This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douglas Macgregor 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 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Neutrality? Hah! Did Macgregor write this about himself? In any case, it's such a puff piece it's unreal! It is also much too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.110.131 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned user above - this must be the worst example of PR puffery that I've seen on Wikipedia, which reflects very badly on Col. MacGregor, making him look like an ultra-vain self-promoter rather than a distinguished military thinker. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
MacGregor is the world's smartest man, and also the best-looking. --68.227.131.149 (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree he's smart, but for a "puff" piece, this entry sure still gets it wrong: MacGregor was tasked to brief Gen. Franks's staff only after Gen. Franks insisted he could do nothing, according to MacGregor, in less than 6 mo., & then handed SECDEF the '91 invasion plan; MacGregor's plan was redacted until it almost disappeared, altho the article only tangentially credits MacGregor with being its author. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no doubt that Macgregor is very intelligent and capable man-I served with him prior to and during Desert Storm. There are some minor inconsistencies about his role during our campaign in Iraq but his leadership as 2nd Squadron's operations officer had a positive impact on the operation within his span of control. All of us that know Doug realizes that his ego sometimes can distract people from his brilliant insight-Toujours Prêt
Macgregor is obviously "Steelgunner 77" (read back in the history), and the story presented here is the story he tells elsewhere...that he was a martyr to the system which refused to acknowledge his brilliance. He provides no citation, or evidence at all, that his career was terminated (most people think making it to full Colonel is a pretty successful career), nor are a host of things on this page supported by any evidence...and most of them don't matter. Cite his books, a paragraph about his military career, and that's it. Otherwise, I suggest, this be deleted as self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.55.77 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this page looks like self-promotion, and I suggest that it violates Wikipedia policy on self-published sources (specifically the "unduly self-serving" clause), on NPOV, and possibly on no original research. I suggest that the page be deleted or radically shortened until someone is ready to edit it into shape. It looks like there might be a related problem in Battle of 73 Easting. --Belgrano (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not Macgregor rather a current officer in the US Army. He is a good friend and teacher. He does not self promote himself but all of the errors on my own. Right now I am stuck in Iraq. Had we only listen to his ideas we wouldn't be in this crap mess that we are in. --Steelgunner1977 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelgunner1977 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with unsigned and Phil Bridger. This is 100% self promotion. I knew Doug before the war and during the war. He was only an officer at the right place and the right time. No doubt he deserved a medal for what he achieved and he received that medal. I agree this reflects badly on Doug, but it even degrades other soldiers that achieved much more. Please have this page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Militarystrength (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
i noticed that this self-published source contains material that has closely mirrored this article. we should provide WP:inline citations but not rely too heavily in forming sections. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to justify this edit. It's simple: just because a person is notable doesn't mean that every position they ever held is worthwhile mentioning. A list of views is little more than a section on a resume, unless those individual views are rigorously verified by multiple sources to indicate that they have an actual encyclopedic relevance. I could point to such things as WP:RS and WP:V, to which one might counter that some of the things I removed were indeed reliably verified (though not by multiple sources), but I am more interested in good article writing than in interpreting guidelines and policies as broadly as possible to include as much as possible. It's a matter of editorial judgment, if you will. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
How old is he? When and where was he born? What do we know about his parents and ancestors?--Oneiros (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This article states that he "essentially directed" the battle, and that he "led" the majority of the tanks in the engagement. (in his role as squardon OO? Was he acting as the squadron commander? In the sense of being the lead tank in the formation? Not entirely clear. This is 2nd ("Cougar") Squadron, as I understand it, which it might be helpful to specify.) It's hard to relate this to the Battle of 73 Easting article which instead focuses on the actions of the various troop commanders. I don't know if that's a case of this article's editors being fond of Macgregor's book and talks on the subject, and the other article's preferring those of McMaster et al, but they would ideally refer to each other in a way that made it easier to follow between the two. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The recent additions regarding his statements on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine are misrepresenting his statements. He hasn’t spoken in favor of it. He gave tactical assessments of it. 2601:282:D00:A3B0:A4ED:44CF:F6A3:AF3E (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
soibangla (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)“So when you say stay out of it, you mean no sanctions, no military aid, just let Russia take the portion of Ukraine they want to take?” Gowdy asked. “Yes. Absolutely,” Macgregor replied. “I see no reason why we should fight with the Russians over something that they have been talking about for years; we simply chose to ignore it.”[1]
MacGregor has used this term, a euphemism used by Stalin to persecute Soviet Jews, to refer to the alleged internal enemies of America. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2146 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Having followed MacGregor for a while, I’ve never seen him write or say that Russia should take whatever it wants. Do we have a citation for this? 2601:40F:680:7880:68BD:4BA3:244B:E46E (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Having followed MacGregor for a while, I’ve never seen him write or say that Russia should take whatever it wants. Do we have a citation for this? 2601:40F:680:7880:68BD:4BA3:244B:E46E (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the reference that contains [1] to [2] 108.41.81.126 (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
References
((cite web))
: line feed character in |title=
at position 137 (help)
I see a lot of issues with this section. First off, it seems to rely heavily on sources that are frowned upon per [[2]] with sources like Daily Beast or Media Matters used.
Also, the section on “black people” and “Jews” seems suspicious. In both cases, it’s not him saying anything directly about either group of people, but both using opinion pieces which take a statement of him and infer a nefarious or secret racist meaning on them that he’s really talking about “____ people”
The section on Israel also uses Rolling Stones as a source, which isn’t allowed outside of cultural issues as highlighted above. The section on Jews is an opinion piece article from The Atlantic as well.
