Jump to content

Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

No VP

We need an explanation as to why Truman never had a Vice President from 45-49--Edchilvers 13:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It would take someone not raised in the States to notice that, I guess. Just another cultural blindspot here. We know, so we don't have to say it. :) I'll look for an appropriate reference. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added a note on the 25th Admendment, with a source that discusses the issues involved. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The 25th Amendment, took effect 1967 NOT 1965. GoodDay 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. It was approved by the House and Senate in 1965, but not ratified until 1967. I've changed the note to read ratified in 1967. -- Donald Albury 15:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Korean War

The mentions of the Korean war on this page are america-centric. 1)The introduction mentions that the war turned into a 'frustrating stalemate' and that 30,000 Americans died. Since about 2 million Koreans died, mentioning only American deaths is highly myopic 2)the section on the Korean war completely neglects the US occupation of Korea from 1945 and the brutalities that the american army committed. Also, to call Kim Il Sung a 'dictator' in 1950 is quite incorrect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvrat raju (talk • contribs)

First of all, this article is about an American president, and so addresses the Korean War from an American perspective. A fuller account of the war is at Korean War. American troops briefly occupied the southern half of Korea in 1945 to accept the surrender of Japanese troops, just as Soviet troops occupied northern Korea for the same purpose. After setting up friendly governments in their respective zones, both occupying powers left Korea. What sources do you have for the 'brutalities'? The characterization of Kim Il Sung as a dictator is very widely accepted. -- Donald Albury 13:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because the article is about an American president, doesnt mean that it should not adopt a neutral point of view. American brutalities have been fairly well documented and a for a source that you would probably like and accept, see:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_01.shtml About, Kim Il Sung, you didnt read what I read. I said that the description of him as a dictator IN 1950, is inaccurate. What happened to him later is a separate question. By the way, your use of 'widely accepted' demonstrates the point I was trying to make above about Americocentrism. Does 'widely accepted' mean widely accepted in India? or in China? or in Vietnam or by most of the world? Or is it that you are happy to pronounce judgement based on what European and American attitudes are?

Widely accepted in China? Wikipedia is blocked there because opinions and information is state controlled. Rjensen 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the English version of Wikipedia is biased towards English speakers? Fair enough claim. Keep in mind, there is localization involved - it's not just author bias, it's also that the article needs to cater to it's audience. Encyclopedic does not mean all-inclusive. Furthermore, this article is about Truman, not the Korean War. First thing, you should make sure that the info you are talking about is accurate in the Korean War article. Once that is accomplished, feel free to edit this article to match as is appropriate. We don't need 20 page essays on every minutiae of the world during his presidency, so keep it brief and to what is important and accurate. Just remember that the best way to effect a change in an article isn't to complain to others until they make that change, but rather to make it yourself. If it is a particularly controversial change, then by all means discuss it on the discussion page (that's what it's there for!), but do so from the stance that you intend to make the edits yourself. You can point out what you see is wrong, but also how you want to fix it - provide solutions to go with the problems you want to fix. If you post in talk the text you want to add/modify, then we'll be happy to offer constructive criticism and help mold it into a professional piece of writing. Just remember: "This article is wrong and you need to change it" = bad. "I've found a part of the article that can be improved and here's how I want to improve it" = good. --Reverend Loki 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move, January 2007

It has been proposed to move Harry S Truman to Harry S. Truman.

Yes, and yet it seemed important to make it clear that opposition to the move to the periodless title was based on established, enduring consensus. People drop by and raise this non-issue every five minutes, it seems. Hope they'll notice this and think twice before raising whatever banner they were hoping to raise... there must be a name for this kind of perpetually twitching non-dispute, yes? BYT 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The period after the S needs to be removed. It should just be seen as "S". Harry Truman had no middle name except for the letter "S." So, the period needs to be removed.--MP123 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this article on the use of the period after the "S" -- according to the Harry S. Truman Library (no, it's not the Harry S Truman Library), use of the period is preferred. Rickterp 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead section is really a mess now

What happened here? End of WWII is mentioned twice in quick succession, and Cold War is inelegantly said to have begun in Korea. Surely Greece and Berlin figured in before this? This graph now looks like it's been edited by competing hands simultaneously. Consider the opening paragraphs we had before, please ... might this not be a better blueprint?

Harry S. Truman (May 8, 1884 — December 26, 1972) was the thirty-third President of the United States (1945–1953); as Vice President, he succeeded to the office upon the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In domestic affairs, Truman faced challenge after challenge: a tumultuous reconversion of the economy marked by severe shortages, numerous strikes and the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act over his veto. After confounding all predictions to win re-election in 1948, he was able to pass almost none of his Fair Deal program. He used executive orders to begin desegregation of the U.S. armed forces and to launch a system of loyalty checks to remove thousands of Communist sympathizers from government office; he was nevertheless under continuous assault for much of his term for supposedly being "soft on Communism." Corruption in his administration reached the cabinet and senior White House staff; 166 of his appointees were fired for financial misbehavior in the Internal Revenue Service alone. Republicans made corruption a central issue in the 1952 campaign.
Truman's presidency was eventful in foreign affairs, starting with victory over Germany, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the surrender of Japan and the end of World War II, the founding of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, the Truman Doctrine to contain Communism, the beginning of the Cold War, the creation of NATO, and the Korean War. The war became a frustrating stalemate, with over 30,000 Americans killed. [1] Highlighting what he considered to be Truman's failures ("Korea! Communism! Corruption!"), Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower ended 20 years of Democratic rule in 1952 by defeating Adlai Stevenson, Truman's choice to lead his party's ticket. In retirement, Truman wrote his well-regarded Memoirs.

BYT 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculously POV

"His integrity, his political courage, and his firm stand for Western democracy after World War II have earned him high praise from all political corners, including, among others, conservative Senator Barry Goldwater." Well, Barry Goldwater can say what he wants, but I am not the only one who strongly disagrees. That description of Truman should be reserved for a real hero like Douglas MacArthur, except of course for the part about having earned high praise from all political corners. Whether or not ones agrees with me on that, this article is blatantly biased and needs to be revised because Truman has not earned high praise from all political corners. As shocking as it must be to some people on this site, there are some people who still refuse to jump on the pro-Truman, anti-MacArthur bandwagon of court historians who choose to admire "safe" historical figures instead of the kind who really make history. Compare this article to the Douglas MacArthur one and it's not even close. They must have been written by some of the same people. I'm putting a NPOV tag on this one until it is fixed. 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


By the way, I place the tags where I did because my browser is too small and I didn't want to cut the article in half. They won't be removed until the POV is fixed. 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

yes the quote was pretty heavy POV and I removed it and the NPOV tags. Rjensen 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 09:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Four or five histories or biographies a week

Planetary Chaos reverted my edit [2] regarding this sentence: "Truman read voraciously -- four or five histories or biographies a week -- and acquired an exhaustive knowledge of military battles and the lives of the world's greatest leaders." This is what Robert H. Ferrell writes in Harry S. Truman: a life, p. 19-20: "After school young Truman was often in the Independence public library... reading books or taking them out; this fact has led to speculation about how he spent time during his school years... [he] claimed to have read every book in the Independence library... He later became known as a student of history... But the president's assertions about all the books he read when he was a student deserve no great amount of attention, because he grossly exaggerated. He read Charles F. Horne's Great Men and Famous Women, a massive four-volume compendium of biographical sketches... published in 1894, which began with Nebuchadrezzar and ended with Sarah Bernhardt. His mother bought the volumes from a door-to-door salesman for Harry's birthday... The rest of the reading seems impossible." I will edit the secion again. Vints 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Have we properly covered the actual penetration of US institutions by Communist spy networks?

Peace to the house -- in the McCarthy piece, I'm not entirely sure the wrapup below does justice to what we now know about what these spy networks actually accomplished:

Nevertheless Truman was never able to shake the image of being unable to purge his government of subversive influences.

How do we want to address this? BYT 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is about Truman of course. Did the spies accomplish anything at all when he was president?? I'm not sure anyone charges that. The issue is how he got rid of those who were active before April 1945. Rjensen 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the question ... my issue is, we're implying that McCarthy was both totally delusional and entirely incorrect in his charges. In the specifics of his charges, and in the recklessness of his Big Lie, he probably was delusional. But the current history paints a picture, disturbing for some liberals (me, for instance), that the gist of what he was saying was actually on-target. See this article, which I used as a cite. [3].

Pertinent quote therefrom:

A growing number of writers and intellectuals are beginning to argue that for all McCarthy's bluster and swagger, he may have been right after all. And I don't just mean writers on the right. Editorializing in the Washington Post in 1996, Nicholas Von Hoffman concluded that "point by point Joe McCarthy got it all wrong and yet was still closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him." Still more dramatically, the London Observer opined that historians who had vilified McCarthy for two generations "are now facing the unpleasant truth that he was right."

This part of the story -- the part with historical hindsight, which is, of course, always 20/20 -- seems missing from the article now. My vote: make it clear that he was a dangerous demagogue who made shameless, sensational charges he couldn't back up ... but also make it clear that he was, even though it hurts liberals to say it, on the right trail, even though he was barking up the wrong tree. Repeatedly. BYT 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Text of 22nd amendment

In re: the recent revert over this -- here is what it says:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." BYT 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just link to the full text? -- Donald Albury 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant!

