| Revision as of 23:15, 13 May 2010 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →NPOV: Enough.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:22, 13 May 2010 edit undoPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Remaining problem areas for this article: more nonsense.Next edit → | ||
| Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
| ** It was originally much longer but got cut back. The conspiracy theory is that MacArthur was under orders from Roosevelt to let the Japanese strike the first blow. ] (]) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | ** It was originally much longer but got cut back. The conspiracy theory is that MacArthur was under orders from Roosevelt to let the Japanese strike the first blow. ] (]) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ***We are not required to give undue weight to fringe theories. However, the present text blames Sutherland - which would require explicit support from a third-party source. ] <small>]</small> 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | ***We are not required to give undue weight to fringe theories. However, the present text blames Sutherland - which would require explicit support from a third-party source. ] <small>]</small> 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *''Although MacArthur's support for a strong military, and his public criticism of pacifism and isolationism, made him unpopular with the Roosevelt administration''. Which implies that the Roosevelt administration was pacificist and isolationist. What hash have you been smoking? ] <small>]</small> 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:22, 13 May 2010
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douglas MacArthur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douglas MacArthur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
 | Douglas MacArthur has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 faq page Frequently asked questions
Controversies, praise, and criticism
Q1: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A1: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT.
Q2: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A2: Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy says that "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about MacArthur in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles.
Q3: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.
Other issues
Q4: This article is over 100kb long, WP:SIZE says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A4: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 100kB of readable prose (which corresponds to about 10,000 words), not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of December 2023, this article had about 19,300 words of readable prose (114 kB according to prosesize tool), which is over the limit. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit.
Q5: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?
A5: In all probability what you added was trivia, unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly. Articles on Misplaced Pages require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to an article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.
Q6: I tried to edit this article but couldn't. Why?
A6: This article has been indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism or violations of content policy. Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Misplaced Pages) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{editsemiprotected}} template if necessary to gain attention. They may also request the confirmed userright by visiting Requests for permissions.
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 11, 2004, April 11, 2005, and April 11, 2006. |
MacArthur in Popular Mythology
Smithsonian Magazine recently had an article about Matthew Ridgway. One of the subjects being he assumed command after Mac A was relieved by Truman and touched briefly on that affair. Naturally, letters to the editor in response of that piece were complete Mac A bashers. It's the popular thing to do you know! So people can opine that Mac A abandoned his troops and fled to Australia like a coward all the while ignoring the fact that the President of the United States ordered him to evacuate. Soldiers follow orders even if they're wearing a purple silk tie while doing so. --Brad (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but why is it such a popular thing? There's obviously some important American national myth at stake, but I don't know what it is. MacArthur is clearly a divisive figure today, in a way that Eisenhower is not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- MacArthur in Popular Mythology sounds like a class that should be taught at West Point. I've noticed that primadonnas like Mac A are often discredited for whatever they do in life because of it. Doesn't matter how brilliant they were. But the popular thing to do is modern revisionism such as Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (like anyone should care) and discrediting everything Thomas Jefferson ever did because he was a slave owner. To please the bashers I shall start investigating Mac A's sexuality. --Brad (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- And how I'd love to teach it! We have a term for this in Australia: Tall poppy syndrome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- MacArthur in Popular Mythology sounds like a class that should be taught at West Point. I've noticed that primadonnas like Mac A are often discredited for whatever they do in life because of it. Doesn't matter how brilliant they were. But the popular thing to do is modern revisionism such as Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (like anyone should care) and discrediting everything Thomas Jefferson ever did because he was a slave owner. To please the bashers I shall start investigating Mac A's sexuality. --Brad (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Most Mac bashers are intelligent. Readers of Smithsonian are intelligent. :-)
- Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Smithsonian article expended all of one short paragraph to the relief and replacement by Ridgeway yet all the letters to the editor focused on Mac A being over rated and under skilled. It's comparable to writing about apples and receiving responses about oranges. --Brad (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Most Mac bashers are intelligent." Thank you. ;p And I'm not sure soldiers blindly follow orders, either. Certainly Monty & Harris resisted, & I doubt Dougie failed to consider refusing to obey. (Would he had... "I shall remain"?) There appears to be an issue of national honor at play (one MacArthur blatantly played on in getting his way back to the P.I.: he'd effectively pledged U.S. honor to liberation). For myself, I couldn't care less if Doug was screwing odd-numbered sheep; it's his self-serving & stupid command decisions, & his rewriting of history, that irritate me. (Same applies to Monty, who I'd call the British MacArthur.) As has been pointed out, you don't get to be a general, let alone a successful combat general, without a fairly healthy ego. It's a rare case I'm aware of where that comes out as supreme self-confidence rather than being an overweening PITA; Nimitz & Eisenhower (& to a somewhat lesser extent IMO Bradley) show that, while others, like Rommel, are a bigger pain. (I excuse Patton, because he had a flair I admire; I claim bias.) I also wonder if there isn't a psychology at work: do we want our national heroes to be a bit more modest, or at least to show a bit more style? TREKphiler 04:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- This would all be on the West Point syllabus. :) As a rule, we get what we pay for. If, for example, you make promotion competitive, then you will promote competitive people. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's systemic issues, too, I'm sure. Today, there's an issue of "turbulence" (described in Why America Loses at War IIRC); in short, if you need time in a variety of stations to get promoted, you never get good at any of them... (This is also one reason interwar USN intel was so awful; it was lo regard, & sea time was prized higher, so intel officers didn't spend anything like enough time in the job.) TREKphiler 03:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This would all be on the West Point syllabus. :) As a rule, we get what we pay for. If, for example, you make promotion competitive, then you will promote competitive people. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Typos/Grammatical Errors etc...
Section: Escape to Australia
Marshall felt it would more proper for >>> Marshall felt it would be more proper for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.115.64 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Immunity for Japanese War Criminals in the Infamous Unit 731
The Unit 731 article, Japanese WWII War Crimes article, and other related articles (such as those about specific war criminals) note that MacArthur made the decision to grant immunity to many Japanese war criminals from Unit 731. There are ample references in those articles establishing that these war criminals brutally killed tens of thousands of people including American POWs (in addition to Soviet POWs and Chinese POWs/citizens). Given that MacArthur was the one that made the decision to grant immunity to these people and that he was in oversaw the war crimes tribunals, these actions are certainly of import and need to be included in the article with more than just a vague passing remark as it stands now. If the number of Japanese war criminals convicted under his command is of note, then the ones he let go and why is also of note. The war crimes of this Japanese unit are well known in Japan and China, and as such the lack of judicial resolution is of note to international relations between these countries as well. 76.88.173.2 (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is an article about Mac A and not an article about Japanese WWII War Crimes. Unit 731 and Mac A's pardon of those involved is clearly stated in the appropriate area of this article. What Unit 731 specifically did or how many deaths they were responsible for belongs in the Unit 731 article. --Brad (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Should this article be condensed a bit?
This is obviously an excellent article, but it seems it should be compressed a bit. I suggest we look at the section entitled Philippines Campaign (1941–42). Maybe it can be merged into the article entitled Philippines Campaign (1941–1942). One cannot understand Douglas MacArthur without having an appreciation for the critical role that the Philippines played in the development of his world view. Nevertheless, this topic might be better covered elsewhere. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- There was previous conversation on the topic of spin-off articles that never went anywhere. With all of the comments about the article length being brought up at the FAC review I think it's time the issue was addressed again. The WWII section is enormous so possibly a "MacArthur in WWII" spin-off is required which would allow no loss of what is currently written. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of sub articles were created out of the process, one on honours and awards and another on Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur. Some issues remain:
- We don't know what size the article should to be reduced to in order to pass FAC. A useful A-class article is be superior to a dubious featured article candidate, if it won't pass unless it is seen to be as comprehensive as the current article. Note how the article was opposed by one editor on the grounds that the Japan section was too short and apparently wasn't mollified by pointing at the Occupation of Japan article.
- Unlike the dismissal article, sub-articles like Douglas MacArthur as Chief of Staff will not stand on their merits. They will be referred to only from the main article. So I'd like assurance up front that they would not be subject to AfD.
- A couple of sub articles were created out of the process, one on honours and awards and another on Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur. Some issues remain:
- Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that tall poppy syndrome continues on even into the FAC comments. I see clamoring for more derogatory comments about MacA. However, I think there are places where the article can be reduced but this is never a good idea to do while there are 75 screaming reviewers saying it's too long. This needs to be thought out carefully. I don't believe that any information from this article that is broken out to an article of it's own wouldn't stand on it's own merit considering the amount of research and referencing you have done. But the only way to take the heat off the situation is after the FAC is either closed or passed. --Brad (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Original research re MoH stuff?
