War by Robert Pape (ISBN 0801483115) which states on p145 that "As early as 24 December 1950, MacArthur requested nuclear weapons for use against China. These were never granted, but atomic threats were issued in March and April 1951." At present, our article only mentions this under the Legacy section: "Ironically, MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became associated with threatening their use.[294]" I don't think this satisfies the "completeness of coverage" that we require on all of our articles, and it is far from meeting FA standards. --John (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't. I have Pape on the shelf here, so I looked at p. 145, and it is sourced to Rosemary Foot's The wrong war: American policy and the dimensions of the Korean conflict, 1950-1953, p. 114. And she's read too much into the 24 December 1950 message, which only vaguely mentions "retaliatory measures". Schnabel, the official historian, after a check of the records, including the 24 December message, concluded (p. 320), that Other than broadly hinting that the atomic bomb would be effective in Korea, MacArthur did not recommend officially, or as far as is known, unofficially, that the decision be taken to use the atomic bomb against either the North Koreans or the Chinese, in or out of Korea. MacArthur testified to this effect before Congress, and in 1960 threatened legal action against Truman for saying otherwise, forcing Truman to back down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty clear case of unacceptable original research. We report what the sources say. It's not for us to assess sources and lay aside their evidence if we think they are wrong. If sources conflict then we report the conflict rather than deciding which side is right. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not OR, and, per WP:FALSE, just because a source repeats an incorrect fact, does not justify repeating a known falsehood. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A) [WP:FALSE] is an essay and has no weight as either a policy or a guideline; it is just someone's opinion. In the case of that particular essay it is literally the opinion of just one WP editor since it has not received any substantial changes from another hand and nor has the content even been discussed by other editors on the talkpage. In short, you cannot use it as the basis for a claim about wikipedia policy. B) What we are talking about here is NOT a know falsehood but a widely held and reported view. If you want to show that the best sources disregard it then you will need to find sources that show that the position you hold is broadly accepted in the scholarly community and that no serious scholar thinks otherwise. It's certainly not enough for you personally to declare that a source is wrong. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with BothHandsBlack. This is the least of the problems with this article though. Generally I think it needs a more critical approach in order to satisfy neutrality requirements. --John (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to start is with a disputed neutrality tag but I'm not sure how one does that. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I certainly think there is a case to answer here on neutrality. See the section just above as well. --John (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost here, what exactly is the issue here? We actually need a debated on whether Mac may or may not hinted a nuclear strike against China in his communiques, while it has proven that Mac never, in an explicitly manner, asked for a nuclear strike against China on official records? WP:FALSE may not apply, but what about WP:FRINGE?

From my research on the Korean War, from William Stueck's The Korean War: An International History, to Roy Appleman's Ridgway Duels for Korea, to Allan R. Millett,'s The War for Korea, 1950-1951: They Came From the North, the only time the US administration ever came close to issuing an nuclear threat to China was when Truman declared that he will use "all means" at his disposal during a press conference when asked about nuclear weapons. Now, Mac was a desperate and broken man in December 1950 after China intervened, yet the most outrageous thing that he was remembered for during that period was when he asked Taiwan to join the Korean War (or restart Chinese Civil War, depends on how you interpret it), with the issue nuclear weapons (and the subsequent British objections) almost always attributed to Truman's gaffe. So, with this context in mind, do we actually need to lay out the analysis of every historians to pick apart Mac's every word on something that he never actually said? Jim101 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is disagreement within the sources then we have to report the disagreement. We simply cannot do what Hawkeye does above and reject the account in a source on the basis of our own analysis of the primary material and nor can we decide for ourselves between two competing analyses and then present our chosen one in Wikipedia's editorial voice as the article currently does. In this case, it is certainly true that respected scholars in the 80s and 90s were repeating the view that MacArthur asked for nuclear weapons and a few minutes on Google provides at least one major historian making the same claim in 2004 (Bruce Cumings in this article: http://mondediplo.com/2004/12/08korea) as well as the same claim turning up in a 2012 NYT article. If it is the case that in the last few years academic historians have decisively and universally rejected this claim then we would need to refer to some source that attests to this fact but unless such a source can be presented I don't see how it would be possible to consider such a widespread claim to be FRINGE.

