Talk:Douglas MacArthur

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

was general mac arthur right or left handed?

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

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

Thoughts on the next FAC run

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Commander of/for the Allied Powers

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

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

"Never fight a land war in asia"

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

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

I would like to add this to the intro

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

— --General Douglas MacArthur Oliver P. Smith

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

````

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

Sho-Wa Emperor? Never heard of that spelling.

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

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

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

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