This link is used to back up the claim of Arthur and Douglas / Teddy and Teddy and the father/son comparisons. The trouble with the reference is that it does not mention the MacA's at all. Something more solid that specifically makes the comparison is needed here. Otherwise I see this as OR. --Brad (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Usually what people see as OR is just me adding references to back up what another editor has written without sourcing. I've added another reference which explicitly references MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's fine now. I had to make corrections to the ref so it would display properly. Also, Arlington National Cemetery is not the publisher in this case. The site is not associated with Arlington. --Brad (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thought I would add that I realize the condition this article was in prior to your work on it. I'm quite sure that there were many things that needed cleaning but it seems that we've caught most of them thus far. It's annoying when people bash the article you worked so hard on; something I can relate to as well. --Brad (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
More picky medal things
- I'm not sure if it's important to clarify that Arthur Jr. was not awarded his MoH until 1890.. 25 years after his actions. I suppose it's not a big issue but.. well.
- It should be in his Dad's article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- While Mac A was gassed twice in WWI the award granted at the time was a Wound Chevron as the Purple Heart had not been resurrected at that time. When Mac A resurrected the Purple Heart for wounds while he was Chief of Staff all those who had been awarded wound chevrons were eligible to apply for the Purple Heart; it was not automatically granted. Of course Mac A applied for his directly. --Brad (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I did not know this when I wrote the WWI section, and only found out when I wrote up the Chief of Staff section. Clayton James made the same mistake. I meant to go back and correct the relevant sections. I have done so now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Expanded FAQ
I expanded the FAQ based on the FAQ at Barack Obama. I roughed it in so that it applies to this article. I'm sure that it can be fine tuned as things develop further. It now covers more in detail than just NPOV. --Brad (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I love it! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you agree. I remembered that Obama had an extensive FAQ so I went over there and robbed it. You might want to put Talk:Douglas MacArthur/FAQ on your watch list. --Brad (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to know how they ever got Barack Obama through the FAC process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course the main reason it got through FAC is that Obama isn't MacArthur! The article originally passed FAC in August 2004 and has had 7 FARs since then and still lives. I think it's a good example of people dedicated to keeping an article at FA. --Brad (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to know how they ever got Barack Obama through the FAC process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Tags
This isn't a biography; it's a three-volume panegyric in the worst Victorian manner.
And it is worst of all on the most significant detail: MacArthur was indeed fired for not obeying Truman's direct orders; the account here is apologetic. Has any editor of this trash read any accounts of the Korean War by people who weren't running MacArthur for President? Neither the contemporary accounts (where is Acheson's Present at the Creation?) nor reliable secondary sources seem to have been consulted at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you've got a copy, why don't you add? I would caution, tho: if Acheson "strongly" advocated MacArthur's removal, his account isn't unbiased. (And I'm no fan of MacArthur, either.) 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nor do I contend that it is unbiased - although Acheson, having more controversies to answer, may have spun things less on each individual issue; it may be no better than MacArthur's own memoirs, which this article quotes at length. But I do not have a copy to hand - and I have spent too much time on Misplaced Pages arguing with fanboyish schlock to take on another hopeless cause. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Possible issues requiring clarification
"The war would go on until ended by the Armistice Agreement in July 1953."
As I understand it technically no peace treaty was signed and the war between the Koreas still ongoing. More precise language could be used. Lambanog (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this has been addressed. --Brad (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Closed FAC issues.