Thought this should be open to talk before any major changes are implemented. Digital Herodotus (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
For sources from the Atlantic it says “The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION.”
Also, my issue with the “Black” and “Jew” section is that it takes something he said and simply projects a meaning onto it. It’s opinion pieces saying “what he really meant was…” which is hardly credible. Digital Herodotus (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, for the “Jews” section, the once source given is a news letter called “Deep Shtetl” published by the Atlantic, and that article itself uses Media Matters as its source for the topic given. Digital Herodotus (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m not aware of any other sources on this topic at all. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that this slate article should replace the one currently in use. I would also suggest that this info be included in the segment on his views on immigration. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Will someone twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?
I just posted pretty much exactly what your saying here only you did it in much better detail than myself. Including opinions or trying to insinuate things about a person isn’t appropriate for what is suppose to be a biographical page about said person. Strictly the facts only and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions…. You did a good job outlining and explaining but I’m not sure it will make any difference… Sawynn449 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia but shouldn’t the information be factually based in regards to an individual and not include references to an opinion piece someone wrote about said person? Almost all notable/famous individuals will undoubtedly have less than favoring opinion pieces written about them but they are just that “someone’s OpInion”…. A page dedicated to a notable individual should be purely factual like a biography about them which then someone reading can draw their own opinions about the person. Just my two cents and a prime example of what I am referring to is this excerpt on this persons page which is clearly an opinion article Mr. Boot wrote and isn’t prudent info about Macgregor. I could find unfavorable opinion articles about almost any well known person on the Planet so that’s why this type nonsense shouldn’t be included on a bio page about someone, just facts and the reader can then draw their own opinion.
“In a column in The Washington Post by Max Boot, he was described as "a racist crackpot who is pro-Russia, anti-Merkel, anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican".[24]” Sawynn449 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
As all reading are aware, these are retroactive activist/vandalist edits in response to Colonel McGregor's critique of US foreign policy in Ukraine, and that the authors don't actually believe Colonel McGregor has a "history of attacking Jews", (etc). With that out of the way, we still need to at least attempt to follow basic Wikipedia guidelines. There are no mentions of either group in either quote. "Elites" does not equal "Jewish people" and urban class conflict does not equal "black people". This does not follow a remotely encyclopedic format. We all see the tactic being attempted, but this is so over the top it borders on parody. The section titles must have some sort of direct relationship with the content. The sources ultimately tracing back to "Media Matters" a notorious partisan hitpiece organization, is the icing on the cake. This article needs a complete rehaul until the Ukraine situation passes and the vandalists move onto their next target. 137.83.219.106 (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
He is 6 years older than stated in this article: "1947: Mr. and Mrs. Norman K. MacGregor, Jr., of 6015 Lansdowne Avenue, Philadelphia 31, Pennsylvania, announce the birth of a son, Douglas Abbott MacGregor, on January 4. Mrs. MacGregor is the former Alice M. Abbott, '42." (The Dickinson Alumnus, Band 30, Nr. 3 (February 1953), p. 26 (PDF, p. 28) --2003:E0:F723:2700:2D3D:B090:88A1:F511 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Bit thin. Questions are, e. g., when, at which year/age he joined the military and what did he the whole years before his, here, broadly described heroic deed in 1st Iraq war ? --2001:A61:401:9A01:7137:6669:837F:C9A2 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The entry in the 1953 almanach, p. 26, states explicitly the birth of Douglas Abbott MacGregor to Mr. and Mrs. Norman K. MacGregor on January 4, 1947 ! --2001:A61:401:9A01:44BA:CBBF:9110:C73A (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
"At a November 1993 exercise at the Army's National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, Lt. Col. Macgregor's unit vastly outperformed its peers against the "Opposition Force (OPFOR)". The series of five battles usually end in four losses and a draw for the visiting units; his unit won three, lost one, and drew one. Macgregor's unit dispersed widely, took unconventional risks, and anticipated enemy movements."
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
I can't imagine why an army would run simulations that routinely result in a loss for the Blue Force. The OPFOR is not supposed to win, but rather provide some pushback to create realism for the side that is practicing. OPFOR are actors, the visiting force is getting trained.
The source of this claim is an article trying to say "this Macgregor guy is amazing!" It directly compares him to Patton. To back up that claim is both the false idea that he "led" the Battle of 73 Easting (he didn't) and that he annihilated his opponent in a war game (a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of a war game). I'll trim this fluff if no one disagrees. ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Re the disputed quote, how about https://www.mediaite.com/tv/liz-cheney-slams-tucker-carlson-guest-who-continues-to-spread-putins-propaganda-and-lies-after-bonkers-segment/ and https://disinfo.detector.media/en/post/american-colonel-predicting-the-imminent-defeat-of-ukraine-has-been-doing-this-since-the-first-day-of-the-war and https://bipartisanreport.com/2022/09/23/liz-cheney-puts-rupert-murdoch-fox-news-on-notice/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
"Working as the top planner for Gen. Wesley Clark, military commander of NATO, Col. Macgregor helped devise NATO's attack on Yugoslavia."
So is he the top planner, or is he helping devise an attack? Earlier in the article, he's described only as "a top planner" which is probably a more accurate description. A colonel on a four star general's staff is not going to be the lead guy. The article has three different descriptions of his role, with two of them ("a top planner," and "helped devise") seem to disagree with the third.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
As of March 2024, he is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war