Loading AI tools
Douglas MacArthur was NOT the youngest Major General in the Army, since he attained that rank in 1925 at the age of 44 or 45. Ulysses S. Grant attained the rank of Major General shortly after the Battle of Fort Donelson in February of 1862. At the time, Grant was 39 years old, though he may have passed his 40th birthday in April of that year, he was still several years younger than MacArthur.
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Douglas MacArthur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus for the Second infobox offered (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Should the infobox have the succession of his positions or not? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Use the box with succession of his positions so there is continuity in the series
The "officeholder infobox" provides continuity with other people in the series, it displays the positions he held, none of the military information is left out. The old box "buries the lede" that he was Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)- It is important to list the offices held by the person. It is listed all the time on politician's userboxes, as well as others. Since Douglas MacArthur was a brigadier general in WWI, Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific during WWII, and Commander of the UNC during The Korean War, he should have the boxes for the reason that he held high positions, both in military and in politics. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Include offices - I think the template suitable for Chesty Puller, but not for him any more than it is for Dwight D. Eisenhower. It's partly the rank General of the Army (United States) seems above the scope of the template, partly that his additional positions between the wars or in Phillipines and Japan post-war or presidential candidacy and corporate career. But mostly I think template is intended as a convenience and help, but should never be a mandatory or limiting thing; and he, if anyone, is an example if one is able to vary when wanted or needed. Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Use the box without the succession of his positions
- This article is a featured article which has been subjected to rigorous review. Now there is an attempt to substitute a new infobox for the template:infobox military person. This infobox has been developed for military biographies. It is consistently used for military biographies. Douglas MacArthur is a military person. The use of a different infobox for a chief of staff makes the article inconsistent with other military biographies. The argument that it makes him inconsistent with of chiefs of staff is spurious; the same editor just added it to the other articles; it should be removed from them as well.
- The change allows the chief of staff navigation into the infobox; but this loses some of our purely military fields, such as the service number (used for looking up personnel records in the archives), thus diminishing the value of the infobox. Loss of our infobox loses us control over the information in military articles.
- Moreover, the added information is redundant, because it is already provided in the navigation boxes at the bottom. These have always been preferred for military subjects as they usually hold a variety of military posts over the course of their career. This is the case with Douglas MacArthur. Duplicating the navigation information in the infobox adds no value to the article.
- Note that the ArbCom infoboxes case gives the content creators priority over people wishing to add infoboxes. "The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. They should be added as part of content creation; they should not be added systematically to articles." Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I can try to get the service number to display, but it is also stored in Wikidata. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)- One of five fields lost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- All the fields are there, I performed the embed function on your template instead of mine, now it is fixed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- One of five fields lost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ditto Hawkeye7 re redundancy and superior in other info. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- What other info are you talking about, please elaborate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was referring to at least some of the five fields re Hawkeye but these appear to have been addressed as I was considering my response. My point re redundancy stands. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you tell me the name of the two fields that you cannot see, so I do not have to guess. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- What other info are you talking about, please elaborate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is re-inventing the wheel. Leave it with {{infobox military person}}. I fail to see how the alternative is superior. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- From an outside point of view, by placing the positions that he held at the top of the infobox, you make them more important than the details about the man himself. For an article about Douglas MacArthur, that sounds counter-intuitive. For example I know that Matthew Ridgway succeeded MacArthur as Supreme Commander before I even know if MacArthur is still alive. In my opinion it should be left as is. Llammakey (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- He was a soldier first and foremost, so the infobox should be the military person style. From a practical point of view, Llammakey makes the case against the office holder infobox very well. The succession boxes at the end of the article provide the necessary info on his important positions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I Guess his nicknames are the most important thing about him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Your POV or are you just being facetious? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{infobox military person}} works fine for me and there doesn't seem to be a compelling argument to change, indeed there are a number of drawbacks for the proposed alternative (as indicated above). At any rate surely we all have more constructive things we could be working on rather than fixing something that is not broken? Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see the value of the new, more cluttered infobox. There's probably an infinite amount of data points that you could add to an infobox like that: Umpteenth Valedictorian of West Texas Military Academy... Umptyfrats Adjutant of 3rd Engineer BN... etc. Including his position as the Superintendent of West Point so high up in the infobox probably gives undue weight to a role that (for MacArthur, anyway) was a relatively minor aspect of his career. A Traintalk 09:53, 11 November 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.