I felt that a lot of issues had been addressed but no one came back to comment on them. Here were the main complaints:
Overlinking and shoddy references I killed the overlinking and Diver Dave went and replaced some of them but it's still better than it was. The online references were attacked for not having publishers or a reliable source. Most of these have been corrected but could be investigated again. --Brad (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sources It was brought up that some material is cited with Mac A's autobiography. I think this is fine for citing things in his personal life but it probably should be removed for any other material. --Brad (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Aside on use of Doug's autobio: I'd be inclined to leave in anything where his statements contradict the popular view (on whether he meant to run for President before '52 {?}, frex). TREKphiler 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Lead section
This was worked over but may not be there yet. --Brad (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Was a little surprised the nomination was closed since it had a few supports and I think only one oppose and work was being done addressing the comments. I wanted to support this article but have to admit my impression going over it was that it is a little too easy to find things to nitpick about. I made comments regarding the lead and while improved the MoH stuff is still repeated and that doesn't help lessen the impression the article leans towards being favorable to the subject. Even without the repetition the lead reads like a litany of awards given—although that in itself is fine by me—but it doesn't help the case that the article is neutral. Lambanog (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The supports the article gained were all from milhist people which is what Sandy was going on about in a couple of passages. The article needed more reviews from people unassociated with milhist. A lead section is supposed to summarize as much as possible the contents of the article. An article of this size should have four paragraphs in the lead. I agree with your observations that it focuses on the MoH and awards more than it explains what Mac A did during his life. --Brad (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Length
The article was chopped quite a bit and is around 77kb of readable prose and 12,000 words. Still long but not as long as it was. Maybe more could be chopped. --Brad (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's also parts where people still want more. Three for consideration:
- Japanese attack on December 8, 1941
- Occupation of Japan
- Dismissal
NPOV
Some NPOV was remedied but I feel there are still areas where wording is a bit on the bright side in a pro-Mac A manner. --Brad (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- It would help a lot if you could say where this occurs. In the course of the FAC process, the article actually became sunnier as critical comments in the Great War and Second World War sections were excised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I will go through the article and makes changes where I think it's needed. At the same time however, I think there are also some areas that could be reduced with less details and all of those details are of minor importance to the subject imo. That may reduce the article size a bit more. --Brad (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've done enough mangling for now. I'll let you catch up and comment before I go further. --Brad (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I see that some corrections were made in the Chief of Staff section. My questions now are for two passages: While not as violent as other anti-riot operations and He ensured that detailed plans were drawn up for its employment and decentralized its administration to the corps areas, which became an important factor in success of the program. How was the eviction not as violent as other anti-riot operations? Seems like comparisons are needed here if the wording stays. How exactly did Mac A's plans for the CCC make it a "success"? Were there other plans that were rejected or other plans that failed? --Brad (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Considered as a military operation, the eviction is something of model. That is because MacArthur had a body of disciplined, well-led troops whom he put through special riot control training beforehand. Given the number of Bonus marchers and their disposition, deaths could have been reasonably expected. Looking at the List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States, many efforts were not so well handled. The problem was that unlike the Red Scares in 1917-1920 and 1947-1957, this one was confined to Washington. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The CCC is generally regarded as a popular and successful New Deal program. MacArthur's contribution was mainly to how it was organised.Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm concerned by the cuts to the Great War section. You seem to catering to the belief that his decorations were not for gallantry under fire. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again with the apologetics. Enough. This article will remain tagged until it is rewritten by someone who can maintain a neutral tone - and preferably has some understanding of the background. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Dismissal