[4] BYT 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is WP:OR

Nobody in any of the scholarly work I have seen has disputed the fact that White was a spy. What's the problem with this passage, exactly? It's adequately cited, by my lights. BYT 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In 1953, Senator Joseph McCarthy and Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. alleged that Truman had known Harry Dexter White was a Soviet spy when he, Truman, appointed him to the International Monetary Fund.[1]
However, this has now been refuted by declassified documents through the Freedom of Information Act which attest President Truman and the White House had not known of the existence of the Venona project.[2]

Atom bomb

It seems the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are only mentioned in the lead. This was one of his most important decision. The Potsdam conference is not discussed either. Vints 14:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Remarks on Jews

Added link to presidential diary and ADL response. Quoting the offending passages where bigotry is expressed against the various groups would probably help but I notice that the entry for Nixon does not cover this aspect of his character at all. Dee Mac Con Uladh 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to Truman/Truman Legacy

Article currently states: "Truman's no-holds-barred style in the face of seemingly impossible odds became a campaign tactic that would be repeated by, and appealed to by, many presidential candidates in years to come, notably George H. W. Bush in 1992, another trailing incumbent who fought constantly with Congress. (Bush, and indeed most of the candidates who have compared themselves to Truman, went down to defeat.)"

While the view expressed is well acknowledged some citations to where that is argued would be good. Right now it could be considered POV pushing or at least WP:OR. The electioneering style is also not the only aspect of Trumans tenure that is coveted. This does not seem to be well fleshed out in the Legacy section either. Take for example the most recent attempt to compare an admin to Truman by GHB advocates and cabinet members.eg.

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared the Bush administration's democracy promotion efforts "consistent with the proud tradition of American foreign policy, especially such recent presidents as Harry Truman." Last weekend President Bush devoted his West Point commencement address to an extended analogy between himself and the 33rd president, invoking Truman no fewer than 17 times. Conservative commentators are fond of the analogy, too. Indeed, it is a virtual article of faith on the contemporary right that today's conservatives -- not today's liberals -- are the true heirs of the anti-totalitarian tradition with which we associate Truman's name."source Dee Mac Con Uladh 00:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bush One comparison in this section has always bothered me. I've left it in during edit sessions because it seemed important to someone, at some point in the article's development, but I really don't get why we spend time and attention on the 1992 election in this section, which is supposed to be about the 1948 election. It would have been relevant had Bush One stormed back to an upset victory in 1992, but he didn't. BYT 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes some kind of overview on how the political establishment has begun to cherish Truman. Maybe its just nostalgia. I made my remark not thinking about how suitable a comparison it is to draw here, more how elites seek to draw it. Theyre the ones claiming its a valid comparison. Thats the context I feel its notable in- maybe a "Views on Truman presidency" subsection.
Something else I noticed, (unfortunately im too busy to work on articles much), didnt Truman turn control over the nuclear arsenal to a civilian- reversing military protocol? And didnt he have some plan to turn over all nuclear weapons technology to the UN for safekeeping? I believe also that the defense cuts he presided over were due to the fact of the huge spending on the Marshall Plan? Anyway, good work on whats in there presently. Dee Mac Con Uladh 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Quotes

There is a paragraph which states that some thought that Truman was "soft on communism". The way it is formed [in quotes] would seem to make the matter of communism in the United States and the rest of the world trivial as if it were a second thought to the administration and the country at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 March 2007.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This article should atleast have one picture of atomic bombings of Hiroshima, because this is Truman who did it and his legacy is tied with this. Please include at least one picture, and whoever (especially Americans) that want to portray peace and freedom, should be brave and manly enough to accept truth with decency and include that atomic bombing of picture. 24.9.72.71 02:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

contested atom bomb language

Our anonymous editor has repeatedly tried to add the line

On 1945 [sic] Truman administration [sic] decided to use the atomic bomb on the Empire of Japan with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The sentence and wikilinks are redundant with its mention earlier in the article, and certainly does not belong in the "United Nations and Marshall Plan" section.

The line calling it the "last" use of nuclear warfare is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- TedFrank 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then create a section that discusses the atomic bombings. I mean there is nothing that talks about the atomic bombings and that looks pov from the American side and is not really npov. I mean come on. He is the one that architected, decided and gave authorization. He is directly responsible for the atomic bombings and this is for fact that it was the only time that atomic bombing was used for killing against another country. This is fact. 24.9.72.71 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It is the last use of nuclear war. There is nuclear test and there is nuclear war, and these two are different if you read the two articles. It's a fact that this was the only time, which would be the first and the last. If not, what was the last one then? 24.9.72.71 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, sir. It's not my duty to create a section that discusses the atomic bombings when I think the article is fine as it is. You are incorrect in yet another particular: my preferred edit mentions the atomic bombings in both the introduction of the article and in the World War II section. It would be one thing if you were adding new information about the atomic bomb decision, but you're not: you're just repeating information that's already in the article, and you're doing it with ungrammatical sentences that are in the wrong place in the article. The only new information you're adding is the inappropriate characterization of the use as the "last use of nuclear warfare." Unless you are a time traveller from the future, you don't know that. (And if you are a time traveller from the future, you can surely find a better use of your unique knowledge than your edit warring.) And you're in violation of WP:3RR. Your edits are disruptive. Please read up on Wikipedia policy.
If you want to add "only" use of atomic weapons or something to that effect in the World War II section, alright. But two photos and ungrammatical redundant sentences in the Marshall Plan section are utterly inappropriate. -- TedFrank 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. First there is two facts you need to get through your head 1. Don't discriminate people because of their language. Courtesy my friend. 2. This is the only time, I can provide the source to you. Where is your source that says it's not the "last" time? Where is it? Give me the book and page name? You have nothing to argue with. I have a source and you don't. It is "the last use of nuclear warfare," if not WHAT WAS IT????? What was it????????? Just give it to me. I didn't say it was your duty, don't take this personally. You don't have to write anything, don't get too emotional my Friend. Peace 168.253.15.217 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an English-language writing project. Of course I'm going to discriminate between edits that use correct English and those that are poorly written or between edits that add to the article and edits that detract from the article.
For the third time, the source that says "last" is not appropriate is WP:CRYSTAL.
If you want to be taken seriously, sign up for an account so that you have a username instead of shifting IP address. -- TedFrank 09:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also there is a difference between deleting someone's work because you don't like it, commenting out the text and discussing it or not doing anything with the text. If you are not going to create a text then don't revert people's work because you don't like it.

Don't write anything and don't say anything, just "GIVE ME THE SOURCE!" that supports your opinion. I'm not making anything up, and just trying to contribute with sourced materials.

See WP:KETTLE. This is a better discussion of your edit-warring. I gave an explanation for all of my edits except the first revert, and have been trying to edit collaboratively. -- TedFrank 09:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not warring with you at all. You are saying that Hiroshima shouldn't be discussed in here more and want to move everything about hiroshima to its own article and I agree with you on that, but I'm saying we should have a section and a picture in the Truman article. Looks like you are trying to downplay this action and try to clear Truman away from the bombing. I'm saying he is integral and important subject in the atomic bombings. You looks like trying to clear his name. If atomic bombing is going to be discussed anywhere than its own article, then where. I'm saying Truman is "directly responsible" for this attack and therefore he is the architect. Atomic bombing and Truman are inseperable. Don't try to downplay his actions. I'm also waiting for your source that this wasn't the last atomic bombing too!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.253.14.252 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

How do we fix reference numbers?

They're autonumbering in a deeply surrealistic way -- first ref self-numbers as number 2. Any ideas on how to fix this? Even more clueless than usual, I remain, BYT 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's broken. It looks like the first reference is in the infobox on the right (commenting on the lack of a VP between 1945 and 1949) --- the infobox appears first in the page source, so it gets the first ref, even though it looks strange for the first ref in the main text to be numbered "2". Is there any way to manually swap their numbers? Or is this even a good idea to try? Rickterp 16:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the ref from the infobox, which appears to have restored a semblance of order -- only problem now is that there look to be two refs numbered "1" and two refs numbered "2". Or maybe this will fix itself on next edit? BYT 16:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Forget what I just wrote. It's still renumbering from the beginning for no apparent reason. BYT 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this once and for all (famous last words). There are several ways to include citations and each uses its own autonumbering sequence. Most of the citations in this article are footnotes, but there were a few embedded citations --- those embedded citations were numbered 1, 2, 3 even though there were also three footnotes with those numbers. I changed those three embedded citations into footnotes (by putting the ref tag around them) and that seems to have fixed the issue. The key is that when new citations are added, we need to make sure they are footnotes, not embedded citations --- both are legit ways to insert a citation, but it's important to be consistent across the entire article or there will be duplicate autonumbers. Rickterp 13:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Missouri National Guard

This article says: "With the onset of American participation in World War I, Truman enlisted in the Missouri National Guard." This does not seem to be correct. Compare http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hst-bio.htm : "From 1905 to 1911, Truman served in the Missouri National Guard. When the United States entered World War I in 1917, he helped organize the 2nd Regiment of Missouri Field Artillery, which was quickly called into Federal service as the 129th Field Artillery and sent to France."--Vints 08:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed this -- but it now reads ambiguously on question of whether eye-chart episode belongs in 1905 or 1917. Any sources on this? We should clarify. BYT 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I googled and it seems it was 1905.[5] You can find a lot of information in www.trumanlibrary.org.[6]:
"Harry Truman’s aspirations for a military career began back in high school, where he had hopes of attending West Point or Annapolis upon graduation in 1901. Although his poor eyesight prevented him from qualifying for admission, Truman did not entirely give up on a military career.
Four years after graduation, Harry S. Truman joined Battery “B” of the Missouri National Guard. The Guard had created Battery “B” in Kansas City as an addition to the already established Battery “A” in St. Louis. This time, Truman didn’t take any chances and memorized the eye chart. He became a private in Light Artillery Battery “B,” First Brigade on June 14, 1905." Vints 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Yep -- that's it. Many thanks. BYT 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Do you realize we have absolutely nothing about the railroad strike, its effect on the country, its settlement, and HST's threat to draft the strikers? Certainly among the most important domestic stories of the first term... couldn't believe it wasn't in the article. Anybody want to take the lead on this? I am editing too much. BYT 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, part two -- that parallels with an equally shocking second-term omission in the article: HST's getting slapped down by the Supreme Court for trying to take over the steel industry! Yikes! BYT 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I had put some related material in the article on Lewis B. Schwellenbach (HST's secretary of labor). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpearl (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

S(.)?