The WP policy stuff aside, Cumings refers to some interesting primary sources that I had not come across before:

"In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: “I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria”. Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then “spread behind us - from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea - a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North.” He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: “My plan was a cinch” (12)." (note 12 reads: Bruce Cumings, op cit; Charles Willoughby Papers, box 8, interviews by Bob Considine and Jim Lucas in 1954, published in the New York Times, 9 April 1964.)

I couldn't get hold of the NYT publication of these interviews but they were reported in the British Daily Telegraph: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19640410&id=15crAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0PQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7315,3944225.

Of course there was no radioactive cobalt; the plan was discussed, but it was not recommended to Washington. (Al Gore was a major advocate of the idea in Washington.) How does this sound:

“ MacArthur did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons to recover the situation. Collins discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons in Korea with MacArthur in December, and later asked him for a list of targets in the Soviet Union in case it entered the war. MacArthur testified before the Congress in 1951 that he had never recommended the use of nuclear weapons. He did at one point consider a plan to cut off North Korea with radioactive poisons; but he did not recommend it at the time, although he later broached the matter with Eisenhower, now President-elect, in 1952. In 1954, in an interview published after his death, he stated that he had wanted to drop atomic bombs on enemy bases, but in 1960, he challenged a statement by Truman that he had advocated using atomic bombs. Truman issued a retraction, stating that he had no evidence of the claim; it was merely his personal opinion. ”

That looks better but one thing that is still problematic is the opening sentence. The statement, in Wikipedia's voice, that M did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, is lacking in context. It is obvious that it is a response to those sources that claim he did advocate such but those sources are not mentioned and the sentence rather hangs there in a vacuum. Wouldn't it be better to start off by explaining why this is an issue at all and why we need a section on nuclear weapons. Start with the primary and secondary claims that he did advocate their use and then go on to present the arguments to the contrary? BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, what it is a response is debate over the reasons for dismissal. And one reason that has been put forward is MacArthur's lack of expertise with nuclear weapons. What if we leave the first sentence out? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The current version looks good to me. Removal of the Nuclear Weapons section header and the first sentence helps to make the context much clearer. Thanks. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Hawkeye's edits have improved the section greatly. I would still like to see a wider edit of the article towards a more neutral coverage, but that can best be discussed in the section above. --John (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

B17 or B18 BOLO

The article claims that MacArthur lost 35 B-17's when the Japanese attacked. However, the B-17 did not enter the war until 1942. The "B-17" planes in the Philippines were actuually B-18 BOLO planes. Someone needs to correct this mistake. See Douglas B-18 Bolo for verification Wikited (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Every source I've ever seen on this says B-17s. The B-18 was the standard AAF bomber at the time, but the B-17 was coming into service, & the RAF was receiving some at this time. A glance at Fitzsimons has around 80 in service by 12/41, & 20 B-17Cs in the hands of RAF. TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 17:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Trekphiler. There is absolutely no doubt the aircraft were B-17s. To be precise, they were mostly B-17Cs and B-17Es. A total of about 155 B-17s had been delivered by the end of November 1941. --Yaush (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't realize the number was so high... (And didn't think to look at this... :( ) TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 17:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you have a conflict between this page and the Douglas B-18 Bolo page. One or the other is incorrect. My personal knowledge is that the planes in the Philippines and flying into Hawaii on the day of the Japanese attack were B18 BOLOS, not B17s, which appeared in operation the next year...Wikited (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The B-17 and MacArthur articles are fully sourced; the B-18 article is not. So they trump the B-18 article. As it happens though, we have the serial numbers of the B-17s at Clark Field: B-17C: 40-2048*, 40-2067*, 40-2072, 40-2077*; B-17D: 40-3059*, 40-3063, 40-3068*, 40-3069*, 40-3070, 40-3075*, 40-3076*, 40-3088*, 40-3093, 40-3094*, 40-3095*, 40-3096, 40-3098, 40-3099*, 40-3100. (* = destroyed in the attack on Clark Field). (See Bartch, December 8, 1941: MacArthur's Pearl Harbor, Appendix I) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And those sn alone put the lie to "entered service the next year": those are 1940 serials. I don't doubt there were B-18s in P.I. & I've seen sources saying there were upwards of 50 B-18s in P.I. (IIRC...) The 35 lost, however, are unquestionably B-17s. TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 03:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My sources say that there were also ten B-18s at Clark; one was destroyed in the attack. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Faulty memory on my part, then... TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.Wikited (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I've removed the neutrality tag on the article. There are three highly reliable sources in the article, and no active discussion on the talk page which questions the reliability while demonstrating other highly reliable sources that argue differently. --LauraHale (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion two sections up. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it. And I have read the article. I've looked at the sources. As the neutrality of the whole article is not in in dispute, just one sentence, I have made a tag change to make more clear what is actually in dispute as these tags have been found to be more effective according to Signpost in getting change. --LauraHale (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality questions apply to far more than just the sentence you tagged. My concerns are with the whole 'Nuclear Weapons' section and with the corresponding material in the legacy section whilst another editor has raised issues with some other material as well. Please leave the tag alone until these issues are resolved. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am restoring the tag. If you had read the discussion above you should be able to see there is a dispute over the tone of almost the entire article. It is far too uncritically positive about the subject. An article about a controversial figure like MacArthur needs to describe the controversy. --John (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"the neutrality of the whole article is not in in dispute" It most certainly is... TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not unless someone comes up with something. I'm giving it a few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Action at Cote de Chatillion