@Hawkeye7: Would you please clarify this edit? I am not challenging it at all, but I would like to have clarification on why it was removed, as this is a lot of material. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- ditto --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- There's some problems with the source. I have to check the book that is the source and verify whether the book is unreliable, or whether the Wikipedian has misquoted or misunderstood it. Some problems:
- "On the day before the meeting, Truman, who disliked MacArthur on the account of his ego said: 'Tomorrow, I have to talk with God's right-hand man'." The quote isn't quite right, and he didn't say it. It is from a letter to his cousin.
- "MacArthur reported to Washington that he "had plenty of troops to deal adequately with the Chinese and even with the Russians if they should prove so foolish as to enter the area at this stage" But this isn't from a report to Washington; it's from an account of a meeting by Alvery Gascoigne, the head of the British Mission, as has to be regarded as a paraphrase.
- Give me a couple of days to see if I can straighten it out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- There's some problems with the source. I have to check the book that is the source and verify whether the book is unreliable, or whether the Wikipedian has misquoted or misunderstood it. Some problems:
 | This edit request to Douglas MacArthur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A link underneath the photo of MacArthur Memorial is incorrectly taking users to Norfolk City Hall. The link should take users to the MacArthur Memorial page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Memorial) Taprobana (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013212055/http://history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-6.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-6.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223063700/http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/civwarmz.html to http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/civwarmz.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This needs to stop.
As difficult as it may be to empathize or relate, the Emperor of Japan was to hundreds of millions of Chinese and Koreans what Hitler was to the Jews.
The Chinese will forever want the justice from Japan denied to them by this man's unfortunate judgement. A one man international tribunal - 'Emperor' was a fitting title for McArthur at the time, truly.
I think the least we could do is stop 'protecting' war criminals and admit things for what they are.. the Chinese deserve their justice and the Japanese deserve to know they've been done wrong by their Emperor just like the Germans have by Hitler. Yet, 'officially', 'east-asian hitler' 'did nothing wrong'; that's rubbish, and shame on those who keep up this nonsense - you'd be morally similar to a Nazi sympathizer; and worse, that you contribute to prolonging ignorance, and pointless prejudiced nationalistic sentiments in that region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.242.160 (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
As this article is about an American general, the date format used should be mm-dd-yyyy. SMP0328. (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, per MOS:DATETIES, articles on American generals use US military format, dd-mmm-yyyy. discussion Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170212164913/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX103.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX103.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170218010521/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/index.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090811171152/http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/go6413.pdf to http://www.army.mil/USAPA/epubs/pdf/go6413.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606160748/http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/an-old-soldier-is-still-in-the-fray/1044379 to http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/an-old-soldier-is-still-in-the-fray/1044379
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as unreferenced : A Douglas MacArthur State Technical College operated in Opp, Alabama from 1965 until 2003, when it merged with Lurleen B. Wallace Community College.
In case anybody wants to take the time to find a reference. deisenbe (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Fourth paragraph says air fleet was destroyed on December 8th. That's absolutely wrong. Pearl Harbor was on December 7th.24.184.129.241 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Due to the International Date Line it was already 8 December in the Philippines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
| This edit request to Douglas MacArthur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Bataan surrendered on 9 April,[153] and Corregidor on 6 May" to "After six months of stubborn defense and had finally ran out of supplies and food, Bataan surrendered on 9 April,[153] and Corregidor on 6 May." 170.37.244.37 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I added more to this section because it lacked the details that Gen. Marshall ordered the award, authored the citation himself, and bypassed Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Which section I can add my cite in? My cite is "...in late 1950, General Douglas MacArthur’s forces crossed the thirty-eighth parallel and approached the Chinese border" The Two Koreas and the Great Powers, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 43. Shahanshah5 (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hqd7x/why_did_douglas_macarthur_retain_his_command_and/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.89.217 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I notice his honorary GCB (Knight Grand Cross Order of the Bath) is described as being from Australia. The Australian government may have presented it (imaginably while he was on their territory) but this order is a British (UK) honour which would be awardable in the British Commonwealth Dominions (like Australia). Australia did not yet have its present independent honours system. I will rephrase the references accordingly to reflect this.Cloptonson (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- No. This has already been discussed. The award was in response to Eisenhower being awarded one by the UK government for the campaign in North Africa. MacArthur argued that the award would demonstrate that the service of the Australian and American soldiers in the Papuan campaign was equally valuable. The Australian government concurred, although it was not in the habit of awarding knighthoods. The UK government disagreed, and argued that the Papuan campaign was nowhere near as important as North Africa. The Australian government then forwarded the recommendations to the King over the objections of the UK government. To say that they were awarded by the UK government flies in the face of what happened. The insignia were presented by the Governor General in a ceremony at Government House, Canberra, on 17 March 1944. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There has been much discussion in this talk page but none about the photo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MacArthur_Manila.jpg Maybe it is genuine but to me it looks like some bizarre photoshopping. Is there any way to 'citation needed' or suchlike for a photo?
