Talk:Douglas MacArthur/Archive 6

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.

Infobox
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)


 * 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)
 * Two left. Why can we see the error messages and not him? Is there an option that needs to be switched on? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:40, 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)


 * This is re-inventing the wheel. Leave it with . 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)


 * 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  Train talk 09:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit
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&#39;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)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017
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)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"protecting the emperor" ?
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)

Date formatting
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)
 * I stand corrected. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur State Technical College
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)

Opening Paragraphs
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bataan and Corregidor did not surrender because they ran out of supplies and food, but because the Japanese broke through.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Medal of Honor
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)

Help
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)

MacArthur success and failires
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)

GCB from UK
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)

Photo
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)

Recent edit war
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. —— SerialNumber  54129  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 . 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_creep Talk  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 |Guardian 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)
 * Maybe one in every five or six times in the Grauniad, it's warranted. like here. ;) (Hohum @ ) 19:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Subbie? Whats a subbie...?! ——  SerialNumber  54129

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg

MacArthur's escape from the Philippines
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&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

✅ Split the section into "Escape from the Philippines" (matching the main article) and "Medal of Honor". Hawkeye7  (discuss)  23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
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. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Unit 731
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)

December 1941 failures: bombers and submarines
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 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. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 00:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021
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)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Dismissal and "constitutional crisis"
The article, in the section concerning MacArthur's dismissal, states that the dismissal caused a constitutional crisis. The controversy that followed the dismissal should not be called a constitutional crisis because it does not meet the definition. This claim is supported by a single source which merely states that an unnamed "observer of the national scene" called it a constitutional crisis. This is not a sufficient source to make this claim in the article. A constitutional crisis is a problem that a polity's constitution is unable to resolve. There is no evidence that this event meets that criterion. As the relevant paragraph in this article states, the dismissal was well within the constitutional powers of the President. No evidence given in the source says otherwise or suggests any particular constitutional problem that arose from MacArthur's dismissal. Editor1205 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that definition before, but the US Senate describes the dismissal as a constitutional crisis,, as so do many sources. While by convention (it isn't explicitly stated) the president has the power to remove officials that he appoints, this cuts across the powers of Congress if it is used to retaliate against officials communicating with Congress. This played against the broader constitutional issue of whether the president had the right to commit the country to a major war, or only Congress has the power to declare war (as the Constitution states). You are quite right though in that there was a constitutional mechanism to resolve the crisis in that Congress could have impeached Truman. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is explicitly stated in the Constitution that the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, meaning that they have supreme authority over its operations. You're correct that only Congress can formally declare war. But Congress has no constitutionally prescribed role in the direction of the military's operations, including the appointment and management of generals and theater commanders. MacArthur's dismissal thus did not raise any relevant constitutional challenges to the balance of power between the executive and the legislature. I also want to point out that MacArthur was dismissed for his unpredictable behavior that was contrary to the directives of his superiors, not for communicating with Congress; the Joint Chiefs unanimously agreed that the relief was a military necessity. The issue of whether Truman had the constitutional right to send troops to Korea or escalate the conflict is an entirely separate question; I am referring to the section of the article saying that MacArthur's firing led to a constitutional crisis. Impeachment was discussed and certainly was a possibility, but it also would have required a specific crime or unconstitutional abuse of power to have occurred. Also, the US Senate source you gave actually describes the incident as a "constitutional crisis averted" . Likewise, the second source only uses the term briefly to describe the crisis presented by MacArthur's insubordination, and states that "President Truman's dismissal of General MacArthur has been vindicated on Constitutional grounds." Please check your sources more carefully. I once again argue that the term is used inaccurately in this article and should be changed. Editor1205 (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Date format