Harry S Truman has no middle name, only the letter "S;" his father gave it to him because an official at the hospital told him he had to give his son a middle name. After an argument with the official, his father (who doesn't have a middle name) gave in and scribbled on the line. It was interpreted to be the letter "S" and became his entire middle name. There should be no period after the "S" of Harry S Truman, because there is nothing to hide after it.--128.101.185.2 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read how this topic is covered here? The current consensus is that the period belongs there, but it's OK to discuss whether that consensus is wrong. Do you have a reference for the story about the scribble? Thanks. Rickterp 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have myself read several Presidential books in which it states quite clearly that the S in his name stands for nothing due to the fact that the parents could not decide which grandparent they would choose. The correct grammer would be Harry S Truman, because the S stands for nothing, but Truman himself always signed his name "Harry S. Truman". --User:lawrence142002

I am not even an amateur historian, but the concept of a single-letter middle name and the family history behind it is fascinating in itself. The article does not examine why Truman would add a period to his middle name, but perhaps it should. In any case, IMHO this middle-name-controversy section deserves better placement than the absolute end of the article. The section is well written and (I think) provides a valuable insight to a unique quality of this president. (Benglar 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

the S does not get a period, not because of the above reasons, but because BIG BOB says so!!!!

Citations numbering problem fixed thanks to Rickterp (and how to avoid repeat)

Bless him! Here's what he wrote on my talk page -- note the "dueling citation format" problem he fixed. BYT 10:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the autonumbering problem was related to the fact that there was inconsistency among the citations --- three were embedded citations and all the rest were footnotes (using the ref tag) --- these two methods of providing citations are given autonumbers separately, so there were two 1's, two 2's, and two 3's. I turned those three embedded citations into footnotes into ref's, so they are now all on the same autonumbering scheme with no duplicate numbers. As long as editors are careful to use the same method of citation, then the autonumbers should stay good. Cheers

The real reason Harry S Truman had the middle name (not initial--ipso facto no period) S was because all famous politicians at the time had a middle initial that was included in their everyday, household name: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, etc... Truman had no middle name, so he deemed that a middle name of S would suit his needs adequately. This was his middle NAME, so there is no period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.112.109.250 (talk)

Campaign Anthem

There is a note in the article on the Eubie Blake and Noble Sissle musical Shuffle Along, that the song "I'm Just Wild About Harry" was used by Truman as a campaign anthem. Can anyone provide a citation for this? Just respond here and I'll add it to the musical's article and the articles on its creators. Thanks in advance! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

I have renominated this article for featured article status. A great deal of revision, research, and citation has been done since its last nomination in August of '06. See the archive at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/Archive1.

The current discussion is at: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Harry_S._Truman

Peace, BYT 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


NOTE: The feedback here was very helpful; I've withdrawn the nomination for now. We need to clean up and standardize the footnotes, and perhaps seek a peer review. When you get a chance, please do take a look at the helpful comments this nom received. BYT 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing about the North Atlantic Treaty/NATO, except in the lead, and nothing about his investments in the oil business or in the lead and zinc mine. I think this should be included. Vints 06:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
These are definitely gaps, as is the steel industry conflict with the Supreme Court. BYT 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw this at FAC and did a little ref work. I see a few citations that mention McCullough, but I don't see the base citation. Did it get lost along the line somewhere? Pagrashtak 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep -- I will supply. BYT 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving page

Personally, I think we should move this page to Harry S Truman, because S was his middle name,not an initial.--j@5h+u15y@n 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read how this topic is covered here? The current consensus is that the period belongs there, but it's OK to discuss whether that consensus is wrong. BYT 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC), quoting Rickterp
Most of the texts I've seen on Truman don't use the period. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Cites, please. BYT 11:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A possible mistake

One of the paragraphs starts with: "He was also honored in 1975 by the establishment of the Truman Scholarship" (emphasis edded) The paragraph is located in the section that deals with honors Truman recieved while still alive. Is it possible someone made a mistake? 1975 is, after all, three years after Truman`s death...

Fixed this.. BYT 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

anyone else find slanderous changes in the article?

Someone changed "was the thirty-third" to "dumb crack" in the opening of the article - I compared the most recent changes and that's the only thing I saw, I was hoping nobody else has tampered with the article. I just wanted to note this in case it continues to be messed with and needs to be protected. JW 03:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Ford

Why is Ford's death mentioned in Truman's article? Personally, I think we should move this page to Harry S Truman, because S was his middle name,not an initial.--j@5h+u15y@n 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Semms to be opinun

this folliowing sentes is in there and it seems to be a matter of opinun "Roosevelt's historic efforts (which remain unmatched by any president since)" Fix please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.131.48 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman → Harry Truman — no reason to include middle initials in article name, just like Bill Clinton is not at William J. Clinton or at William Jefferson Clinton and there's no need for disambiguation as in George H. W. Bush's case. —Yonatan talk 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Neutral. I don't have any problem with the current title, but I think the criticism of this request has been a little harsh. According to Google, he's called "Harry S(.) Truman" 12 times for every 11 times he's called "Harry Truman". Under those circumstances, I don't see frequency as a great argument. On the other hand, I don't see any particular reason to move the page away from the established title (except that it would end all of the debate about the period). Dekimasuよ! 08:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. He is widely refered to as Harry S. Truman. As for the period, he clearly used it himself. I suggest leaving the title as it is. Morris 00:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
On Mangoe's comment above, the S. vs. S discussion comes up often. The consensus so far has been to use the period. I find this page from the Truman Library's website to be pretty persuasive that Harry S. Truman is correct. Rickterp 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should be called Harry S Truman because is is usually referred to as Harry S Truman, but his middle name was S, and there is no abbreviation for S. A•N•N•A hi! 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed image

President Truman announces that Germany had surrendered (May 8 1945)

I've removed the image on the right because there doesn't seem to be a place for it. It's a nice image but it was placed underneath the infobox which made the article look ugly. If anyone can find an appropriate place for it that'd be great. - Throw 05:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima Casualties

The 140,000 figure has been removed. It was not sourced in any way, and the standard figure is between 70,000 and 80,000. The Japanese said 71,000, the Americans, between 70,000 and 80,000. I've included the Army Air Force history (since they dropped the bomb) written in 1973. If someone wants to find another source, please do so. Claymoney 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The 140,000 figure would appear to be the sum of 80,000 immediate casualties and 60,000 subsequent casualties from radiation poisoning and other causes. (See Hiroshima for example.) I agree that the wording that you changed ("140,000 were killed instantly") was not correct. -- Dominus 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the "Quotations" section

Seems unencyclopedic, and a magnet for unsourced material. (I think two of the three quotes there now are unsourced.)

Thoughts? BYT 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Should all be moved to wikiquote. Adam McMaster 20:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Deleted this... BYT 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Top heavy paragraphs in lead and elswhere.

This article should not have more than one paragraph in its lead and then go to subheadings. The first paragraphs are thick with prose and opinions and incomprehensible as the facts are jumbled. Somebody needs to put the lead graphs on a diet making sure that pertinent facts are in the pertinent subcategories.

And as a side note, there's a whole bunch of huge paragraphs with wildly different topics in the same grafs. It really, really makes it difficult to read. The Dwight D. Eisenhower article is easier to read. Franklin D. Roosevelt suffers the same bloat. Americasroof 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not propose a redraft here so people can discuss what you'd like the opening to look like? BYT 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New Approval Rating Graph

I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page. --Jean-Francois Landry 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


One man's opinion -- hard to make sense of. Also the highest (and from HST's point of view, "best") data point regions are displayed in red, which typically is perceived as a deficit, not a surplus. BYT 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Atomic Bomb victim

Do we really need that picture? It seems POV to me, if there has to be a picture commemorating President Truman`s brave decision to drop the bomb, then one of the mushroom cloud or something like that would be better.Stevenscollege 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Eager to hear other editors' opinions on this, but I would be inclined to add a photo -- say, of V-J day -- and leave this image, which certainly seems historically relevant. BYT 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Stevenscollege. It seems more designed to inflame than to inform. It might be more appropriate in the article about the bombings.THD3 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

With whom are you agreeing? My opinion is that we should keep two images, one of them being of the bomb victim, the other reflecting the bomb's perceived effectiveness in ending the war. It is a historical fact that civilians suffered horrific casualties as a result of the bombings, and incorporating this image would enable the article to acknowledge the moral concerns that have arisen since 1945 about the decision to use the bomb. I do think that is a major issue, and I do think it is informative -- not inflammatory -- to feature an image that acknowledges it. A close call, perhaps. I could see how others would disagree. If there is no consensus to retain the image of the bomb victim, we should take it out. BYT 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You can argue about the picture being worthy of being included, but she's definitely a victim and shouldn't be in quotes in the thread title.Rlevse 11:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for editors here -- who thinks this picture should not appear? BYT 16:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not It has nothing directly to do with Harry Truman. If people want to see pictures of the victims then look at the main article for that. Its like you are blaming Truman for these deaths and injuries.--Southern Texas 16:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment While many civilians did die in the bombings, even more people would have died if the Allies had to invade the home islands. Estimated losses were over 1 million people. Japan showed n sign of surrendering prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.Rlevse 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Appears to be no consensus to add this, so count me out, despite what I wrote above. I feel it should not be included. BYT 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK with me, leave it out.Rlevse 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Truman's attempt to seize the steel industry

I'm planning to write a couple of graphs about this, unless someone beats me to it. The incident is, I think, the last "big event" of HST's administration that completely remains undiscussed in the article.