In Robert Ferrell's short book The Question of MacArthur's Reputation: Cote de Chatillon, October 14-16, 1918, Ferrell establishes that MacArthur was three miles away from the action in which he was supposedly wounded. The only reference here for that wound is from MacArthur. Ferrell establishes that the action for which MacArthur was praised for leading men of his brigade in combat was actually commanded by his two regimental commanders and the commander of an assigned machine gun battalion although MacArthur received the credit. I refuse to even touch this article as I don't trust myself to be impartial. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have that book which I have read through a number of times. It is unusual in that it covers the Great War, something that has not been well covered by American historians. I also have a number of critical reviews of the book. I will respond to your concerns when I return from the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Misquote

With apologies for the banality of this correction, this article is semi-protected, so I have no other way of suggesting a change without jumping through a number of other hoops.

The quote inside the section labeled Escape to Australia and Medal of Honor is stated thus: "I came out of Bataan and I shall return." The citation for the quote clearly states the wording in the headline of the article as "I came through and I shall return." Either the quote should be as he actually stated it, or it should be modified for clarity, e.g. "I came through [Bataan] and I shall return." Whorvath (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Under "Legacy" the first sentence puts a whopper out there, " MacArthur was not considered a victorious general. " If this statement was factually true, I would still argue that he WAS "...considered..." in such a way. And, without doing original research, by no stretch of the imagination was he, what... a loser? Whatever his merits personally or professionally, I would argue the merits of his mission success rate under his decades long command. And while his losses might outweigh his positives to some, MacArthur always "returned". Whether someone might have done it better could be argued ad infinitum, but this one statement is historical bias that is clearly not objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphicrates (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in President Truman's popularity

Truman's popularity in this article was correctly listed at 23 percent, but the statement that as of 2013 it was the lowest rating for a sitting president is incorrect. President George W. Bush's rating dipped to 22 percent thus breaking Truman's record. JDH2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh2010 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the source in Public image of George W. Bush article, here, and while it indicates ratings as low as 19 per cent in the CBS poll, the article, in order to compare apples with apples, specially speaks only about the Gallup Poll. It's records are here, and the statement in the article stands, as of April 2013. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion

MacArthur was known to be a devout Christian, but there is no mention. I thought some mention of it would be helpful, especially that he was one of the initial authors of The Presbyterian Journal! http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SPJ_May_1942.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckd83 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No other thoughts or objections?Chuckd83 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a mention, at the end of the "Escape to Australia and Medal of Honor" section. Do you think more is required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

middle name

Wht was his middle naame?76.218.104.120 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

He did not have one. None of the men in his family did. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

edit request, Chief of Staff subsection

An edit was made on 7 May that doesn't quite conform to article style, imho. It's in the third paragraph of "Chief of Staff" and is a parenthesis starting (In 1967, Eisenhower . . . .)