This was contested as biased but it's unclear exactly how or what else should be done to fix it besides telling Hawkeye7 that he shouldn't be editing this article. Not good enough reason. --Brad (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to be a situation where the foreigners like myself do not understand, and the Americans cannot articulate. It seems to me that the dismissal involves two principles of liberal democracy in conflict. The first is the principle of civilian control of the military. The second, which I heard Admiral Mike Mullen talk about, is that the military should be apolitical. If military leaders can be dismissed at will for disagreeing with the President, then this principle is compromised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let me take a stab at explaining, & let you decide how, or if, to put it in. MacArthur didn't get fired just for disagreeing. (As I understand the UCMJ, not in effect at the time, doing that is bad enough.) He got fired for doing it in public (& as I understand the UCMJ, not in effect at the time, doing that is verboten), & after being told (i.e., ordered) to shut the hell up. The "non-political" works both ways: officers are expected to keep their views of policy "in-house", & "not air dirty laundry" in public. Same applied to Mitchell: he didn't get court martialed for his views, but for continuing to express them in public after being ordered not to. In truth, Dougie got off easy. He could've been court martialed. (IMO, he should've been, but that won't pass NPOV muster, will it? ;p) TREKphiler 03:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- The JCS agreed that MacArthur was not legally guilty of insubordination (§ 891); nor was he guilty of "using contemptuous words against the President" (§ 888) although today this is read broadly to include both public and private comments. Are you sure he was ordered to shut the hell up? (Which could have attracted (§ 892)). But as you say, the UCMJ was not in use (for another month!) I have read an article that claimed that "Truman did not remove MacArthur simply because of his repeated insubordination, but because he wanted a reliable commander on the scene should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons." But I don't know how much weight to give to this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like the author is finding things that aren't there. His footnotes don't back up his claim; rather he's using material to find a new reason. Trekphiler is correct about US Military protocol whether it's written in stone or not. Perret touched on this in his book relating that Mac A showed contempt for Truman and that Truman already had a dislike of Mac A before he was President. The meeting on Wake Island reinforced these things. For example, when the President comes to meet with you, you meet him on the tarmac, not saunter up to him ten minutes later without saluting him. When the President asks you if you would like to join him for lunch you say yes and not make some excuse as to why you don't have the time. Mac A didn't want to travel all the way to the US to meet with Truman so he made the President fly to Wake instead. So, bad manners and not following expected protocol only made things worse. --Brad (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's a zombie myth that comes from a TV show in the 1970s. MacArthur arrived on Wake the day before Truman and greeted him as he got off the plane. There's video footage of this. Truman's original proposal was to meet in Hawaii, as Roosevelt had done in 1944. Truman didn't want to meet MacArthur in Washington, D.C. But Marshall's message added that "if the situation in Korea is such that you feel you should not absent yourself for the time involved in such a long trip, I am sure the President would be glad to go on and meet you at Wake Island." MacArthur really wanted to supervise the landing at Wonsan, so he replied: "I would be delighted to meet the President on the morning of the 15th at Wake Island." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- So does that mean you don't agree that Mac A showed disrespect towards Truman? Roosevelt may have had to ignore Mac A's quirks since WWII was going on but Truman didn't have to since he had plenty of generals around after the war. --Brad (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. MacArthur was always unfailingly polite to people, even people he disliked. The two men actually gone along well at Wake. They fell out afterwards. With Roosevelt, MacArthur had a warm personal relationship that went back to working together before the Great War (now missing from the article). MacArthur was Chief of Staff under Roosevelt when Truman first came to Washington in 1934. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perret isn't the first author to point out that Mac A could be a pompous drama queen and often engaged in petty vindictiveness. The comment on this particular part of his life has so far been ignored. You're forgetting that WP is about verifiability and not truth so if there are several sources pointing out his faults, those faults should be included in the article. This is the overall reason why the article isn't meeting npov. --Brad (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- He could indeed be pompous beyond belief. I was leaving this to quotes from MacArthur. We could mention his eccentricities wearing a kimono in the office and habitually speaking of himself in the third person. He wasn't normally vindictive though. He had a terrible falling out with Sutherland, but kept him on as chief of staff. He had flaming rows with Krueger and Kinkaid in 1945, but then nominated them for promotion to four-star rank. As a commander his biggest fault, one that Eisenhower complained about in the 1930s, was that he always tolerated mediocrities. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- (Later) The most oft cited example of vindictiveness relates to the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, where MacArthur confirmed the death sentences on (not nearly enough) convicted war criminals. The article notes how these included Homma and Yamashita. MacArthur kicked the corpse of a Japanese soldier on Leyte of the division involved in the Bataan death march. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perret isn't the first author to point out that Mac A could be a pompous drama queen and often engaged in petty vindictiveness. The comment on this particular part of his life has so far been ignored. You're forgetting that WP is about verifiability and not truth so if there are several sources pointing out his faults, those faults should be included in the article. This is the overall reason why the article isn't meeting npov. --Brad (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going on this, which appears to say (if not expressly) Doug was told to keep it out of public view (I was being a bit loose, I admit, :( & perhaps shouldn't have been) & he didn't. That he got fired may've colored JCS's & JAG's view: they really couldn't hurt him much more. Given Doug's views on the use of nukes, & Truman's expressed intent to keep Korea "limited", I tend to believe it factored in the decision, especially since Doug already seemed inclined to slip the leash (viz "don't approach the Yalu").
