Talk:Douglas MacArthur

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_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 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

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:

• Douglas McArthur statue in Philippine National Museum.jpg

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.