Talk:Edward Almond

message: The last few additions added by the anon user while appearing like vandalism are actually not.  They do not conform to MoS and are not sourced as they were added but I know they are coming from David Halberstam's The Coldest Winter.  I was actually going to update this page as it is way too glowing about Almond without mentioning some of his many flaws like being MacArthur's lackey and almost getting the 1st Marine Division (not to mention X Corps) wiped off the map due to arrogance and recklessness in the winter of 1950.  I have just not gotten around to it yet.--07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent additions

message: This article is hardly "glowing" about Almond, indeed it reeks of hostile POV.  It should be revised to present the facts and let them speak for themselves. 12.214.62.215 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusations of racism at least need some kind of source, because they make him seem like a complete satan, especially by modern standards. The only one provided is this link at JStor, which is defunct. Google only returns 57 results for "edward almond racist", "racism" etc, most of which seem to be sourced from Wikipedia's article. I assume the accusations come from The Coldest Winter, which makes up the rest of the returns, but they still need citations. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: In relation to the above unsigned comment left by Militaryartist, I note that Stanton has been suspected of  "Stolen Valor" issues and of removing files from official archives. Any article on Stanton would need to discuss these issues in order provide balance to his war service, alleged or otherwise, and his written work. Zawed (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Shelby Stanton is totally innocent of the issues and removal complaints cited above. which are based on gossip. In contrast to New Zealand perhaps, a person is considered innocent in the United States unless convicted at trial. There is no evidence Stanton conducted such acts, and he has never been charged nor convicted. The censorship of Shelby Stanton from an article on Edward Almond based on suspicions cast in a self-published book without documented sources as to its specific accusations (i.e., what exact "stolen valor issues" or what proof of improperly removed documents) is unacceptable professional bias. A reasonable and objective standard for historians is expected, not participation in a media mob lynching based on emotionally-driven and fabricated premises.Militaryartist (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Most democratic countries have a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Besides, you miss the point. The allegations look to be widely reported and therefore would need to be discussed in an article on Shelby Stanton, irrespective whether you think the allegations are false, since that also contributes to his notability. Contrary opinions that have been reported in reliable sources can also be included in the article. In the meantime, the material that was cited to Stanton has been cited to another source, more recent source. Stanton doesn't add anything over and above that. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I appreciate you toning down your comments from your original response. Referring to some sort of conspiracy isn't helping your cause and neither is making accusations of professional jealousy. In fact, this suggests some sort of connection between you and Stanton since it seems a highly personal viewpoint. If so, I would refer you to WP:COI. Regardless, another source has been used for the section where Stanton was previously relied upon. As noted above, it doesn't add anything extra. Regards, Zawed (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This page does not convey the true incompetence of Ned Almond. He was, by many measures, one of the worst men ever to reach the rank of Lieutenant General. Halberstam's account is only one of many that show Almond in a very unfavorable light. Racist, a lackey, overbearing, overconfident, and incompetent are all adjectives that belong in this article. Those are supported by the historical record. Think of it this way: is it a "hostile POV" to say that a certain German leader was evil and inhumane? Sometimes the truth is brutal and harsh. Ned  Almond earned his reputation with the loss of so many men under his command due to his poor performance. If not for O.P. Smith, it would have been far worse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.220.26 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ned Almond

message: Having read about the 92nd Division in Italy and Almond's shotty performance in Korea, it really sheds light on one of history's most clownish examples of a field commander. He was very lucky to have been an American general during World War II. If he'd been under Stalin, he'd been placed in front of a firing squad and shot! He was a disgrace!! If he'd commanded the 92nd Infantry Division like a worthy general, he'd never would've quarterbacked blame in his soldiers. No commander that is worth anything does that!! He was a racist and also a stupid racist!!!! The Chosin Reservoir Campaign in 1950 shows how he almost led the 1st Marine Division to obliteration!!! Read Breakout by Martin Russ on the Chosin Reservoir Campaign to get further insight!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldierofchicago (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History Bears Witness to Almond's Criminal Incompetence!!!

message: In his account of the Italian Campaign of World War II, Rick Atkinson describes Almond as someone who "would oppose integration of the armed forces until his dying day" (383).
Atkinson quotes Almond as follows, "The white man ... is willing to die for patriotic reasons. The Negro is not." And "No white man wants to be accused of leaving the battle line. The Negro doesn't care .... People think that, being from the south we don't like Negroes. Not at all. But we understand his capabilities. And we don't want to sit at the table with them" (383).
Atkinson writes that "[i]n a top secret report after the war, Almond asserted that black officers lacked 'pride, aggressiveness, [and] a sense of responsibility'" (383).
Atkinson, Rick. The Day of Battle. Holt Paperbacks, New York: 2007.
Jlaroe (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found an updated link to the information page for the "Journal of Military History" article and put it in "External links". However, this link includes only citation information and the first page of the article. RobDuch (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting Material on Almond's Racism

message: I just added a "citation needed" by the note in the mainspace stating that he was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Using the mapping program on the ANC website only yields a result for Edward Mallory Almond, Jr. who died in 1945. Bob305 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have formatted your citation, Thank you. I also submitted a question on the official ANC website as to whether father is in the same plot as son. Bob305 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent--nice working with you, albeit briefly! :) LHMask me a question 01:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arlington National Cemetery 

message: Most, perhaps all, of the statements tagged for citations needed, are covered in Hampton Sides' new book on the Korean War. I'll try to add citations before my library copy comes due. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for Gen. Almond's errors in the early Korean War