Talk:Douglas MacArthur

B17 or B18 BOLO

The article claims that MacArthur lost 35 B-17's when the Japanese attacked. However, the B-17 did not enter the war until 1942. The "B-17" planes in the Philippines were actuually B-18 BOLO planes. Someone needs to correct this mistake. See Douglas B-18 Bolo for verification Wikited (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Every source I've ever seen on this says B-17s. The B-18 was the standard AAF bomber at the time, but the B-17 was coming into service, & the RAF was receiving some at this time. A glance at Fitzsimons has around 80 in service by 12/41, & 20 B-17Cs in the hands of RAF. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Trekphiler. There is absolutely no doubt the aircraft were B-17s. To be precise, they were mostly B-17Cs and B-17Es. A total of about 155 B-17s had been delivered by the end of November 1941. --Yaush (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't realize the number was so high... (And didn't think to look at this... :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you have a conflict between this page and the Douglas B-18 Bolo page. One or the other is incorrect. My personal knowledge is that the planes in the Philippines and flying into Hawaii on the day of the Japanese attack were B18 BOLOS, not B17s, which appeared in operation the next year...Wikited (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The B-17 and MacArthur articles are fully sourced; the B-18 article is not. So they trump the B-18 article. As it happens though, we have the serial numbers of the B-17s at Clark Field: B-17C: 40-2048*, 40-2067*, 40-2072, 40-2077*; B-17D: 40-3059*, 40-3063, 40-3068*, 40-3069*, 40-3070, 40-3075*, 40-3076*, 40-3088*, 40-3093, 40-3094*, 40-3095*, 40-3096, 40-3098, 40-3099*, 40-3100. (* = destroyed in the attack on Clark Field). (See Bartch, December 8, 1941: MacArthur's Pearl Harbor, Appendix I) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And those sn alone put the lie to "entered service the next year": those are 1940 serials. I don't doubt there were B-18s in P.I. & I've seen sources saying there were upwards of 50 B-18s in P.I. (IIRC...) The 35 lost, however, are unquestionably B-17s. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My sources say that there were also ten B-18s at Clark; one was destroyed in the attack. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Faulty memory on my part, then... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.Wikited (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I've removed the neutrality tag on the article. There are three highly reliable sources in the article, and no active discussion on the talk page which questions the reliability while demonstrating other highly reliable sources that argue differently. --LauraHale (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion two sections up. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it. And I have read the article. I've looked at the sources. As the neutrality of the whole article is not in in dispute, just one sentence, I have made a tag change to make more clear what is actually in dispute as these tags have been found to be more effective according to Signpost in getting change. --LauraHale (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality questions apply to far more than just the sentence you tagged. My concerns are with the whole 'Nuclear Weapons' section and with the corresponding material in the legacy section whilst another editor has raised issues with some other material as well. Please leave the tag alone until these issues are resolved. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am restoring the tag. If you had read the discussion above you should be able to see there is a dispute over the tone of almost the entire article. It is far too uncritically positive about the subject. An article about a controversial figure like MacArthur needs to describe the controversy. --John (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"the neutrality of the whole article is not in in dispute" It most certainly is... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not unless someone comes up with something. I'm giving it a few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Action at Cote de Chatillion

In Robert Ferrell's short book The Question of MacArthur's Reputation: Cote de Chatillon, October 14-16, 1918, Ferrell establishes that MacArthur was three miles away from the action in which he was supposedly wounded. The only reference here for that wound is from MacArthur. Ferrell establishes that the action for which MacArthur was praised for leading men of his brigade in combat was actually commanded by his two regimental commanders and the commander of an assigned machine gun battalion although MacArthur received the credit. I refuse to even touch this article as I don't trust myself to be impartial. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have that book which I have read through a number of times. It is unusual in that it covers the Great War, something that has not been well covered by American historians. I also have a number of critical reviews of the book. I will respond to your concerns when I return from the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Misquote

With apologies for the banality of this correction, this article is semi-protected, so I have no other way of suggesting a change without jumping through a number of other hoops.

The quote inside the section labeled Escape to Australia and Medal of Honor is stated thus: "I came out of Bataan and I shall return." The citation for the quote clearly states the wording in the headline of the article as "I came through and I shall return." Either the quote should be as he actually stated it, or it should be modified for clarity, e.g. "I came through [Bataan] and I shall return." Whorvath (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Under "Legacy" the first sentence puts a whopper out there, " MacArthur was not considered a victorious general. " If this statement was factually true, I would still argue that he WAS "...considered..." in such a way. And, without doing original research, by no stretch of the imagination was he, what... a loser? Whatever his merits personally or professionally, I would argue the merits of his mission success rate under his decades long command. And while his losses might outweigh his positives to some, MacArthur always "returned". Whether someone might have done it better could be argued ad infinitum, but this one statement is historical bias that is clearly not objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphicrates (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in President Truman's popularity

Truman's popularity in this article was correctly listed at 23 percent, but the statement that as of 2013 it was the lowest rating for a sitting president is incorrect. President George W. Bush's rating dipped to 22 percent thus breaking Truman's record. JDH2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh2010 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the source in Public image of George W. Bush article, here, and while it indicates ratings as low as 19 per cent in the CBS poll, the article, in order to compare apples with apples, specially speaks only about the Gallup Poll. It's records are here, and the statement in the article stands, as of April 2013. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion

MacArthur was known to be a devout Christian, but there is no mention. I thought some mention of it would be helpful, especially that he was one of the initial authors of The Presbyterian Journal! http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SPJ_May_1942.jpg