I take that back. It seems that he really was known for using a eccentric pipe. Probably worth mentioning this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Scope creep and Lqqhh: instead of arguing the toss at ANEW, this is the place to be. In general, I'd support saying in the body of the article that it was a "famous speech"; after all, a number of sources refer to it as such (e.g. , ). But I would argue the language is overly florid for the lead. Likewise, there are another three references to a "famous X": "the famous picture", "famous Article 9" and "The relief of the famous general". The last two are particularly out of place. It is wholly bizarre to assume that our audience is going to have a clue as to what Article 9 is, and the last comes across as pure hagiography.
Discuss. ——SerialNumber54129 12:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is a secondary edit war, arising from stalker-like behaviour: a user undid an edit of mine four times in quick succession, having bizarrely accused me of adding unsourced content when I had added no text at all. Since then they have been spamming my talk page repeatedly, long after I made it clear they were not welcome to post there. And they reverted several other edits I'd made, out of nothing but spite.
- I don't think their behaviour was motivated by a desire to improve this article. But as the discussion has been started, this troubles me: "a number of sources refer to it as such" So what? External sources have entirely different aims to Wikipedia and entirely different styles of content. They are given so that facts can be verified, not to justify word choices. "famous" is entirely subjective and conveys no useful information. That is why it is mentioned specifically in WP:WTW, which says "Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking." If you actually look at my edit you'll see I left one instance in which did convey useful information. The instances I removed made no material difference to anything. Lqqhh (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks @SerialNumber:. I don't think WP:WTW is a suitable policy for this. This isn't puffery or some type of promotional content for celeb or a business looking looking to promote its product. It is an appropriate term for a speech that gave hope to millions of people. I don't have a view on placement. It is worth noting that being famous then is different from being famous now. scope_creepTalk 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's inappropriate. Wikipedia covers millions of famous subjects, by design; there's no need to indicate when these are famous, or which things about the subject are famous. This should be clear through the context, prose, coverage etc. (It's a bit like saying when things are notable; if it's not notable then we shouldn't be covering it.)
- For example, this passage:
At the same time, MacArthur undermined the imperial mystique when his staff released the famous picture of his first meeting with the Emperor, the impact of which on the Japanese public was electric as the Japanese people for the first time saw the Emperor as a mere man overshadowed by the much taller MacArthur instead of the living god he had always been portrayed as.
- I have several objections to this passage (it's wordy), but it explains what's notable about the image and the impact it had; there's no need to also mention casually that it is famous. Popcornduff (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps of interest is the entry on the danger of the word "famous" in the style guide. Obviously it's the Guardian's MoS and not Wikipedia's so we're not bound by it, but I agree with the logic:
If something’s famous, you don’t need to tell people; if you need to tell people something’s famous, it isn’t.
“Famously” is typically used to mean one of two things:
I know everyone knows this, but I can’t think of an original way to start so I am going to say it anyway.
Harold Macmillan, asked what the biggest challenge is for any leader, famously replied: “Events, my dear boy, events.”
You don’t know this? I do. That shows I am clever and know lots of stuff you don’t.
Reich famously declined to continue in academia, preferring to support himself via a series of blue-collar jobs.