Please change it to mdy. --2603:7000:2143:8500:EC64:FB79:7C07:7BDE (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article uses the proper format for US military biographies. See WP:MILFORMAT. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"General McArthur" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect General McArthur and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Public Image in the Philippines
Although this article mentions his reputation as a revered war hero in the United States, shouldn't it also cover his similar reputation in the Philippines as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex3427 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source on the subject? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hawkeye7 I'll try to dig up more sources, but I have this Time article which is considered to be a 'generally reliable' source. Vortex (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Split?
Should this article be split? At 235 Kb it's well past the size limit for it, and seems to take an age to load up when editing. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. The article is only 111 KB. On Wikipedia we use readable prose to measure prose size, not markup. (WP:PROSESIZE) What we have already done is the create subarticles: Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines, Relief of Douglas MacArthur, Service summary of Douglas MacArthur, List of places named for Douglas MacArthur. So all you need to do it write a new subarticle, and the main article can be reduced a bit. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying: I have to say I’m a bit unclear about the difference between readable prose and markup, especially if more than half this article (by that reckoning) is markup. I was mainly posing the question because the page was slow loading up when I was editing. Surely the quantity of the markup stuff affects loading time though, doesn’t it? But another angle on the page size, perhaps, is that at least one of the sub-articles (Douglas MacArthur in World War II) seems not as long as the section it is derived from: Would it not be appropriate to trim the WWII section here to a summary? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The size of the markup has little if any effect on the reader. The reason is that the majority of the download is images. The one in the infobox alone is 2.2 MB, so twenty times the size of the markup in the article. The markup is affected by templates, and the use of non-ASCII characters, which take up more space. We can run into technical problems if the number of templates in an article gets too big, but that is not the case here. There is some argument that comprehensibility could be a problem if an article is large, but in most cases the reader is will either read the entire article however large it is, or else skip to the information they are looking for. In neither case are they better served by arbitrarily splitting the article. Since the article is a featured article, subarticles must be of similar standard before we will consider reducing the the main article. Douglas MacArthur in World War II is nothing more than the section that used to be in the article. No work has been done on it; all the maintenance has been concentrated on the main article. I will arrange for its deletion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the article does not need to be split. In my opinion, the article is an excellent one about someone with an exceptionally relevant history. I was going to suggest deleting any reference to Douglas MacArthur in World War II as it had not been edited in five years. Deleting the article itself is an even better idea. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh! Well, thank you for the explanations. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Times don't add up
The article says that "At 03:30 local time on 8 December 1941 (about 09:00 on 7 December in Hawaii), Sutherland learned of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and informed MacArthur." It then says "At 12:30, nine hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor, aircraft of Japan's 11th Air Fleet achieved complete tactical surprise...". The attack on Pearl Harbor began at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time (6:18 p.m. GMT). This means that the surprise attack on the Philippines happened ten hours, not nine hours, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. This would seem to be supported by this source, which says "Ten hours had elapsed since the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." However, the first quoted sentence above is only cited to a college thesis, so I'm not sure of its reliability. Can anyone verify these times with strong reliable sources and either correct the first sentence or the second (whichever is wrong)? Nosferattus (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023
Please change X Native American codetalkers to Y Navajo codetalkers. 2603:B010:FFFD:53:49B5:BD2D:D0CC:200A (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the photo's original caption only 2 of the 5 Native Americans in the photo are Navajo. Nosferattus (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023
Add General of the Army hyperlink above Douglas MacArthur's name on the right profile side, similarly to George C. Marshall and Omar Bradley's pages. Historygeek64 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Not Really Similar to Operation Paperclip
"MacArthur gave immunity to Shiro Ishii and other members of Unit 731 in exchange for germ warfare data based on human experimentation. This was similar to Operation Paperclip,"