Here's a good overview if anyone feels like tackling this before I do:

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1394

BYT 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Draft complete -- what do people think? BYT 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Nice article; here are some suggestions before going to FAC:

  • Doesn't connect to the rest of the paragraph: "He was a page at the 1900 Democratic National Convention at Convention Hall in Kansas City."
  • This needs clarification if it's going to stay (explain "theatrical effect" and replace all that verbiage with "remember"): "For the rest of his life, Truman would hearken back nostalgically to the years he spent as a farmer, often for theatrical effect." Personally, I just drop that sentence and the one following; they don't add much.
  • "indifference to authority" could perhaps be worded better—or does it really mean that they didn't care who was leading them? Seems like it's trying to say more that they didn't respect authority.
  • The last paragraph of the "Marriage and early business career section" is all over the place—marriage, store, bankruptcy, college, bankruptcy, political career. The Zionism stuff can probably be moved, the college part eliminated, and the bankruptcy part consolidated.
  • The race relations stuff seems out of place; why put it there?
  • Seems unnecessary: "(Maurice Milligan would eventually topple the Pendergast machine.)"
  • What's a "patronage decision"? Could the "federal patronage jobs" be explained, perhaps? Pendergrast's influence was apparently huge, but it might not make sense to the modern reader.
  • Too much on the masons
  • Last paragraph of "Truman Committee" needs a citation.

More later... --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these good notes...

  • Doesn't connect to the rest of the paragraph: "He was a page at the 1900 Democratic National Convention at Convention Hall in Kansas City." Agree wholeheartedly.
  • This needs clarification if it's going to stay (explain "theatrical effect" and replace all that verbiage with "remember"): "For the rest of his life, Truman would hearken back nostalgically to the years he spent as a farmer, often for theatrical effect." Personally, I just drop that sentence and the one following; they don't add much. Agree, let's cut.
  • "indifference to authority" could perhaps be worded better—or does it really mean that they didn't care who was leading them? Seems like it's trying to say more that they didn't respect authority. Gist is that they were quite hard to command, and had burned through a series of captains. "Bunch of tough Irishmen" is typical of the kinds of descriptions that show up.
  • The last paragraph of the "Marriage and early business career section" is all over the place—marriage, store, bankruptcy, college, bankruptcy, political career. The Zionism stuff can probably be moved, the college part eliminated, and the bankruptcy part consolidated. Agree in general, although I think his lack of a college education is notable. Hard to imagine another president coming along with this CV feature.
  • I agree, but that's discussed earlier (in the first section of "Early life"), and I think it's important to keep. Bringing up "Washington College" later is what is causing the disconnect. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The race relations stuff seems out of place; why put it there? Major element of '48 campaign strategy, and helped in states where blacks voted in large numbers; I believe it is in a memo from Clifford to HST, but I will have to track it down.
  • Right now it seems to just be telling us his record on race, not tying it in with anything (it doesn't flow when one devotes a paragraph to a topic simply because one minor event (KKK) happened in the same year as what is discussed in the previous paragraph). Move the '48 stuff to that election, use the KKK fee and bad language there as a blemish on his record that he had to overcome, and remove the rest. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought you meant the desegragation order. We may be better off simply deleting his brush with the KKK if consensus is it doesn't fit; note, though, that drive-by editors may attempt to reinsert it.
I don't think KKK stuff actually was a blemish he had to overcome in '48 election. (Dixiecrats would have taken him to task for demanding his money back, I suppose.) Not sure when it became public knowledge, but it certainly wasn't what the '48 election was about. It's been more of an issue in the period following his death -- perhaps move to legacy section? Interestingly, the quasihistorical one-man show "Give 'Em Hell Harry" portrays him as courageously dressing down a nighttime assembly of masked KKK members, an incident I can find nowhere in the record. BYT 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems unnecessary: "(Maurice Milligan would eventually topple the Pendergast machine.)" Agree -- this is foreshadowing, probably better off without it.
  • What's a "patronage decision"? Could the "federal patronage jobs" be explained, perhaps? Pendergrast's influence was apparently huge, but it might not make sense to the modern reader. Agree.
  • Too much on the masons Agree.
  • Last paragraph of "Truman Committee" needs a citation. Agree, I'll see if I can find this. BYT 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Communists tend to be Communists unless they're Chinese, whereupon they're (usually) mere communists. I suppose the whole lot should be regularized in one way or another (other than in quotations), and that the MoS prescribes which is the better way -- but (before my second coffee of the day) I lack the stomach to search through the MoS. -- Hoary 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I worked all this. But I left the Klan and race stuff in as I thought it spoke to the type of man he was, but I won't object if someone reworks it.Rlevse 02:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many images

Most, perhaps all of the article is valuable, and all of it is interesting -- but the whole thing is voluminous. I've been viewing it via modem download and editing it on a seven-or-so-year-old computer (perfectly adequate for all my other purposes): painful. Some proposals:

  • The Korean war animation is 61kB or so. It belongs in one or more articles on the Korean war; it's not needed here.
  • The article on McCarthy benefits from a photo of McCarthy. If people reading the Truman article want to see what McCarthy looks like, they can click on the link to his name. Pull his photo from this article.
  • Ditto for MacArthur.
  • Quasi-ditto for the work on the White House.

-- Hoary 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All works for me. BYT 23:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I cut the first three, left the white house one in.Rlevse

Books linked to specific retailers

In this pair of edits, I tackled a particularly conspicuous example of what I regard as a misfeature of the article: linking of a book to a particular retailer.

A more typical example is what's now note 112:

<ref name="martinbook"> {{cite book |last=Martin|first=Joseph William |authorlink= |title=My First Fifty Years in Politics as Told to Robert J. Donovan |url=http://www.frogtownbooks.com/cgi-bin/ftb455/27189.html|accessdate=2007-08-31|year=1960|publisher=McGraw-Hill Book Company|location=New York, NY |pages=249}}</ref>

The frogtownbooks.com page is an ad for a particular copy --

Very Good in Good+ dust jacket; Previous owner's small inscription to the top of the free front end paper. Covers and spine show some rubbing and wear to the extremities. Dust jacket has extensive chipping to the edges with some smudging. Otherwise solid, internally clean and in very good condition in a good+ dust jacket.

-- of this book. It's a page that presumably will be pulled the moment the book -- signed, and yours for just $14.58! -- is sold. But that's only one problem. The other one is that this is an unnecessary link to an arbitrarily chosen retailer. The fourth listed kind of "links normally to be avoided" are:

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Of course, the frogtownbooks offering described above predates the introduction of ISBNs. Well, that's what library catalogues, abebooks.com and the like are for. Let readers decide; don't push them toward any one retailer or group of retailers.

I'd go ahead and zap all of this myself, but it seems to have been added with some deliberation. Would anyone care to defend it? -- Hoary 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I left the fn in but cut the fogtown link, I didn't notice it was an ad when I used it. I was just trying to find a weblink for the book.Rlevse 10:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I started to zap these links. However, I'm about to knock off for a quick dinner and the demands of the "real world". -- Hoary 10:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I did a little more, but then I paused, tired (and a bit bored). There's a good deal more to be done. Or maybe I'm unusual, but when I see an external link on what's obviously a book title, I expect to be taken to the etext of that book. In only one of the instances I've seen so far does the link go to an etext. That's not to say the alternatives are all junk: some are worthwhile, but they're not what they first appear to be, and need rearrangement accordingly. -- Hoary 11:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture department

  • I cut the mention of Joel's song; this said nothing about Truman.
  • Legally, is it OK to quote the "Chicago" pop song at such length? If so, should this be done in this article or in the pop song's own article?
  • The bestselling David McCullough biography Truman further popularized the late President, as did the 1995 HBO movie loosely based upon it (and starring Gary Sinise). Any evidence for these claims?
  • Northeast Missouri State University, marking its transformation from a regional state teachers' college to a selective liberal arts university, became Truman State University,... I'm not so well up on US educational terminology, and this may be why I'm mystified by "selective" and also by the apparent clash between (a) this and (b) what's said in the article on TSU: a bill that designated the university as Missouri's only statewide public liberal arts and sciences university (my emphasis). TSU has a school of business, which (worthy though it no doubt is) doesn't look to me like either liberal arts or sciences: It seems to me that it's a regular smallish university. But then I think NMSU was so as well.