- Popcornduff (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Things can be famous then, and not famous now. I am in general agreement with Serial Number 54129. (Hohum @) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, strictly speaking, describing it as famous wouldn't be accurate. It's fair enough to say something was famous if that really needs clarifying, but the point is that usually doesn't (as in the example I gave above). Popcornduff (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Context of it being some time ago covers it, and its sourced, but I'm not particularly against "then famous" or similar. As a chuckle, I did google search on theguardian's use of "famous" on it's site - over 200,000 entries. Clearly they haven't banned the use of the word outright, and nor does WP:WTW. MacArthur made many speeches, this was a famous one. It is useful to point this out. The other uses, as I said I agreed, are puffery. (Hohum @) 19:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is getting far off the point, but for the record, Guardian writers contradict their own style guide all the time, but usually not on purpose, and usually because a subeditor didn't challenge it - just like Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Context of it being some time ago covers it, and its sourced, but I'm not particularly against "then famous" or similar. As a chuckle, I did google search on theguardian's use of "famous" on it's site - over 200,000 entries. Clearly they haven't banned the use of the word outright, and nor does WP:WTW. MacArthur made many speeches, this was a famous one. It is useful to point this out. The other uses, as I said I agreed, are puffery. (Hohum @) 19:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, strictly speaking, describing it as famous wouldn't be accurate. It's fair enough to say something was famous if that really needs clarifying, but the point is that usually doesn't (as in the example I gave above). Popcornduff (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Things can be famous then, and not famous now. I am in general agreement with Serial Number 54129. (Hohum @) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. I agree that "famous" should be removed before "article 9", but I would want it preserved for "relief of the famous general", as it is telling the reader something they may not know. Back in 1951, the reputation of generals was at a high point, World War II having ended just six years before and every adult could remember it clearly. Back in 1942, MacArthur had become a symbol of a nation's determination to stand up to what was seen as the overwhelming might of an enemy. Whereas Harry Truman was liked, not respected, and not trusted. Today the image of the military has tarnished, and Harry Truman looks better by contrast with some of his successors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion with the editing of the title so discussions are now on here as advised. I believe the title should be changed to "Escape from the Philippines" as opposed to "Escape from australia". Should any Australian's wish to have a seperate account of the General's time in that country then it'd be great to see a whole paragraph of as there is quite a large enough account of his stay in Australia which can be another added topic. I intend to include other changes in this section by adding several historical references from the US congressional archives detailing his escape from the PI, which is important to our history and also important to his story of leaving the PI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm okay with the section name focusing on escaping the Philippines rather than getting to Australia, as leaving the battle is much more significant that the destination. This is also supported by the name of the section's main link Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines.
- However, this event only applies to the first paragraph and (oddly) the first sentence of the next paragraph:
Bataan surrendered on 9 April, and Corregidor on 6 May.
The rest of the section, a half-dozen paragraphs long, isn't about his escape, but his Medal of Honor. I suggest this all be given a new section, simply titled Medal of Honor.
- As to "other changes", we cannot comment on changes that aren't identified. The escape paragraph (and following sentence) is short, but that's not really a problem when we link the escape's main article; the current article is pretty long already. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Done Split the section into "Escape from the Philippines" (matching the main article) and "Medal of Honor". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Douglas MacArthur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
United States in the 1964 Summer Olympics
to
United States at the 1964 Summer Olympics
208.95.49.53 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. The link you're proposing relates solely to the USA's athletic performance in the 1964 Olympics, where that section of this article is discussing whether they would participate in the Olympics at all. A link to the games overall seems more appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article barely even talks about how Douglas granted immunity to the perpetrators of some of the most horrendous crimes in history. Sources point out that some of these expertiments were also done on Americans, so even from an ultra-patriotic point of view his decision would have been contentious. It was covered up and is barely discussed today, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be more prominent in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A45A:6C9A:1:3CD4:884B:22D3:D93F (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT - However, an article by a cadet at West Point is hardly a WP:RS. You'd need to find proper sources - which you can actually refer to - copying the sources used in the cadet's article without verifying them isn't enough. A short paragraph would seem to be due weight. The place for a fuller treatment would be the Unit 731 article. (Hohum @) 18:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
MacArthur certainly fumbled the ball on 8 December 1941, allowing precious hours to slip away, soon losing his best bombers. I wanted to point out some details to Nimuda who is currently expanding the article.
The narrative here of the B-17s makes it sound like they were sitting around all morning doing nothing when they were surprised and destroyed by Japanese air attack. This is not quite correct: they had been patrolling the seas looking for Japanese ships, and were back at Clark Field refueling when they were hit. But it wasn't MacArthur who had assigned patrol duties, it was Brereton itching to implement war plan Rainbow 5. MacArthur ordered him to stand down on that. The sequence of events is described on page 163 in Bloody Shambles ISBN 0-948817-50-X.