This is not the same, because it can reasonably be argued that production of armaments is a normal part of war, whereas inhuman experimentation on civilians and others is a war-crime, and the shameful failure to prosecute war criminals could even be considered a crime. This needs to be rewritten to make clear the nature of the choice that MacArthur made which is against all morality. The lengths that they went to to cover it up demonstrates their guilt. Muchado (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the references to Operation Paperclip because they are not supported by the cited source, and re-worded what is left to match what the source does say. Failure to prosecute may be shameful but it is not considered a crime. It is quite common for district attorneys to decline to prosecute simply because they are short of time, personnel or money. MacArthur's role is not so clear-cut; he submitted reports and recommendations, but decisions were taken in Washington. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you. Muchado (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As an added note to this topic, many of those Operation Paperclip scientists were Nazi Party members or SS officers like SS-Sturmbannführer Wernher von Braun. Paperclip scientists and members also employed slave labor and assisted with the Holocaust, which is absolutely not merely "producing armaments as a normal part of war". Unit 731 in a similar situation used their "experiments" to create bioweapons that they used as weapons of war on Chinese soldiers and civilians. Why is there an attempt to defend what happened in Paperclip and claim that it was "not as bad" as Unit 731? Also, President Truman and Fort Detrick (the bioweapons research facility for the U.S. military) were the ones who truly made the decision to grant immunity to Unit 731, not MacArthur, yet MacArthur gets solely blamed for some reason.--Nimuda (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023
Requesting someone add at The troops on Bataan knew that they had been written off, and point Dugout Doug and Dugout doug to it. I don't think there's an NPOV problem as it's a nickname troops under his command applied. Redirecting to the anchor gives the context. 47.155.41.201 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It's not clear why this anchor needs to be added, pointing to a nickname which is only mentioned twice in the whole article. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * MacArthur in WWI was nicknamed "Bravest of the Brave" by his 42nd (Rainbow) Division soldiers and nicknamed the "Fighting General" by many American and French generals including General Pershing, and his men even gave him a special cigarette case with "Bravest of the Brave" engraved on it. I don't understand why the people who want to talk so much about 62-year-old semi-retired "Dugout Doug" (this nickname was originally coined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his political machine and not by any soldier in the field) don't want to also mention "Bravest of the Brave"/"Fighting General" and his 7 Silver Stars, 2 Distinguished Service Crosses, 2 Croix de Guerre and French Légion d'honneur for his WWI service. He earned all of these medals as a colonel and brigadier general. He already proved in WWI when he was 38 years old that he could fight in the field.--Nimuda (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Douglas MacArthur in popular culture?
Not that I'm too knowledgeable on it but I noticed his appearance in the videogame Hearts of Iron IV is not mentioned. For those who dont know he is a general for the United States who can also come to power for any political party except the Communist States of America. ImSpook&#39;d (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Length
At over 18k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. See WP:TOOBIG. At the time of the last discussion that I could identify, the length was "only" 12k words of readable prose, which is still quite long but at a lower tier according to TOOBIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I already created two subarticles, Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines and Relief of Douglas MacArthur, and the service summary and awards were moved into their own articles. The question therefore is: what is not covered adequately by the article that could benefit from its own more detailed subarticle? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article at present is too detailed, rather than that detail is missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. Those details are what constitutes the encyclopedia. Details can only be removed if they are unsourced, undue, inaccurate, irrelevant, inappropriate or duplicates information contained in another article. My feeling is that some material could be moved or trimmed but WP:TOOBIG is never a valid reason to do so. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, but one which serves a general readership rather than a specialist audience. Details can be moved or removed for a variety of reasons, when appropriate to serve the needs of the encyclopedia's readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia serves both a general and a specialist audience. It is not considered likely that a general audience with find much of use in K2-18b, Steinitz's theorem or Monothelitism. In the case of Douglas MacArthur, we may have a general reader seeking broad information about the subject (for whom the lead is provided), a reader seeking a broad knowledge of the subject (who will likely read the whole article) or a specialist reader seeking particular knowledge (who will read through the relevant section). Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly - except, as explained at WP:DETAIL, the specialist reader is served by subarticles, and the broad-knowledge reader by an appropriately summary-style main article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see an issue with the length because the article is well-organized. It is too long to read in a sitting, but it is easy to navigate. I think the tag can come down. Srnec (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would make more sense to move some of that excess length to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in the meanwhile the tag at the top is more annoying than the length. Most readers do not want to read the whole thing "comfortably". They want to find what they are interseted in and read just that. This article makes it easy. Most sections are of a reasonable length. Srnec (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most sections are longer by themselves than the average non-stub article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have figures on that? I know that the average article is 638 words (nearly twice what it was ten years ago), but that includes stubs, which account for more than half. The average word count of the 6,303 featured articles is 4,384 words. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Subtract 3,802,265 stubs, and 4.4 billion words gets an average of 1526 for the official article count of almost 6.7 million. Even if you go with the average FA number, World War II still exceeds that. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The WWII section has two levels of subdivision. Srnec (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023
change “joint session” to “joint meeting” 73.200.216.62 (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Joint session is the correct wording for meeting of both sides of congress. RudolfRed (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * no. they are different. 73.200.216.62 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there is a difference between a "joint session" and a "joint meeting", however, for this edit request to be successful, you need to establish that the event in question was in fact a "joint meeting" and not a "joint session". Also, which of the three instances of "joint session" in this article would you like changed to begin with? In summary: Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Recoil16 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the sources already cited on this page correctly refer to the address as a joint meeting. (years of macarthur.) no need to cite anything else. every mention of the joint session should be changed. 73.200.216.62 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This edit is being actively objected to and thus precludes it from the edit request process. Disagreeing with the originally reviewing editor is not legitimate grounds to re-open it, even if the objection is substantively correct (to clarify I have not reviewed this issue and make no claim as to whether "joint session" or "join meeting" is correct). Please build consensus or make use of dispute resolution processes. — Sirdog (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, here is the primary source https://www.congress.gov/82/crecb/1951/04/19/GPO-CRECB-1951-pt3-18-2.pdf 73.200.216.62 (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Investigation of MacArthur firing by Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees not mentioned.
These hearings were important in revealing Macarther's true character at the time. 98.121.86.196 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023
In the Between the Wars section, there is a typo, instead of MONTH it is spelled MONTB Me153970 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias on Labor reform
The author seems to attribute much of Japan's labor movement to MacArthur, however it has been proven time and time again that Burati was the major actor, and MacArthur actively promoted anti-labor practices, such as the removal of the right to strike by public sector employees. MacArthur was largely detrimental to the labor movement, laying off hundreds of thousands of workers, yet the language in this article suggests that he was a positive force. 73.24.178.100 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide sources. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Price, John. “Valery Burati and the Formation of Sohyo during the U. S. Occupation of Japan.” Pacific Affairs, vol. 64, no. 2, 1991, pp. 208–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2759960. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023. 2601:500:8182:4D80:91EA:5209:EBC4:AE61 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not hard to find that there is a lot of deeds attributed to MacArthur that he did not perform. Immensely disappointed in the bias of this section. 2601:500:8182:4D80:91EA:5209:EBC4:AE61 (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Spelling errors
There is a spelling error on this page

