Talk:Douglas MacArthur: Difference between revisions
Files used on this page are up for deletion |
Zabararmon (talk | contribs) →MacArthur's escape from the Philippines: new section |
||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
* [[commons:File:Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg|Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-09-20T09:06:52.521791 | Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg --> |
* [[commons:File:Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg|Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-09-20T09:06:52.521791 | Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg --> |
||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jsnueva1022|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 09:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC) |
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jsnueva1022|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 09:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
== 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 it as I belive there are quite a large enough account of his stay in Australia that can be another added topic. I intend to further include other changes in this section by adding several historical references from the US congressional archives detailing his escape from the PI, which is important to our history and also important to his story of leaving the PI. |
Revision as of 12:14, 21 January 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douglas MacArthur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
Frequently asked questions Controversies, praise, and criticism Q1: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A1: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT. Q2: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A2: Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy says that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about MacArthur in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q3: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Other issues Q4: This article is over 100kb long, WP:SIZE says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A4: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 100kB of readable prose (which corresponds to about 10,000 words), not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of December 2023, this article had about 19,300 words of readable prose (114 kB according to prosesize tool), which is over the limit. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q5: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?
A5: In all probability what you added was trivia, unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly. Articles on Wikipedia require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to an article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion. Q6: I tried to edit this article but couldn't. Why?
A6: This article has been indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism or violations of content policy. Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{editsemiprotected}} template if necessary to gain attention. They may also request the confirmed userright by visiting Requests for permissions. |
![]() | Douglas MacArthur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Douglas MacArthur is part of the Command in the South West Pacific Area series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douglas MacArthur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
Toolbox |
---|
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.
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)
Recent edit war
@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. [1], [2]). 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)
- 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...?! ——SerialNumber54129
- Maybe one in every five or six times in the Grauniad, it's warranted. like here. ;) (Hohum @) 19:18, 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)
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)
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 it as I belive there are quite a large enough account of his stay in Australia that can be another added topic. I intend to further 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.
- Wikipedia featured articles
- FA-Class Featured topics articles
- Wikipedia featured topics Command in the South West Pacific Area featured content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (military) articles
- High-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- FA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- FA-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- FA-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- FA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- FA-Class Southeast Asian military history articles
- Southeast Asian military history task force articles
- FA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- FA-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- FA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- FA-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- FA-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- FA-Class Japan-related articles
- Mid-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- FA-Class Korea-related articles
- Mid-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- FA-Class Southeast Asia articles
- Mid-importance Southeast Asia articles
- WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
- FA-Class Philippine-related articles
- High-importance Philippine-related articles
- WikiProject Philippines articles
- FA-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Low-importance Cold War articles