-- Hoary 06:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reworded TSU bit, looks like someone else did too.Rlevse

Would somebody care to go through the list of external links? I noted one titled "An analysis of Harry Truman's personality", which leads to some very dodgy looking stuff excerpted from a book titled Presidential Temperament, published not by the Psychology Press, Erlbaum, a university press or similar but by "Prometheus Nemesis Book Company"; a quick google does not suggest that it has attracted academic interest. -- Hoary 06:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I read that. It's actually very interesting and the things I read I've seen elsewhere in that community. Rlevse 09:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "community".
Attempts by self-styled psychologists to describe the personalities of famous people were fairly commonplace at one time. Now I think they've rather gone out of fashion. What's at issue is not whether they're interesting but whether they're credible. I suggest that something purporting to be psychology should be published by or (other than dismissively) reviewed in the mainstream academic psychology press; and that otherwise it's not worth bothering with. -- Hoary 10:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is called psychobiography. As I see it, the problems with psychobiographies occur when authors who are not trained psychologists make a retroactive analysis of some notable person, especially when the person is dead and the analysis is based entirely on available works. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, yes. And it's also considered as part of "psychohistory". I've just remembered my reading of David E Stannard, Shrinking History: Freud and the Failure of Psychohistory, a thrilling demolition job, highly recommended (review here). -- Hoary 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse asked me to take a look at this article. I suppose I've cleaned out enough linkcruft to be something of an expert by now. This is a first pass:

See also
External links
  • Truman Museum and Library- this link has an article that is already linked in the body- removed
  • The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation- this link has an article that is already linked in the body- removed
  • White House biography- Properly cite and move to biographies section- done
  • The American Presidency Project at UCSB- there are a number of links under this heading. Many of the State of the Union Addresses and Inaugural Addresses are on Commons- remove any duplicates- removed
  • Inaugural Address- duplicated on Commons- removed
  • How Truman spelled his name- move as a reference in the section Truman's middle initial- done
  • Peter M. Carrozzo on Michael R. Gardner, Harry Truman and Civil Rights: Moral Courage and Political Risks- already linked under Bibliography/Secondary sources/Domestic policy- removed
Succession and navigation boxes
  • The political boxes are duplicated. For example, there is {{U.S. Senator box}} and {{USSenMO}}. Suggest using only the second- removed
  • Oldest U.S. President still living- a "succession" box is ambiguous here, suggest moving to a link- included in {{Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents}}
  • Time's Man of the Year- suggest using {{Time Person of the Year}}
    • That template is non-collapsible and really does not work here (left a note on the template talk). Suggest working this into the article.
It is, see Truman Committee section.Rlevse 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

DONE! --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TOC

The TOC is overly long, suggest using {{TOClimit}}, inserted after the lead-in, to limit the number of sub-levels and tighten it up. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Neat idea! I didn't know that template existed.!
Me neither until I searched for it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Are there other cases where this has been done?Rlevse 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Such as the articles listed in Category:Bibliographies by subject? (That cat needs some cleaning- many of the articles are double catted with Category:Bibliographies by author). The Joan of Arc bibliography is one of the better examples. I'm sure I read something about splitting long bibliographies in WP:MOS, but I cannot find a reference (WP has been abysmally slow toaday as well).
  • Consider using Citation templates; this will standardize the look, as well as providing a way to properly insert links.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, but the new biblio is in raw form. Good idea.Rlevse 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Media

The video in question is on Commons, thus this is rather duplicative of the Commons link; I suggest this section be deleted. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.Rlevse 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Presidency split

At 105k, this article is much larger than the recommended 30 to 50k per Wikipedia:Article size. One solution would be to split the material about Truman's presidency into Presidency of Harry S. Truman. This does have several precedents, such as Presidency of George Washington, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Presidency of Ronald Reagan and Presidency of George W. Bush. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's nowhere near that in actual prose; I calculate about 47kb. --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
SPangineer is right, it cases like this you use prose, not article size via Dr pda's script. See my toolbox for links.Rlevse 00:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The pda makes it 59K, the preferred max is 60K, keep in mind this was a two term pres with a slew of major issues. I'd leave it like it is.Rlevse 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
OK --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I still think we should seriously think about this. Truman is at 110-kb, just for sh*ts and giggles I looked at all the presidents of the 20th Century (rounded up, over 100kb in bold):
So HST is right in the middle of the well developed ones. HST should be big he was a 2-term president during two major wars. Leave as is Rlevse 22:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Project banners

Any objection to replacing {{WikiProjectBanners}} with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}? This would make the nested banners look like Talk:Bibliography of Harry S. Truman. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

fine.Rlevse 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

More things to consider

A few more thoughts:

  • "increasingly frail" under Vice President--if this refers to his health, it's irrelevant, if his political power, it's unclear.
  • "(Many voters complained that the members of the military were being released too slowly.)" If this is to be included, explain what impact it had--did they accelerate the return as a result, or what? Might be unnecessary detail though.
  • Can usage of "mothballed" be reduced? (replace with a synonym)

More later... --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, except Ileft mothballed alone. It's only used twice, not a big deal.Rlevse 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I was just thinking of checking the images when one got deleted. All of the images need cleanup. They should all use {{Information}} for common sourcing. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem images
Done
In LOC per Commons page, don't see the problem.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Not everything at the LOC is owned by the government. A lot of their collections include news media photos. Under "REPRODUCTION NUMBER" where it says "publication may be restricted", that's their way of saying it's under copyright. If it says, "no known restrictions for usage", that means it is PD. So yes, this one needs to go. --B 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed.Rlevse 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Iffy, may not sure what to do here.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is distinctly possibly that this copyright was not renewed ... unfortunately, we have no idea, so we can't use it. --B 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed.Rlevse 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Tagged a FU, don't see the problem.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously copyrighted, but unquestionably an iconic photo - this one is one of the most famous photos ever and obviously qualifies for fair use. --B 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept.Rlevse 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't see why they have to be from NARA. I'll ask B about these.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
To do
  • The American Presidency Project at UCSB: The Most Comprehensive Resource on the Web
main entry with no reference to Truman-
  • An analysis of Harry Truman's personality
  • Harry Truman's cabinet
  • Harry Truman at the Notable Names Database
  • Medical and Health history of Harry Truman- work as cite
  • Annotated bibliography for Harry S. Truman from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
Done
  • Extensive essay on Harry S Truman and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs
Reworked to proper name
  • Full audio of over 15 Truman speeches via the Miller Center of Public Affairs (UVa)
linked through previous link, deleted
  • Truman Obituary, New York Times 'On This Day'
This is not the Truman obit, it is about Truman acceding to the presidency on FDRs death, deleted
  • White House biography
Moved to cite
  • Truman Secret Oval Office Recordings via the Miller Center of Public Affairs (UVa)
Rework to proper name
  • How Truman spelled his name
Moved to cite
  • Harry Truman's Forgotten Diary (washingtonpost.com)
Moved to cite
    • 29 Audio/Video Clips of Harry Truman
Moved to Bibliography
  • Audio clips of Truman's speeches
Moved to Bibliography
    • Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S. Truman
This does not link directly to Truman- deleted
    • Presidential Elections
This does not link directly to Truman- deleted
  • 1948
Nice map, but trivial link- deleted
  • Academic Data Related to the Truman Administration
This does not link directly to Truman- deleted

Notes and queries

Lambda Chi Alpha

End of "Early Life": He became an honorary member of the Lambda Chi Alpha international fraternity. Is this so important, and if so, how? -- Hoary 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is more about this: [7]. We could move this to an awards and honors section and list the myriad of awards he received; we could use Infobox Awards- see Arthur Rudolph for and example; or we could fork it if it grew too much. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That link confirms that he became an honorary member; it doesn't explain the significance.
It may well be simply because I'm not American, but I'd never heard of Lambda Chi Alpha. The WP article informs me that it has a quarter of a million "initiated members". The article goes on to suggest that it's serious-minded but also deeply silly (Probably no fraternity badge has deeper meaning than that of Lambda Chi Alpha. Not only do the pearls, Greek letters, and crescent have their symbolism, but each line of the crescent and the relationship of the emblems to each other add still greater significance). My impression is that Truman is much more significant to LCA than LCA is to Truman. Let's just skip it. (And this article already has quite enough "infoboxes".) -- Hoary 00:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It just struck me- according to that link, he was initiated in *1963*. This is misplaced in "Early life." --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I cut this. Seems unimportant to me.Rlevse 11:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

a little, a lot

Under "US Senator | First Term": Truman always defended the patronage by saying that by offering a little, he saved a lot. I don't understand what this means. (Maybe I can guess, but I don't want to.) -- Hoary 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wikilinked this. The article has section on US political patronage.Rlevse 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

masons

Under "1940 election": Truman said later that the Masonic election assured his victory in the general election over Kansas City State Senator Manvel H. Davis. Where did he say this? -- Hoary 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on Manvel H. Davis had the link to the Time article. [8] page 3. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Hoary 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, other eds: any objection to me putting this back in, with cite? BYT 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK with me.Rlevse 14:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
OK --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Time and things of the year

Under "Truman Committee": In 1943, his work as chairman earned Truman his first appearance on the cover of ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]].'' He would eventually appear on nine ''Time'' covers and be named the magazine's [[Person of the Year|Man of the Year]] for 1945 and 1948. Am I unusual in caring very little about Time and its namings of this or that person? A cynic might say that this merely went to show that Luce thought Truman's mug would sell copies of the magazine, which in turn means not much more than that he was newsworthy in the US and that the US public wasn't sick of him. Cumulatively, these little mentions of the Time human of the year (etc) look to me like publicity for that magazine. And if it is significant, is it so significant as to merit description in an overly long article? -- Hoary 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year is not an award, it is a recognition of people who have been newsworthy for that period. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

creations and reshuffles

At the end of "United Nations and Marshall Plan": To strengthen the U.S during the Cold War against Communism, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 and reorganized military forces by creating the Department of Defense, the CIA, the U.S. Air Force as a separate service from the U.S. Army during World War II, and the National Security Council. This seems very strange. If we remove "during World War II", it's no longer strange (though offhand I don't know if it's historically correct). Is this the right fix, or should this be fixed in some other way? -- Hoary 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of the U.S. Cold War strategy, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 and reorganized military forces by merging the Department of War and the Department of the Navy into the National Military Establishment (later the Department of Defense} and creating the U.S. Air Force. The act also created the the CIA and the National Security Council.