American submarines in the Philippines were not poorly trained, they were poorly equipped with the shockingly untested and unreliable weapon, the Mark 14 torpedo, and not even enough of those because of a Japanese air raid of 10 December that destroyed 233 torpedos at Cavite Navy Yard. The submariners fired plenty of torpedoes at the enemy but the torpedoes failed almost every time. The bigger torpedo picture is a story filled with criminally negligent officers of the Bureau of Ordnance at Newport Torpedo Station in Rhode Island, but I'm not asking for it to be told in MacArthur's biography. All I wanted to say is that we should not be blaming the actual fighting men in the submarines. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Nimuda (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Nimuda
I absolutely do not blame the sailors, soldiers, or airmen. MacArthur (yes, MacArthur failed terribly with the Clark Field disaster along with Brereton even though I blame it mostly on very bad timing because the B-17s were all in the air for 2 hours during the early morning but then had to land to refuel and arm with bombs because they were not properly fully fueled and armed and in 24 hour alert mode which they should have been in by Brereton), Brereton, and the Asiatic Fleet (which MacArthur had no control over, btw, but that very biased Navy-written article for the 1941-42 campaign keeps acting like MacArthur was in charge of everything including the Navy) all screwed up astronomically. But what really hurt them moreso was the terrible 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that made it impossible to expand or modernize or even build new army, air, and naval bases and also FDR's refusal to send money and proper equipment to MacArthur and the Asiatic Fleet until late 1941. However, the sailors were not prepared by their officers and doctrine (this was NOT the fighting men and women's fault) because the doctrine in 1941 to early 1942 was for the submarines to be supporting vessels of surface vessels and not to form wolfpacks like they did to an incredible degree later on starting in late 1942. With the Asiatic Fleet there can be no excuse for the modern submarines to fail other than doctrine and the torpedoes which were terrible. While so much focus is on the failures of MacArthur and Brereton the Navy absolutely screwed up also. That Navy account which is used as the source for the 1941-42 Philippines campaign in MacArthur's Wikipedia page that tried to blame everything on MacArthur for some reason didn't point out how the Asiatic Fleet's submarines completely failed and it was a sad disaster like MacArthur and Brereton with Clark Field and the supply situation. It is interesting, though, how the USN and USMC's literature and PR always act like they never failed in the Philippines 1941-42 campaign and they try to blame every defeat or failure on MacArthur, the Army and the Army Air Force. In fact I didn't even know about the failure of the two dozen modern submarines and the disastrous Mark 14 torpedoes until I had to search for it deeper recently. We never hear about the Mark 14 failures in most articles about the 1941-42 Philippines campaign.
There should be a Wikipedia article related to the failure of the submarine campaign against the Japanese fleet in December 1941 tagged to the 1941-42 Philippines campaign. That was the worst performance by the USN in U.S. history. The U.S. surface fleet getting destroyed pretty much in the Dutch East Indies was expected with old WWI relics so that was not a shocking issue. But not the modern submarines from Manila failing to sink a single Japanese ship. And yes that article would be very good to educate how the Navy fighting men and women were failed due to "saving money" by Congress, the President, the bureaucrats in the War and Navy Departments, and so forth. That Mark 14 disaster makes it known how scary and dire the situation was in 1941-42.
MacArthur "standing down" is one of the biggest mysteries in history and I think it is very strange and foolish that he stood down. But, I like the theory that since he was also accountable to the President of the Philippines and the Filipino people he was ordered to wait for the Japanese to strike first because the Philippines President believed the Japanese would respect Filipino neutrality which was officially signed and agreed to recently between Manila and Tokyo. Not everything is so easy to understand. Quezon even asked FDR to give the Philippines independence so they could declare neutrality and withdraw from the war and hopefully the Japanese would treat it like they did to Thailand during WWII.
https://www.historynet.com/why-did-macarthur-wait-for-the-enemy-to-strike-first.htm
That's a great idea. You should start a draft version of the article in your User space, and pitch it for Draft review. You clearly have a lot to say, and have the research to quickly populate a well-cited article. — sbb (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)There should be a Wikipedia article related to the failure of the submarine campaign against the Japanese fleet in December 1941 tagged to the 1941-42 Philippines campaign. That was the worst performance by the USN in U.S. history.
- I would be interested in helping with the notional article about the Philippines submarine campaign of December 1941. I have a copy of the paperback Pig Boats by Theodore Roscoe, which is a popular abridgement of the official submarine textbook United States Submarine Operations in World War II, published in 1949. Roscoe is very gung-ho about the submariners but he doesn't shy away from placing blame for failures. The whole point of the book is to warn future submariners about past failures so that they are not repeated.
- Before the war, the American submarine captains had trained only in fleet collaboration work, so it was quite a surprise to them when they were ordered to sink merchant shipping. Some authors say that the American submarine captains were not up to the new task. Roscoe says otherwise, that the sinking of merchant shipping is basically the same torpedo setup as an enemy warship, but slightly easier. Coordinating with a fleet is much more difficult. What became clear was the careful and conservative captain who had performed well in fleet exercises was not always the right guy for lone wolf hunting of enemy freighters. Some captains were re-assigned when they failed to sink ships. But the huge torpedo problem was compounding everything including the question of whether a particular captain was doing the right things. Some of the re-assigned captains might have found success with adequate torpedos. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
| This edit request to Douglas MacArthur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "He died in Washington D.C. on April 5, 1964 at the age of 84." to "He died in Washington D.C. on 5 April 1964 at the age of 84." This is to follow the correct grammatical convention first used in this article for date formats. M95au (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stephen flry.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