Here is my re-write and re-do of the notes and ref:

When Eisenhower told MacArthur he had orders from Hoover instructing MacArthur not to cross the Anacostia River to the marchers' camp, MacArthur responded: "I don't want to hear them and I don't want to see them" and then crossed the river.

Notes:

References:

• Ricks, Thomas E. (2012). The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-404-3. OCLC 780480462. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |authormask= (help)

I would have done it myself but the article is restricted and I'm editing anonymously these days. Hope someone can use my edits. Thanks! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

broken ref

Ref 266, "Alperovitz 1995, p. 352", doesn't point to any source. Can this be fixed? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Introduction

The US has never used field marshal designation in its ranking system. Although a 5 star general is equivalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.47.207 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And MacArthur was indeed a five star general in the US Army. However, as the article states (you have to read down a bit), he was a field marshal of the Philippine Army. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2013

== Bias ==

This entire entry on the General is the most stilted and one-sided I have ever read. It addresses little if any issues regarding this most controversial officer over his career and paints him as an almost heroic figure. This man was one of the most undemocratic, praetorian and feared men to ever hold military rank and disliked and even hated by most who knew him or worked under him. He, in the main, required only syncopates on his staff. MANY MEN DIED NEEDLESSLY BECAUSE OF THIS MAN'S EGO! He also turned his back on real American military heroes, unsung to this day, because they disagreed with him, did not inflate his ego or support his political ambitions.

Will somebody PLEASE read Thomas E. Ricks "The Generals" and other accepted and admired military historians and make sure that this entry is truly fair and balanced and based on historical fact?

I am 90 years old, a former Army and Marine officer and I served under this man in both WWII and Korea. My great-grandson had to show me how to do this entry as I am not "with it". Whoever edits this locked entry is doing many, many, many dead American soldiers a disservice by NOT addressing this man's numerous failures as a human being, military officer and his TRUE LEGACY. PLEASE do this for the dead as well as for current and future Americans who read Wikipedia. Anything less is not only a disservice but borders on disrespect for all those that served and died in service to the United States of America and the democratic principals it is founded on.

Sincerely, Col. James T. Wilson (Ret) Austin, Texas

69.138.137.96 (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this edit request, as it does not propose specific actionable modifications to the article. Your comments and your book recommendation remain on the record if any editor is interested in taking it up. --Stfg (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Under "Legacy" it is stated: "MacArthur is not remembered as a victorious general." What? Who wrote this drivel? MacArthur took the surrender of Japan in 1945 and liberated South Korea from Kim Il Sung. He most certainly is remembered as a victorious general. Are the tin foil-hat leftists completely in charge of Wikipedia editing these days? 64.134.41.129 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Why is so many references for the same notes? May to add a new notes from different sources. Belembay (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Belembay

The answer to that is the editors who took over this article have been ruthless in reverting any reference that does conform to their own particular views. The relatively small number of source references is simply an artifact of the lack of balance inherent in the article. Frankly, I'm surprised that the FA reviewers didn't spot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.57 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 January 2014

The article has over 50 sources listed, and over 300 footnotes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

One hundred and twenty six of those footnotes are from the same author. Other authors are equally over represented. I note where other references are used, the references are - with few exceptions - entirely laudatory. For example, Long's entry in ADB is quoted, but the part where he says that Macarthur was hated by large sections of his own Army is not. Further, all the references supplied in the past by me and others from authors less glowing of Macarthur have been expunged completely.

Hawkeye, your profile says you are a professional military historian. You must know that there is a large body of work from reputable and well-credentialled authors that is highly critical of a variety of aspects of Macarthur's career. The layman coming to this article wouldn't get any sense of that, though. And that, to me, seems like a good working definition of non Neutral Point of View. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.57 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Article unbalanced?

The lead devotes three paras to his life before WWII began, one para to everything after, although his career in the Pacific, Japan and Korea is certainly what he's famous for. The body of the article is unbalanced in the same way, though less so. PiCo (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It's also too laudatory, even hagiographic. Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph lists his reasons for notability. The other three cover roughly 25 years each. The fact is that MacArthur was already famous and notable in 1940. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What an absolute joke of an article this is. The Macarthur hagiographers have won. Two criticisms - *two* - in an article on one of the most controversial generals of the twentieth century. I gave up trying to edit this article years ago when sourced edits critical of this man were reverted, usually without comment, but occasionally with a comment along the lines of 'Oh yes, well Author X hates Macarthur, so we can ignore him'. Just one example: the article goes into lavish detail about those who were evacuated on the PT Boat from Corregidor, but fails to list Arthur's nanny - a fact that was highly controverial at the time and which is one of the sourced edits of mine which was removed.

