Talk:Douglas Macgregor

POV tag

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 went ahead and removed the tag as I've made edits to clean this article up. Please feel free to comment if any specific problems stand out to anyone. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2010 (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)

Sources

• NYT news search.
• NPR news search. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has copies of these sources — Paul Greenberg, "A Tale of Two Colonels", Jewish World Review, 5 May 1999. — Richard Newman, "Renegades finish last", U.S. News and World Report, 28 July 1997, pages 33-35 (whole article preferred). please email them to me and leave a note at my talk page thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Newman piece: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/970728/archive_007519.htm The Greenberg article is also online. 98.233.155.56 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

self published source

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)

A note

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)

Basic data missing

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)

Date of birth apparently wrong as given; see http://archives.dickinson.edu/sites/all/files/files-dmagazine/DCAM_030_3.pdf p.26 top left ("Mr. and Mrs. Norman K. MacGregor, Jr., of 6015 Lansdowne Avenue ...") 01:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.115.103 (talk)

Role in 73 Easting

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 source given for his role is U.S. News & World Report. Somehow this iffy-looking website is on our list of perennial reliable sources, but it seems fairly iffy to me. Here's the relevant part in full. "During the gulf war he was the squadron operations officer who essentially directed the Battle of 73 Easting, an early and telling encounter with an Iraqi Republican Guard unit. In a 23-minute burst of fighting, a troop of 10 U.S. tanks and 13 Bradley fighting vehicles destroyed nearly 70 Iraqi armored vehicles, with no "friendly" casualties. [\\] Macgregor orchestrated the battle from a tank near the front, taking risks that could have been criticized had the fight turned ugly. He was so involved in the shooting that he didn't request artillery support or report events to superiors until the battle was virtually over, according to one of his superior officers." First, there's the "essentially directed" thing. I dunno what that means, but he wasn't in command of the squadron, nor any of the ACR troops. Those officers all he mentioned in our own article on the battle and in the sources used for that: Macgregor doesn't. This sounds like puffery to me, and if this site's the only source for anything along those lines, it should be in a directly attributed quote, if we use it at all. Second, the next sentence switches from talking about the squadron to talking about an unspecified single troop -- which again, Macgregor wasn't in command of. I assume this is Eagle Troop, HR McMaster's command. But it muddles the numbers involved to switch from one to another in mid-par, either out of general confusion, or to make the odds sound yet more impression. But our current article here uses still others, with no explicit source, perhaps in an attempt to reconcile with the squadron (I believe actually four troops in total). I'm going to trim back and slap on some cn tags, in some proportion I haven't quite determined yet: suggestions welcome. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Macgregor orchestrated the battle" is some colorful language from the journalist. The operations officer is third in command of a squadron. The commander and the XO (the 2nd) both have general duties over the entire squadron, but the OO is confined to "operations" which basically means the combat stuff with little of the logistics. Still that doesn't mean he's calling the shots. On a ship, the third in command is the navigation officer who is in charge of where the ship is going. He focuses on that task, but isn't in charge of deciding where to go, just how to get there.

So is the OO in charge of where the squadron is going? No, instead he makes the plans in accordance with the "commander's intent." Everyone down to the lowest level is supposed to be thinking "what is the commander trying to do." I once served on a vehicle whose driver felt he was the most important part of the crew, he steered the clunky thing. But the gunner directed him in accordance with what the vehicle commander wanted him to do. Does that make the gunner the one "orchestrating" the vehicle movement?

There are numerous officers who made a career off 73 Eastings, and Macgregor is one of them. But it seems a stretch to say he played a pivotal role. He was a staff officer in the squadron, in laymen's terms we could call him chief of staff. He was a vital part of the unit, but not necessarily the battle.

TLDR: I think we need to ease back on the self-promotion.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Dishonest presentation

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)

“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]

soibangla (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The section is pretty extensively sourced. Now we do say "support" in wikivoice, and you might -- and evidently are going to -- quibble with that as an editorial choice. Perhaps you have some other suggested wording that captures the essence of his statements, in which he variously tells the Ukrainians to surrender, that their elected leader is a puppet, that the Russians need to bomb and kill more, and that the US and the West should do "absolutely" nothing about it? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

“Rootless Cosmopolitans”

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)

Yeowch. Also reported on by Slate and by Media Matters, so I think clearly notable. Might need to be directly attributed, at least in the case of MMfA, but givem all three... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No source for suggesting Russia be allowed to take whatever it wants

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)

No source for suggesting Russia be allowed to take whatever it wants

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

Change the reference that contains to 108.41.81.126 (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Twitter is not a reliable source. I'm inclined to remove it. Lemonaka (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Done, after checking source. Lemonaka (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Views section

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)

Some of the sources like CNN and the Atlantic are generally reliable, but perhaps better sources could be found to replace the marginally reliable sources. Llll5032 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific. The "black people" section solely cites CNN, which is clear RS. The "Jews" section cites the Atlantic which is generally RS, but if this is an opinion piece maybe should be attributed. You might be right about Rolling Stone though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 16 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)

Do other RS corroborate or dispute the claims? Llll5032 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Jews section does not "project a meaning". It accurately transcribes his own words. It describes the term rootless cosmopolitan as a Soviet antisemitic term, which is what all of these sources say and seems undeniable to me. The blacks section does not "project a meaning". It accurately transcribes his own words, and mentions that reliable sources have described these words as a version of the Great Replacement theory. I've added additional sources which back up the Atlantic etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:54, 24 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)

And what do other reliable sources say? Llll5032 (talk) 17:51, 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)

Slate also noted the speech, with a similar explanation, and attributing to MM. Llll5032 (talk) 18:22, 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)

• The biggest issue with this section is that it's way too long and a bit overwhelmed with recentism. It needs to be summarized with due weight. A good rule of thumb is to consider the twenty year rule.

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?

This is a common mistake editors make when tackling articles about WP:BLP, especially in regards to politics. There should be a section for his opinions expressed on TV, but it shouldn't be more than a few of paragraphs and it should be in line with the other things for which he's notable. That could change if editors decide that this person is more notable for his opinions than being a retired U.S. Army colonel and government official, and an author, and consultant. I hope this helps! - Nemov (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We need to follow secondary sources. He has not been active as anything other than a pundit for years now and was appointed to senior office by President Trump, so he became noteworthy as a commentator. We should expand the military career section, but not by contracting the sourced material in the views section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

Question

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)

Sections on "Jews" and "black people" make no apparent mention of Jews or black people.

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)

Birthday

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)

Military career

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)

born 1947 / not 1953

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)

Captain Douglas Abbott MacGregor, U.S. Army, b. Jan. 4, 1953 (p. 83).
In my opinion, we need to remove the date of birth from the article if it is not possible to identify a person with high accuracy (WP:LIVE) Proeksad (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

NTC rotation

"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)

Cheney quote

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)

Mediate is WP:MREL and Bipartisan Report is unusable. Is Disinfo Detector a RS? Llll5032 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think probably none of these are any good for a BLP (although provide a little bit of evidence for this being noteworthy). But I don’t see a problem with the Newsweek citation alone. The quote is verifiable, as the primary source is embedded in the Newsweek article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A top planner vs THE top planner

"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)