A bit more wordy, but more accurate. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Good! -- Hoary 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

five-year-old hardware

At the end of "Defense cutbacks": The Marine Corps, its budgets slashed, was reduced to hoarding surplus inventories of World War II era weapons and equipment. This appears to be about the period "through FY 1950", so the "World War II era" had ended no more than five years previously. The US was (and is) a large nation, and in large areas within it (e.g. the southwest) land was cheap and the climate non-corrosive. So what would have the sensible alternative been with bigger budgets: Selling off the machine guns, etc., to those private citizens equipping themselves for "hunting" or "self-defense" (ha ha), and replacing them with yet more lethal alternatives? Something seems strange here. -- Hoary 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, military units hoard gear whereever their base is because they know if the let it get shipped off somewhere, they'll probably never get it back. This way, they maintain physical control of it.Rlevse 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds quite likely, but probably needs a cite- this is the closest I can find. [9] It sounds quite a bit like the U.S. Army of 1989-1990. With no Soviets, why any need to do all that training? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

a million people in NYC

In "1948 election": a full million turned out for a [[New York City]] appearance.<ref>McCullough, p. 701</ref>: Can somebody with access to the book check this? It's a long time since I was last in NYC and I can't claim to know it well, but I do think I would have heard of any "venue" with even standing-room only capacity for "a full million" people, and I haven't heard of any. -- Hoary 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's Central Park, of course, but wouldn't a million people have destroyed it? (I hate to lower the tone hereabouts, but wouldn't a million people have needed tens of thousands of opportunities to relieve themselves?) -- Hoary 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but here's McCullough, p. 701: "Had Truman's whole career gone uncelebrated until now, the roaring ticker-tape welcome that New York gave him [on Oct. 28 -- BYT] would have made up for it. Over a million people turned out." Apparently it was like a Lindbergh thing. It was a parade that concluded at Grand Central Station; maybe we should say that. (Presumably people popped back into their offices to use the facilities.) BYT 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

someone made the clarification.Rlevse 10:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image among whom?

At the end of "Soviet espionage and McCarthyism": Truman was never able to shake the image of being unable to purge his government of subversive influences.<ref name="friedbook"/> Image among whom? Page number reference, please. -- Hoary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

the public. I made correction.Rlevse 10:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Korean conflict"

I'm all in favor of reducing hype, but I think this caused sufficient destruction and misery to merit (?) the term "war". Am I missing something? -- Hoary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, esp since the main article uses "war". I changed it.Rlevse 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooops- I meant to do that when I added the link. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune quote

In "Korean Conflict" the article quotes an article quoting the Tribune: His hasty and vindictive removal of Gen. MacArthur is the culmination of series of acts which have shown that he is unfit, morally and mentally, for his high office. Shouldn't that be "a series of acts"? Somebody with access to Journal of Political and Military Sociology please check. -- Hoary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

White House renovations

All very noteworthy, but it seems of minor importance when set aside the Korean "conflict", McCarthyism, etc. Couldn't this be radically shortened and any content not already in the article on the White House moved there? -- Hoary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the balcony was quite controversial at the time. [10] I do agree that it needs to be chopped. It does set the context for the assassination attempt.

It was a major PR disaster when it played out. Played into national question of whether he belonged there in the first place, could fill FDR's shoes, had the right to make such changes, etc. National processing of this was an important part of his national "audition." BYT 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Major legislation and executive orders

This section is just a short list; I think all of these are already linked in the article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut, totally redundant.Rlevse 10:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates and succession boxes

I asked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents as to the preference on templates and sucession boxes. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Status of preps

We've all done a great job so far. Prose-only size is 58k, file size is 108.5k. This is on par with the FA on Gerald Ford and just under the upper limit of what's considered acceptable for an article on someone of this significance. Any more suggestions at this point.Rlevse 11:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been 3 days with no more talk page inputs or article edits, I'll go ahead and list of FAC.Rlevse 11:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There are still serious problems with three images. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
pls fix or delete. You didn't say which ones.Rlevse 11:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
#Images --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
See above in Images section.Rlevse 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Everything's under control."

When did he deliver the longest State of the Union address ever, 3 hours? Calvin Coolidge 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1946, but sent not oral, I don't see that this is in the article and may not need to be, but see [11]. Rlevse 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't really care if it's in the article... Odo 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Atomic bomb section

Glad to see the article passed. Overall, it's an excellent article, though I'm still not sure the atomic bombings section is quite right, now that I see it without any numbers. Also, I think more needs to be mentioned about debate within the Truman administration (e.g. "Committee of Three") on use of the atomic bomb. The sticking point was whether to demand an unconditional surrender, or allow the emperor Hirohito to remain as symbolic leader, in a constitutional monarchy, as the Japanese wanted. I'm not good at copyediting, but have come up with the following that incorporates some of these points which I think are relevant. --Aude (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Atomic bomb use

Upon becoming president, Truman was quickly briefed on the Manhattan Project, and informed that the atomic bomb would be ready in a few months. Truman sought ways to end the war with Japan without a ground invasion, which was expected to take a high toll on American troops. Options included continued and intensified bombings and blockades, or waiting for the Soviets to join the war, though these options had many disadvantages. The Japanese, in a dire situation, showed some willingness to negotiate a surrender, with the sticking point being whether or not the emperor Hirohito would be retained. There was debate within the Truman administration on that point. The "Committee of Three", consisting of his Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, advocated for an alternative approach for getting the Japanese to surrender, other than use of the atomic bomb. They suggested language for the Potsdam Declaration that would allow Japan to maintain its emperor as a "constitutional monarchy." Truman's adviser, James F. Byrnes, showed concern about political consequences of changing the unconditional surrender policy which was popular among Americans. He also thought that use of the atomic bomb would give the Soviets pause in their supposed expansionist plans. Truman remained committed to a unconditional surrender, and use of the atomic bomb. After Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration which demanded an unconditional surrender, Truman authorized use of atomic weapons against the Japanese.

On the morning of August 6, 1945, the B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.[3] Two days later, having heard nothing from the Japanese government, Truman let the U.S. military proceed with its plans to drop a second atomic bomb. On August 9, Nagasaki was also devastated.[4] Truman received news of the bombing while aboard the heavy cruiser USS Augusta on his way back to the U.S. after the Potsdam Conference. When On August 14, the Japanese agreed to surrender.[5] The atomic bombings were the first, and so far only, instance of nuclear warfare. By the end of 1945, an estimated 140,000 died from the bombing in Hiroshima, and 74,000 in Nagasaki.

The decision to use nuclear weapons was not politically controversial at the time, either in the U.S. or among its allies. At the Potsdam Conference, Soviet leader Josef Stalin was aware of the U.S. government's possession of the atomic bomb.[6][7][8] In the years since the bombings, however, questions about Truman's choice have become more pointed. Supporters of Truman's decision to use the bomb argue that it saved hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost in an invasion of mainland Japan. Eleanor Roosevelt spoke in support of this view when she said, in 1954, that Truman had "made the only decision he could," and that the bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."[9] Others, including historian Gar Alperovitz, have argued that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary and inherently immoral.[10]

References

Reference for the first paragraph:

  • Walker, J. Samuel (1997). Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan. University of North Carolina Press.

References for the casualty numbers:

I'm sure there are more sources to address these points. Though, I'm somewhat on wikibreak and don't have lots of time at the moment to locate them. Also, maybe some detail from what I suggest above can be cut, to make it more concise, and other changes. It's important that whatever changes to the article are agreeable to everyone here. --Aude (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with what is said here, it's well done. My problem with this is that at 59k of prose, the article is already big (too big some would same) and on the very border of what most consider acceptable for someone of HST's stature, 60k. My suggestion would be to leave the article as is or only make minor tweaks, and put the fine work of Aude's in the main atomic bomb article, which could definitely use improvement.Rlevse 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have tried to shorten the paragraph. Also, maybe the casualty figures are not essential. That's covered in the subarticle. But, deliberations within the Truman administration on this issue are relevant, as much as other parts of the article (e.g. 1948 election). Some other copyedits may be possible in the suggested paragraph, as well as other sections of the article. --Aude (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon becoming president, Truman was quickly briefed on the Manhattan Project. He sought ways to end the war with Japan without a ground invasion, which was expected to take a high toll on American troops. The Japanese showed some willingness to surrender, but only if they could retain the emperor, while the U.S. insisted on an unconditional surrender. There was debate within the Truman administration on that point. The "Committee of Three", consisting of Stimson, Forrestal, and Grew, suggested language for the Potsdam Declaration that would allow Japan to maintain its emperor as a "constitutional monarchy.", and might avoid use of the atomic bomb. Truman's adviser, James F. Byrnes, was concerned about political consequences of changing the unconditional surrender policy which was popular among Americans, as well as positioning the U.S. against the Soviet Union. Truman agreed with Byrnes and remained committed to a unconditional surrender, and use of the atomic bomb. After Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration, Truman authorized use of atomic weapons against the Japanese.

Reference:

  • Walker, J. Samuel (1997). Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan. University of North Carolina Press.