If there were a prize for the most unbalanced article ever to make FA status, this article would win it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.57 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised at how little is devoted (proportionally) to the Occupation of Japan. This is arguably MacArthur's most notable achievement, since he more or less reversed that country's course of action and helped set it on the path to economic revival and social recovery (as the article notes). The Japanese article, for instance, devotes the bulk of its coverage to this period. (On a tangent, what's up with the sentence about MacArthur wearing a kimono to work? Was he interested in Japan before World War II? Why did he do it?) Brutannica (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly Japan is MacArthur's crowning achievement. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

MacArthur visited Japan twice with his father before the Great War. The Kimono was a visible signs of his interest in Asia. Both MacArthur and his father believed that the centre of gravity of world economic and political affairs was moving away from Europe and towards Asia, but few took this seriously. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:VIRGINIA?

I want to ask, since it is an FA and TFA, before adding, but would this article fall under WP:VIRGINIA since MacArthur was laid to rest in Norfolk, Virginia? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To quote Douglas MacArthur died at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on 5 April 1964, of biliary cirrhosis.[304] Kennedy had authorized a state funeral, and Johnson confirmed the directive, ordering that MacArthur be buried "with all the honor a grateful nation can bestow on a departed hero.". Unless I am missing a point here, but if Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, how could he authorize MacArthur's state funeral? Norum 12:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think "had authorized" indicates Kennedy did this before either of them died... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

i just realized i didnt do this post properly....lol..but come to think of it, it's the only logical explanation that JFK must had done it ahead of time. Norum 23:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Add CIA assessment of Chinese Intentions

In his book, American Caesar, William Manchester makes clear that the assessment that the Chinese would not become actively involved in the war was based on the CIA's assessment of Chinese intentions. Manchester says, "The CIA reported to Truman that were 'as many 200,000 Chinese troops' in MacArthur's path, but as late as November 24 the agency assured the President that 'there is no evidence that the Chinese Communists plan major offensive operations in Korea.'" Manchester, William (1978). American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880–1964. Dell Publishing Company. ISBN 0-440-10413-0. Page 721.

This helps demonstrate the fact that the common idea that MacArthur, in his drive to the Yalu, simply disregarded common sense and common knowledge is wrong. At the time, it was widely held US intelligence view that the Chinese would not intervene in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.58.143 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Majority of Americans in Europe during WWII were "fighting the Soviet Union"?

The article includes this text: "[MacArthur's] broad concept of the role of the soldier as encompassing civil affairs, quelling riots and low-level conflict, was passed over by the majority who fought in Europe during World War II, and saw their role as fighting the Soviet Union." This reads like an assertion that the majority of those Americans who fought in Europe considered that war as a war against the USSR. Moreover, the way it's written, it is presented as fact. Can this be allowed to stay up like this? -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it says that they saw their new role as fighting a war against the USSR in Europe. The sentence is cast in the past tense; World War II was in the past. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The way it is currently written does not read as you claim. There needs to be a temporal distinction between the two eras in reference, i.e. WWII and post-WWII (e.g. "...and now saw their role as..."). -The Gnome (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Later than what?

"Arthur would later receive the Medal of Honor for his actions with the Union Army in the Battle of Missionary Ridge during the American Civil War"

So Arthur MacArthur would later receive a civil war medal after his son was born in 1880? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.194.128.163 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Arthur MacArthur was awarded the medal in 1890. Douglas was ten years old at the time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The above referenced sentence appears to be a run-on sentence - I think one of the commas is supposed to be a period. __209.179.28.127 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