It is in the category of Between the Wars 2A00:23C5:DAE5:4C01:C8C8:285:8EF1:31AC (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The original: "A series of disasters followed, starting with the destruction of much his air forces on 8 December 1941"

Should be: "A series of disasters followed, starting with the destruction of many of his air forces on 8 December 1941"

--Newboy674 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't use the correction presented, but otherwise fixed the sentence. — Sirdog (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Datu Mustapha bin Datu Harun
In the official Bahasa Melayu wiki for Datu Mustapha, it mentions General Macarthur aiding him in fighting the Japanese and some other crazy stuff. But in the English version, it mentions absolutely nothing about it. The Bahasa Melayu one also has 0 citations about Mustapha's past during WW2. Can an official editor look into this? Never again pls (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There also seems to have some amount of bias too, as the malay wiki mentions nothing about his controversies. Never again pls (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Confusing syntax in Early Life section
The syntax of the opening of the early life section is confusing in that it makes it sound as though Arthur MacArthur Jr. received his Medal of Honor after Douglas' birth, not before.

"A military brat, Douglas MacArthur was born 26 January 1880, at Little Rock Barracks in Arkansas, to Arthur MacArthur Jr., a U.S. Army captain, and his wife, Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur (nicknamed "Pinky"). Arthur Jr. was a son of Scottish-born jurist and politician Arthur MacArthur Sr. Arthur Jr. 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, and be promoted to the rank of lieutenant general."

This should read:

"A military brat, Douglas MacArthur was born 26 January 1880, at Little Rock Barracks in Arkansas, to Arthur MacArthur Jr., a U.S. Army captain, and his wife, Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur (nicknamed "Pinky"). Arthur Jr. was a son of Scottish-born jurist and politician Arthur MacArthur Sr. Arthur Jr., had received the Medal of Honor for his actions with the Union Army in the Battle of Missionary Ridge during the American Civil War, and later be promoted to the rank of lieutenant general." Faction123 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Douglas MacArthur was born on 26 January 1880. His father was awarded the Medal of Honor on 30 June 1890. Douglas was ten years old at the time. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: length banner and other FA concerns
I stumbled on this article to consider it for WP:OTD, but rejected it because of the length banner at the top. I read through the discussion from July and agree with Nikkimaria that the length is a problem for several reasons:


 * Large amounts of text make the article hard for some readers to load the page and scroll through text (because the side bar is too small)
 * Large amounts of text are discouraging for readers to read, because they have to read through lots of text to finish reading information about an event, rather than read a summary that fulfils their interest. If someone is interested in more specific information, they can find it in one of the sources cited.
 * Large sections with multiple paragraphs makes information hard for the reader to find information they are looking for within a section.