Cut some more. Also, reading over the 1948 election section, the sentence on "Truman's no-holds-barred style of campaigning", especially the part that mentions George H. W. Bush, seems more suited for the subarticle. Also, it's unreferenced. --Aude (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing what is in the article section with this is okay with me.Rlevse 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Better, except it was far from that simple. "After Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration"? There's reason to believe Japan expected (or hoped) the U.S. would abide by the Atlantic Chartrer, which guaranteed self-determination of choice of government, & "killed with silence" the Potsdam demand: i.e, didn't really know what to say. And Truman didn't just agree with Byrnes, he was beholden, if not in thrall, to his former mentor. Ultimately, it wasn't Truman who made the call, it was Byrnes. Trekphiler 04:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, whatever happened to "the buck stops here..." Also, shouldn't this get some mention in the lead? If this isn't the thing he is best known for, it's at least way up there. At least, outside the US. No? --192.75.48.150 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead-in— fourth paragraph, second sentence; there is a photo later down the page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I meant the A-bomb. The "buck stops here" was a somewhat snarky response to the claim just above that the call was not really made by Truman. --192.75.48.150 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My bad, guess I took you too literally. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FA

I just wanted to congratulate the editors on getting Harry Truman to FA status. I was the major component behind Ronald Reagan's FA status, and I know what a grueling job that was, so this must have been hard work. Anyway, my congrats is a little late, but great job! Best, Happyme22 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Highest Army Rank

I have seen many times that Truman was a Colonel in the reserve, but an army officer friend corrected me and proudly told me that his highest rank was actually Major General. Although he never served actively in that rank, he must have maintained a close connection to the army throughout his time in office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.234.253 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reference for that? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo series

What is the meaning of the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.225.34 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That was reverted vandalism. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The S in his name

This has been debated heavily in the past, please check the archives to read exhaustive past debates on this issue!

I am positive after reading several biographies that Harry Trumans Middel name is indeed "S" this is due to the fact that his parents could not decide between two names and they both started with an "S" hence they made his middle name the letter "s" The S, some say can mean shit as well. Isn't Harry's name: "Harry S Truman" and not "Harry S. Truman" ? I believe the dot is an error ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TraxPlayer (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are Correct. Truman's full middle name is only S....BruceWiley 11:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(new discussions go at the bottom of the page)
Please refer to the notice box at the top of this talk page, as this has been thoroughly discussed in the past. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what the editors think. I have already read the S did not mean anything and therefore there should be no period after it as it is not an abbreviation. How is he listed officially? How did he sign presidential documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.45.54 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted, this is discussed in the article at: Truman's middle initial. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


This is a featured article that was on the main page. I clicked it and immediately saw an error. It is the "S." Putting a period is a common assumption but it is wrong. His full name was "Harry S Truman". The period is an abbreviation but there is no shorter abbreviation for "S". H. S Truman: OK H.S T., also OK Harry S. Truman: incorrect Correction pal 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The period is not an assumption. Please read Truman's middle initial. You might also note the references to the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum that Truman created. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Gadget850. These arguments for deleting the period don't appear to be new, and, given that this is a featured article, the issue must have been stable for some time before. I won't revert Correction pal again, since I've reverted him once already, but, based on the history of this article and previous discussions, I don't think that it's prudent to change the wording here without wider input. — TKD::Talk 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Harry S. Truman , also called "Harry S Truman"
I really, really try to be civil, but this is one of the dumbest sentences I've ever seen. Truman was born without a period (and I'm trying not to laugh at what I just wrote), but by his own volition was using the period in later life; he even named the library with a period. I am out of this before it ends up on lamest edit wars. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply declare that Wikipedia will refer to Mr. Truman by his full name from here out, start using "S" instead of "S.", and avoid all of this ludicrous debate? Since there's no advantage to be gained from using the period, and the fact that his name is "S" is indisputable, there would be a lot less debate and ire on the subject if we simply declare that we will always use his full name. No? 163.191.24.14 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying (well, writing, but you get the picture) is that a period here means "this is an abbreviation; his real name was more than just an s", but that's not the case, so why try to give the impression that it is?Zeck (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this will convince you, but I recommend reading this from the Harry S. Truman Library. It describes the history of the controversy and argues why the period belongs, including noting that the Chicago Manual of Style recommends, for consistency, using a period after a middle initial even if the initial is not an abbreviation. Rickterp (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
At its core, either usage is acceptable because they both mean the same thing; this comes down to a matter of style. "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." — Wikipedia:Manual of Style --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


I tried removing the dot and Wikipedia would not let me. I think this is wrong. An encyclopedia is academic more than anything else. Ask any American History professor who specializes in WW2 and he/she will say the same thing: "no dot." The dot is merely there as an English style because he is the only president with an initial as a name. Many people get confused when they see the dot because they think that the name stands for something. I guess the real question is: "can a initialed name be itself?" This is to say, Can the S. stand for S? It doesn't help that he had no preference and there are examples to support both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal123 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If that was you that just edited the lead, then it was not "Wikipedia." I reverted a bad edit—it did not match the article title and it mangled the text. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have to rehash this constantly? Harry himself used it; we have proof in his signature. That settles it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it is more important than, oh . . . the use of nuclear weapons. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he himself used it does not mean that he wants to be remembered that way. William Shakespeare spelled his name 3 different ways yet we only accept the ones he used the most. How do we know that Truman did not use the dot when writing to friends and family? He may have done it as a force of habit because he saw other people doing it. He may have also felt that without the dot, the name looked weird. But the several US University professors who have talked about him always emphasize that there should be no dot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal123 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Truman was fully capable of not using the dot if he wanted, his using it is plenty evidence for us to use it and this has been stable this way. Surely you can find something on wiki more important than a dot that was clearly used by Truman himself. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is so important, then put in a formal move request. You can't just change the name in the article without changing the article name. Frankly, I don't care which way it is. If the article is changed to Harry S Truman, then we will have this argument all over again. Again, this is a style choice; "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." — Wikipedia:Manual of Style --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 03:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Harry S Truman Building" reference

The saga continues: Even though the consensus here is for inclusion of the period after "S" in all written references to HST, notably including references in this article (see top of this talk page), the State Department has seen fit to list this building's title as above. [12]. Thus, we should keep the no-period usage when referencing that building. A reference in the legacy section links to a WP article that reflects the State Department's (presumably authoritative) take on the building's name . BYT 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct. If the period is not used in quoted material or in the name of a building or organization, then we should not include it here. I would suspect that State took the lead from the White House usage. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kfar Truman

Due to Truman's critical role in the US government's decision to recognize Israel, the Israeli rural town Kfar Truman was called after him. Maybe it is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. -- Gabi S. 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sysop needed -- please make fix

Can someone please fix the illiterate syntax atop today's Featured Article. The box atop the article announcing the page protection currently reads: "This page is currently protected from editing because stopping 2 days constant vandalism." Thanks! --JayHenry 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sysop unprotected. We don't protect the featured article of the day.--Chaser - T 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the problem reported on WP:ERRORS. There was also an unprotection request outstanding at WP:RFPP. — TKD::Talk 22:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You are mis-stating what that page says, Chaser. --W.marsh 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The page does say that "Full protection of the page is generally prohibited." And we didn't have anything exceptional here. How much of the vandalism was coming from established accounts? Also, it's super embarrassing, in my opinion, to have garbled grammar in a big box atop today's featured article, and super frustrating not to be able to fix this. --JayHenry 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The page does say "there are some extreme circumstances in which semi-protection can be introduced", that contradicts what Chaser said. --W.marsh 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay, but the context here is that we are talking about full protection of the article. Yeah, you're right that semi-protection would have been fine. --JayHenry 00:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction

I added the explicit term 'nuclear weapons' in the parenthetic comment about their use. Cordially, Drieux 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Article Condoms