- Aside on use of Doug's autobio: I'd be inclined to leave in anything where his statements contradict the popular view (on whether he meant to run for President before '52 {?}, frex). TREKphiler 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- That he got fired may have coloured the JCS' view in another way: if Truman could fire MacArthur, would he hesitate to get rid of one of them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could be, Counselor. ;p If my learned colleague will allow, I've a hunch (no more) they weren't worried, 'cause none of them was as big a publicity hound as Doug. TREKphiler 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Admiral Sherman was pretty worried after the "Admiral's revolt", and Clifton B. Cates feared that his Marine Corps would be abolished. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could be, Counselor. ;p If my learned colleague will allow, I've a hunch (no more) they weren't worried, 'cause none of them was as big a publicity hound as Doug. TREKphiler 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- That he got fired may have coloured the JCS' view in another way: if Truman could fire MacArthur, would he hesitate to get rid of one of them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like the author is finding things that aren't there. His footnotes don't back up his claim; rather he's using material to find a new reason. Trekphiler is correct about US Military protocol whether it's written in stone or not. Perret touched on this in his book relating that Mac A showed contempt for Truman and that Truman already had a dislike of Mac A before he was President. The meeting on Wake Island reinforced these things. For example, when the President comes to meet with you, you meet him on the tarmac, not saunter up to him ten minutes later without saluting him. When the President asks you if you would like to join him for lunch you say yes and not make some excuse as to why you don't have the time. Mac A didn't want to travel all the way to the US to meet with Truman so he made the President fly to Wake instead. So, bad manners and not following expected protocol only made things worse. --Brad (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- The JCS agreed that MacArthur was not legally guilty of insubordination (§ 891); nor was he guilty of "using contemptuous words against the President" (§ 888) although today this is read broadly to include both public and private comments. Are you sure he was ordered to shut the hell up? (Which could have attracted (§ 892)). But as you say, the UCMJ was not in use (for another month!) I have read an article that claimed that "Truman did not remove MacArthur simply because of his repeated insubordination, but because he wanted a reliable commander on the scene should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons." But I don't know how much weight to give to this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- The contemporary definition of non-political was so stringent that Marshall and Eisenhower, for example, did not even vote during their military service. The Army was not kept free of politics by asserting officers' liberty to disagree with the President, but by officers staying out of political issues. MacArthur had violated the custom of the Army by making a public statement on a matter of strategy at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- This note from the Good Article Review should also be read and digested by anyone attempting to salvage this article. It expresses a significant POV; this article does not. (Using Manchester's life as often and with as much attention as James' might well do that; I can only observe for now that this article does not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Remaining problem areas for this article
This article has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny and a little condensation over the past couple of weeks. IMO, it should be fairly close to FA quality by now. At 75 kB (12492 words) of readable prose, it is clearly well within the guidelines for length at this point. However there are still a couple of issues remaining.
- Irrelevant and/or distracting information: For example, the following sentence appears in the Luzon subsection of the Philippines Campaign (1944–45) section:
This fact, while interesting, does not belong in this article. So MacArthur's books were destroyed. Big deal. This sentence trivializes the loss of life and livelihood that occurred in the Battle of Manila.Most of MacArthur's 8,000-volume military library, which included books inherited from his father, was lost. Nonetheless, he continued his habit of reading military history and biography until his death.
- This is an important point about the man as a general. We could move it somewhere else... Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- MacArthur's responsibility for the catastrophic failure of intelligence in the bombing of Clark Air Field on 08 December 1941 should also be mentioned. This will help to satisfy those who claim the article POV is decidedly pro-MacArthur. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was originally much longer but got cut back. The conspiracy theory is that MacArthur was under orders from Roosevelt to let the Japanese strike the first blow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- We are not required to give undue weight to fringe theories. However, the present text blames Sutherland - which would require explicit support from a third-party source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was originally much longer but got cut back. The conspiracy theory is that MacArthur was under orders from Roosevelt to let the Japanese strike the first blow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although MacArthur's support for a strong military, and his public criticism of pacifism and isolationism, made him unpopular with the Roosevelt administration. Which implies that the Roosevelt administration was pacificist and isolationist. What hash have you been smoking? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- History good articles
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- High-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Japan-related articles
- Mid-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- GA-Class Korea-related articles
- Mid-importance Korea-related articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- A-Class military history articles
- A-Class biography (military) articles
- A-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- A-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- A-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- A-Class Korean military history articles
- A-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- A-Class Southeast Asian military history articles
- Southeast Asian military history task force articles
- A-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- A-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- A-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- A-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- GA-Class Southeast Asia articles
- Mid-importance Southeast Asia articles
- WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
- A-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- GA-Class Philippine-related articles
- Top-importance Philippine-related articles
- WikiProject Philippines articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
- Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
- Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2006)