On providing inflation adjusted amounts for money

One thing that is often missing from articles is the conversion of money from the past to the inflation adjusted amounts of today. For example, the $500,000 that MacArthur got in 1942 is equivalent to $7,339,252.91 in 2015. By giving the inflation adjusted amount, the "true" amount makes things much more clear to present day readers. Could someone do this? __209.179.28.127 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Raw inflation conversions are meaningless. So much has changed in what a dollar will buy, & how much quality has changed, the numbers, by themselves, have no value. Put it in terms of what a person earned in 1942, or even what FDR earned, & it might be worthwhile. (Be sure it's well-cited, too....) TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 18:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we going back to 1860, or 1760, I would agree, but It's not really an issue if we go back to 1940. $500,000 is a fair amount of change, but the true magnitude of the amount is lost upon the reader if he doesn't know it equivalent to $7.3 million in today's inflation ravaged money. (The one obfuscation is that someone then paid very little income tax, so a person today would have to gross a lot more to equal the net pay of someone in the past.) I had forgotten to mention I used the Minneapolis Fed for my conversion < https://www.minneapolisfed.org/ >, which I guess is a reliable source - if you can't trust the Fed, whom can you trust? __209.179.28.127 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Take one example: how much did a 1942 Ford cost? How many months' salary for an average worker? How much does the same amount buy today? Is a comparable car today anything remotely as badly built or fuel-inefficient as a '42? The changes in everything since 1942 are enormous, so much so the numbers alone do not, cannot, tell the story. They are in desperate need of context--& even saying, "The $500,000 was five times what the President earned" (I believe it was) is a bit misleading...but it's better than a bare number. TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 01:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I use the ball park hot dog rule. They were a nickel, now they're over five bucks. A lot of the problem with working on prices in the war years is that goods were rationed, exchange rates were fixed, and world trade was practically non-existent. So it often looks like there was little inflation, but it was more like a dam that burst when the war ended. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the artificial "deflation" is an issue, but you've brushed a bigger issue that's closer to my concern: why are the dogs $5, now? It's not because overall inflation has driven up the cost, it's because there are other factors at play which affect the cost. If we took the current price & "deflated" it back to 1940, it would be just as inaccurate--& for many of the same reasons. TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 14:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The factors that drive up prices over the years are lumped together as inflation. It can be caused by many factors. The money supply can grow through the government borrowing from the market or the Reserve Bank; there can be bona fide cost increases due to shortages as a result of crop failures, wars or other disruptions; there can be technological changes that affect the mix of inputs. All of these are inflation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"The factors that drive up prices over the years are lumped together as inflation." Okay, I'll withdraw that. I still think the drastic changes in quality & performance against price today make the numbers nonsense. When a modern pocket calculator (or an electronic fuel injection system, for all that) can outperform ENIAC, how much ENIAC would cost today is pretty much nonsense. TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Many economists believe that all value is labour, and that technological change has zero impact. So that building a dam requires the same amount of labour with trucks and power shovels as with hand tools, the labour content being shifted to the factory workers who built the trucks. To refute this, I took the figure for the number of switchboard operators in the US in 1940, and divided by the number of phone calls made to get a labour value of a call (of course switchboard operators were not the only people involved; there were also linesmen etc). Then I found a figure for the number of calls made in 2005. Multiplying gave a labour figure greater than the population of the world, indeed, greater than the number of people who had ever lived. So you're right and they're wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As encouraged as I am at the idea of being smarter than Milton Friedman,;p I don't think it's that simple. I do think trying to oversimplify, which IMO the inflation calculator does, is a bad idea. I'd far rather put it in contemporary terms & equivalents: the VW Type 1 would have been paid for in so many weeks' labor, frex. So what's a good parallel for $500K in 1942-3? The price of twenty Duesenberg Model J? The budget of "The Wizard of Oz"? ;p How about 17 Mark 14 torpedoes? (I'll leave off comparing the worth of MacArthur & the MkXIV...which IMO are both about zero. ;p ) TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 23:08 & 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect this much debate on my question (not that there's anything wrong with that ...). Suppose we calculated that 500K would buy x number of Fords in 1940, and that that it would buy y number of Cadillacs. If we then calculated total cost to buy x Fords and y Cadillacs in 2015, I'd bet that their total costs would be very different, because their prices have inflated at different rates. That's what economists do, they calculate how the prices of different commodities have changed over the years (some up, some down) and then produce a weighted average to show how much inflation there has been. I also think it's meaningless to compare the cost of a 1940 Ford (as a unit of a worker's salary) to a 2015 Ford, because they are incomparable. A 1940 Ford didn't have power windows, AC, GPS, anti-lock brakes, etc., so the cost comparison of the two is meaningless. The cause of the change in price is irrelevant- it's the overall effect that we're concerned with.