I know that specialists like more information, but Wikipedia is written for a general audience, of which there are more of then people with a specialist interest. Specialists are also more likely to seek out additional sources (like biographies) while general readers will look at the length of this article and not read anything, defeating the purpose of writing an article.

A couple of suggestions for text that might be summarised or moved to other articles:


 * The number of block quotes should be reduced and the information summarised or removed. If a reader is looking for a specific information, they will often skip the blockquotes and just read the subsequent paragraph. Many of these blockquotes are giving excellent description of MacArthur's thoughts or someone's thoughts about MacArthur, but are not necessary in an encyclopedia article. For example, the article doesn't need a whole paragraph blockquote of MacArthur's description of his Aug. 2 observations of the Champagne-Marne offensive: this is too much detail.
 * There is lots of detail in many places that, due to the vast amount of text in the article, is not needed. Wikipedia articles should be summaries of the person's biography and the detail can be trimmed and generalised. I would do this myself, but I think that would be more disruptive than useful. Perhaps a subject-matter expert can do this instead.

I also have some other concerns:
 * The first blockquote in "Rainbow Division" is not introduced, the author is not given in the prose, and it is not in quotes. A reader has to look at the footnote to see where the quote was from. With all of this in mind, a reader might think that this is Wikipedia text, not a quote from another author, which might run afoul of WP:PLAGIARISM. I suggest that this quote be summarised and rewritten.
 * After the article is trimmed, I suggest that any section that is more than 4 paragraphs be broken up into sub-headings. This will make information easier for the reader to find.
 * Why are the sources in "Further reading" not used as inline citations? Can these be used to replace lower-quality or older sources used in the article? If they are lower quality than the sources already used, why are they included here?
 * There are lots of sources that I think can be replaced or removed: history.com, YouTube videos, and newspaper articles from the time period that should be replaced by more current references.
 * Some of the include notes. These should be moved to a separate "Notes" section and cited (and the citations moved to their own section, maybe titled Inline citations?)
 * Some of the sources have direct quotes from the source. I think this was used more often in Wikipedia articles, but has fallen into disuse due to plagiarism concerns and it no longer being necessary (the reader can verify the information themselves from the source). I suggest that these are removed.

Sorry for the long post. Pinging previous participants Other commentators are also welcome. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your well-considered suggestions. I promise to consider and take action.
 * The notion that "large amounts of text make the article hard for some readers to load the page and scroll through text" has been thoroughly debunked. That readers read the article from top to bottom has also been. Studies have indicated that many readers comb the articles looking for specific information while those less interested merely read the summary in the lead. In this article the evidence is that most of the 1.5 million page views per year are from readers are looking for specific information on a particular aspect of MacArthur's life.
 * Wikipedia articles are not summaries of the person's biography per se; that is contrary to our policy and the first of our five pillars, which holds that Wikipedia is a written compendium of knowledge. What we are supposed to do by policy is create ever more detailed subarticles (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) but this has recently been challenged as well, because search engines direct the readers to the main article even when a subarticle exists on precisely the topic they are looking for. I have created a couple of subarticles, but that fact has stymied suggestions of creating more. Over time the article has slowly grown, with editors continually adding more material, particularly to the Occupation of Japan and World War I sections, which obviously fall into their particular sphere of interest.
 * I will action your specific points. I note that there is currently no consensus as to how large sections should be. There is also a debate going on at the moment about explanatory footnotes and whether they should be included with the citations. My personal opinion is that explanatory footnotes need to be justified, with a reason why they cannot be in the body. : With reference to the "Further reading" section, these are books that myself and others have recommended. They could be used in the article for inline citations. I will consider each one.
 * I agree about the use of direct quotes from the source in the footnotes. This is inconsistent and unecessary.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)