The whole point of this was to give context to the reader, so that they would have a fuller understanding on the matter. What if the Weimer Government had given MacArthur 100 billion Marks. The reader would assume that that was a fortune, until it's explained that because of the hyper inflation Germany suffered in the 1920's, that amount is equivalent to about a hundred bucks. (That also helps explain the rise of Hitler.)

Does Wikipedia have a stated policy on this point? __209.179.28.127 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

♠You're beginning to see what I mean. :) Car prices have changed drastically, & today, they're artificially high in the U.S. because of "voluntary" import quotas. That's just one thing the inflation adjustments don't, can't, account for. Others are technological: how do you account for a modern phone having more computing power than the entire world in 1940? Or, as you point out, the change in value in a car today against 1940.

♠It's because of those kinds of things I'm opposed to the raw numbers. Put it in contemporary terms, & it's at least remotely close to reality (whence the "price" of a Type 1).

♠The mark do dollar issue is also a good thing to keep in mind, tho in this case, it really doesn't apply.

♠As for policy, I'm unaware of one (which doesn't mean there isn't one... :) ) Given the issues raised, tho, maybe there should be one. I've seen these conversions all over the place, & removed them; maybe they should be deprecated or disallowed as (unintentionally) misleading? (Where we'd raise the issue, I have no clue. :( ) TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 19:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is one, and it works like this. Because the CPI is a measure of consumer purchasing power, we can use the inflation template it to give readers an idea of relative value, but only for dollars worth of consumer goods. We cannot use it for non-consumer goods like torpedoes or electron microscopes. We can use it for hot dogs and salaries. So it is okay to use it to inflate the payment to MacArthur, appropriately rounded, and $7.3 million will give the reader a pretty good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm in opposition to policy again...for the stated reasons. TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding a hyperlink in intro

The text "General of the Army" in the first paragraph should have a hyperlink to the General_of_the_Army_(United_States) page.

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Years of Service

I have started a discussion at Talk:Omar Bradley#Years of Service suggesting that the "years of service" in the InfoBox for Gen. Bradley (and as its a similar case, Gen. Marshall and Gen. MacArthur) reflect the time they were in their rolls as military officers and not effectively retired but still receiving their active duty pay. Please join the conversation there if you have thoughts on the matter (best to have the comments in one place). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Family

On Category:MacArthur family, it says:

Note: The MacArthur given name convention is slightly confusing. The patriarch was Arthur Sr., whose son was Arthur Jr, who had three sons: Arthur III, Malcolm (died in his youth), and Douglas. Arthur III's son is Douglas II, and Douglas' son is Arthur IV (he changed his name and works as a musician in New York).

I think this passage is unnecessary. Arthur Sr. (born 1815/17) is obviously Arthur Sr. His son is logically Arthur Jr., and it follows that his grandson is Arthur III. However, if Arthur III’s brother Douglas had another son named Arthur, it follows that Douglas’ son is Arthur IV, even if he is not descended from a solid lineage of Arthur MacArthurs. Equivalently, Arthur III’s son Douglas is Douglas II, even though his father isn’t named Douglas. (Douglas Jr. is inappropriate for obvious reasons.) Arthur IV and Douglas II were each named after their uncle, not their father; I don’t see anything confusing about the family history.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

At 12:30, nine hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor

Hi all,
User:Zedshort wants to have the part nine hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor in the sentence. But as far as I understand, it was nine hours after MacArthur (at 03:30) learned about the attack on Pearl Harbor. IMO the attack was not at 03:30 but more than an hour earlier.
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have a source that gives the exact time period that elapsed, then include that and a reference, otherwise the extrapolation of the nine hours is reasonable. Zedshort (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Lowest Gallup Poll

Lowest presidential Gallup Poll was held by George Bush (G.W.) at 19% not 22% by Truman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsparling143 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush's lowest point was 29% in July 1992; George W. Bush's was 25% in October 2008.[1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Sr.

I read that Arthur MacArthur, Sr. was born on January 26, 1817, not 1815.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in this article, but I have adjusted Arthur Sr.'s article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should the file for the infobox picture be changed?

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.

---

Which of the two images should be used in the infobox, A or B? 02:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A

B

• Support A — This new image file is superior in many respects. It is a far larger file of high resolution. As a result of this it has far greater definition in all aspects of the image, depicting more clearly and effectively the General's face, hat, pipe, uniform, and background details. These facts alone, along with a more natural/1940's like color and film appearance give it contemporaneous quality along with the fact that it is a superior quality file for the same photograph. In addition, minor alterations in the crop make it less constrained. The resolution and definition quality of the Image A file alone make it a superior infobox portrait.  Spartan7W §   02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support A - well, for an infobox image, the resolution is immaterial. We're only going to see dozens of pixels across, rather than thousands. For cropping and colour, the differences are minor, though I accept that the colour may be more historically apt. The image file itself offers much higher resolution. Check out the details of the corncob pipe at the highest resolution. There is no question file A is superior in that regard. --Pete (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support B -- Sorry, I can't see any benefit in A. To me B is clearly superior in definition and colour; I find A somewhat washed out and blurry in comparison. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support B - Looks sharper and better to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support B - to my eyes it actually looks clearer so there doesn't seem any reason to change it. Anotherclown (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support A — At first I was drawn toward B, but looking again, I say A. The higher resolution wins in my book. Dan D. Ric (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support B — Photo is more clear. Photo A looks too blurry. Sure, A looks closer to the quality of a photo taken in the 1940s, but in that case, we can just use a black-and-white photo if we are just trying to be more accurate about the quality of the time period. EtherealGate (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support A - I think Photo B is too grainy and is clearly over-edited. It doesn't look natural. Photo A does not have that grainy aspect, it seems natural, and it has more of a old look to it. Even though it may not be as pixely as Photo B, it is still very clear and depicts the physical aspects well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• B – while it is lower resolution, the haze in image A rules it out for me. MB298 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• B; I have to agree with Ian Rose: A looks washed out. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• B - Much better photo quality; the color and sharpness are far superior. GAB<sup>gab</sup> 00:14, 4 July 2016 (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.

Moved category

I moved Category:Douglas MacArthur so that it would be near the top of the list of categories (3rd, to be precise, after Category:1880 births and Category:1964 deaths) and hence easier to find. In general, IMO (and, I believe, also in the opinion of many other Wikipedians), if an article is a member of a category of the same title, said category should be at or near the top of the list of categories, so that the eponymous category is easy to find. In the case of articles on real people, if there is a category named after said person, I like to have said category 3rd on the list of categories, after Category:“__ births” followed by Category:“__ deaths” (or Category:Living people in the case of living people). Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My father was on General MacArthur's staff in Brisbane and in the Phillipines. During the war General MacArthur was unable to pose for an official portrait, therefore, they searched for someone who had a similiar physic and physionomy. My father donned the General's uniform and hat, the portrait is in the Gallery at Norfolk, VA

Dorotheeaa (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Article size

I've had this on my watchlist for some years having participated in its Featured Article Candidature and I notice it's increased markedly in size this year, from 78kb readable prose in January to 99kb now, with no sign it's going to slow down. I don't claim to be an expert on Mac and I don't want to stifle content creation but I am interesting in discussing whether the additions are all vital and whether in fact some should be dropped or broken out into sub-articles so the main article doesn't get bigger than the subject's ego. What's everyone think? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

When the article went to FAC, it was trimmed to reduce it in size, as it was felt that the article was too large. But it has steadily grown larger since. I think some of the new material on the occupation of Japan should be in that article instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the article trimmed back to where it was in January or earlier. It's just so easy to divide up the information into dozens of sub-articles about each phase in his life/historical period. This is an overview article and there's no need for excess detail.StoryKai (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Style is not Encyclopedic

Style is artificially colloquial and overly affectionate, as if to be entertaining, like a eulogy,. It greatly interferes with gleaning information from this article. An overall rewrite for style would make it a far better fit for Wikipedia. Why is it locked?--75.164.155.194 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)