There were 247 edits to the article during the 24-hour period of the 19th, and 95% (guestimation) of them were vandalism related (either vandalism or reverts there of). And, the article was protected for a portion of that time. Now this policy of letting anyone edit Wikipedia is great, but when it gets to the point that good editors are spending too much time just policing vandalism, maybe this policy needs to be reviewed. How productive is it to spend time just reverting garbage? Think of how much better it would be to spend quality time just contributing quality edits. Now of course I want just anyone to edit, but if they can't login and establish a track record of quality editing on "junior" articles, well, why the heck not. And this not protecting featured articles, anybody want to explain that to me? Spending all this time just fixing vandals, rude people, spamvertizers, and other no-quality edits, etc, is just a NON-PRODUCTIVE waste of time. It is STUPID! Not all policies are written in concrete. Slavery used to be legal too. WikiDon 01:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I well understand your frustration, but this is not the forum to vent; you should discuss this at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Bit overboard to compare this situation to slavery, no? Anyway, allowing anonymous users to edit has always been a core goal, and with that comes some vandalism. The Main Page FA is supposed to, to the extent feasible (that is, barring vandalism that watchlisters and recent change patrollers can't handle), represent what Wikipedia is about, including the ability to edit. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. — TKD::Talk 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"representing what wiki is about" now THAT's a stretch. RIght, the TFA is often more often in vandalized form than not, think of all the new users that come in and see the "feature article, wiki's best", in vandal form.Rlevse 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
With all do respect, this is the place. Every article that comes under this kind of vandalism and reverts IS the place. This is about more than "Main Page featured article protection," this is about a policy that is FLAWED! This is about PRODUCTIVITY and NON-PRODUCTIVITY and how much time is being spent in a NON-PRODUCTIVE MANNER. I am NOT saying that "not anybody can edit." I am just saying make it more responsible and more responsible people will step up, and the quick vandals that either don't sign in, or sign in with a "dummy" account will be DRAMATICALLY reduced. And, then we can spend MORE time making the overall quality of the product, Wikipedia, better. Have you seen all the negative press about Wikipedia? There are professional people, people who make a living doing research, that now think Wikipedia is a joke, and un-credible. And will not use under any circumstance. Is this what we want? Is this what was intended by starting Wikipedia? To have honest, professional, people think that Wikipedia is a joke, and not reliable? Maybe it is time to revisit, re-think, and re-vise, some of the policies here? If you spend 40, 30, 20, or even 10% of your time revert crap and taking out the garbage, how much better could this product be if you didn't have to do that? If you spent 25% more of your time producing QUALITY edits, and accurate articles, then the press wouldn't be so bad, and you would feel better, and this would be a better place. WikiDon 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiDon, if you think the policy is flawed, then surely you can see why the talk page of the policy is the place to discuss this. Also, if you've read the policy, you'll see that it allows for semi protection of Today's Featured Article. The concern raised above is that Rlevse, full-protected the article. All the vandalism was from IP addresses and brand new accounts. I swear to you that I posed no harm to the Featured Article, having taken the time to write three of them myself. Do you have a reason to block me from editing the article too? --JayHenry 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Rlevse did not FULL protect, he semi-protected. 2) I asked REPEATEDLY for SEMI, four times. Rlevse finally put it on, no thanks to me asking for it, only to have TKD come along a take it off. 3) But this article and FA protection is just a tip of the iceberg that I am trying to talk about. I want all senior articles, heads of states, popular people like Elvis, Marylin, John Wayne, Cary Grant, etc. put on SEMI-PROTECT. I am tired of all the honest, hard working, editors spending up to 40% of their time REVERTING, FIXING, taking out the trash. 4) JayHenry, I don't want to block anybody from editing, I don't want to block you, just make it a little more honest so the quality edits filter through. WikiDon 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel your pain, Don. But then there would have to be a whole different section set up to decide, by consensus what a "senior" article is and it would be another process. One man's Clark Gable is another man's Pokémon. What does any of this have to do with this article, anyway? Into The Fray T/C 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, WikiDon, but you are wrong about number 1. Rlevse full protected the page. See for yourself[13]. Everyone agrees with you that semi-protection is sometimes necessary, even on today's featured article. The guideline already agrees on this point. --JayHenry 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A note: If three different administrators declined requests for semi-protection, it's probably a sign that there wasn't consensus for semi-protection. I agree that vandalism reversion can be tiresome, but it's a byproduct of being an open wiki; we don't apply semi-protection liberally because anonymous editing is a Foundation issue. — TKD::Talk 08:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
1) It starts here because this is where I started. THE BUCK STOPS HERE Harry wouldn't like this crap, and neither do I. This is a great place to start it. As far as a committee for Senior and Junior articles, so be it. Highly vandalized articles like Halliburton, we need to spend more time getting the facts RIGHT, than just trying to keep our heads above water fixing the shit that is flying around. We can't fix the old crap if there is always new crap being dumped faster than we can fix the old crap. Don't you want Wikipedia to get positive press? Don't you want people to come here looking for quality information? The dream of Wikipedia could drown in a sea of bird droppings.
2) JayHenry: Okay, I looked at edit 159026311, Revision as of 20:43, 19 September 2007, and there is no protection at all. This edit, 159026311, 20:45, 19 September 2007, says, and I QUOTE:
Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled.
If you are prevented from editing this article, and you wish to make a change, please discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
Aaaarrrrgggghhhhhh.... WikiDon 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ALL How much of your time is spent reverting vandalism, garbage, crap, trite, spam, etc? That is the point the WikiDon is trying to make. What if you didn't have to spend that time doing those things? IP4240207xx 03:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Post-game analysis

Well, another interesting TFA. Here is the diff from beginning to end. A snyopsis of changes:

  • In-article comments updated
  • Commas removed from dates
  • Spaces removed from mdashes
  • Spaces added to the ndash on year only dates (contravenes WP:DASH
  • A large number of wikilinks added or dabbed
  • Pre-military career removed from lead (added as a direct result of FAC)
  • 10 changed to ten
  • 432-99 fixed with an ndash
  • Section title fixed
  • "(see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) added"; link is already at top of section //cleaned up
  • "The decision to use nuclear weapons was not politically controversial at the time, either in the U.S. or among its allies." was removed
  • Size removed form buck stops here image
  • "Communist" lower cased
  • "(see Greek Civil War)" added //cleaned up
  • Stray "]]" under Fair Deal
  • "at the request of Edward Jacobson" added to Recognition of Israel
  • "following World War II" removed from 1948 election
  • "massive" changed to large
  • "(see Chinese Civil War)" added to People's Republic of China //cleaned up
  • "underequipped" changed to under-equipped
  • "a firestorm of" removed
  • " heavily outnumbered in severe winter weather, " removed

Done through White House renovation, more later. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Missouri a "southern state"?

The "Truman's middle initial" section begins with the statement:

"Naming with initials was a common practice in southern states, including Missouri."

This implies that Missouri is a "southern state" which it is not generally considered to be. (see Southern United States). Certainly Truman neither considered himself a "southerner" nor was he considered to be one by the general public.

Furthermore this statement is not backed up by a citation. --

Democratic NATO?

Several members (Portugal, Turkey, Greece) were not democratic. Anti communist alliance is more accurate.

76.105.183.46 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is FDR to be linked or not ?

I would like to see FDR linked to Franklin D. Roosevelt; as a European, this abbreviation is not present in my general knowledge.

80.218.55.131 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good point- FDR is so iconic in the U.S. that we overlooked that. We also use LBJ for Johnson and JFK for Kennedy without a thought. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Can we stop flipping the dates around? The stable style when the article made FA was MONTH DD, YYYY and there was no reason to change it except for personal preference. Since TFA, the dates have been reformatted a number of times and it is rather annoying. And no, WP:DATES does not give a preference, and yes, the user preferences can set the date style, but this presumes a reader who is logged in and has the preferences set. On the gripping hand, I would expect a date conscious editor to have the date preferences set as desired. Currently, the first two sets of dates in the infobox and the dates in the succession boxes are in DD MONTH YYY format (a total of five instances) and the rest of the infobox and the article are in MONTH DD, YYYY format. The dates in the succession boxes should not be wikilinked; see Template:S-start and Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines; therefore the autoformatting will not work for those dates. We need to change these five dates back and remove the box links. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.Rlevse 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You want to go out on a date? Dinner at 8:00? Please use: MONTH DD YYYY, no comma please. Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates WikiDon 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
See WP:DATES#Dates, MONTH DD, YYYY please.Rlevse 17:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I went there, but don't see an example with or without comma....WikiDon
As best I see, commas don't matter. The dates in the infobox don't have commas, but the autoformatting adds them when your date format is set to no preference. I had to change my format so I could see this properly as I personally prefer DD MONTH YYYY. This is just one of the autoformatting issues; see the talk over at Dates. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Some samples from there: (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) and October 15, 1582. Of course, it's affected by autoformatting, more muddying of the waters.Rlevse 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be best to follow American usage, "MONTH DD, YEAR," There is a warm suggestion at WP:DATES that we give up autoformatting dates altogether, and the dispure there is never likely to be resolved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay Rlevse, I see where you got the dates from, but on that page the formatting is like this:
  • "For example: “Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was one of the greatest ...”
You changed it. Personally I like YYYY-MM-DD-TT, but that is just me. And, I only think important dates should be linked. Dates of birth and death, elections, disasters, dates of founding, merger completion, battles, book, album, movie, release, etc. But I guess I am in the minority. WikiDon 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

SEE ALSO: m:Help:Date formatting and linking

I didn't change it, my autoformatting did-;)Rlevse 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was WikiDon's preference setting. Don- check out User:Gadget850/Sandbox3. Change your date preference and save it, then refresh the testcase page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
PS, I agree with Pmanderson, this debate will not be settled any time soon, just like the users who revert each other over "reflist" haveing 1, 2, 3, or even 4 (yes I've seen 4) columns.Rlevse 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We could go to a movie? WikiDon

Cabinet

I used an infobox style on the cabinet. Text flows better around it, but I'm not hung up on it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

this new version also added 2k to the file size, so on that alone, I'd say change it back.Rlevse 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I chopped out all the table definition stuff, the horizontal lines and the redundant align="left". This cut it from 109k to 107K. One of us is confused here. :-) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The version by Libs23 added 1.8K, see 13:10 edit of today.Rlevse 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah- it went from 110,257 bytes to 112,049 bytes, then my edit of 110,472. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

the libs23 version also creates a lot of wasted white space, which I guess is what you meant by text flow.Rlevse 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes.
After all that, I found {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet}}. I was looking for this, but the documentation is nonexistent and I did not recognize it until I looked at Bush's article. I'm working it up at User:Gadget850/Sandbox3. Just need to check for copy-paste errors. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. This should end all the "style" edits on the old box. It is about 300 bytes larger than before the changes by Libs23. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
i like it.Rlevse 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Truman the Tiger

Shouldn't something be said about the University of Missouri's mascot who was named after him. Unfortunattly there isn't a page for Truman the Tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.51.118 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Roswell Incident"

I will decrease the size of the paragraph and add a reference to it, but please do not delete as this incident is significant historically. Truman's direct involvement has been claimed by White House insiders like Corso that just aren't that easy to casually dismiss. You know, I was sceptical myself, but Corso makes a strong case for White House involvement and his bonefides are well documented. Also, in late June 2007, Walter Haut, that same former lieutenant and public affairs officer of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field who, in July 8th, 1947, issued the original "flying disk" press release, that was denied the next daym via his estate (he died in 2005) released a sworn sworn affidavit that he had asked to be opened only after a set period after his death in which he asserted that the weather-balloon claim was a cover story and that a flying disk and had been recovered by the military and stored in a hangar. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287643,00.html Let's discuss. SimonATL 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In a book about Truman, yes. In an encyclopedia article, I think it rates at most a sentence with a link to the main article. As noted "The extent of Truman's knowledge and involvement has never been demonstrated." As for style: that first sentence is a major run-on, book titles are italicized, not bolded and refs go after punctuation. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No one said this Roswell-Truman issue didn't happen, but it's just not that important here in the amount you've added. I agree with Gadge850, a sentence at most is all that is warranted. It's also speculative as to HST's involvement and knowledge and certainly not up there with the importance scale of WWII, military desegration, Korea, etc. This amount of info should be in the Roswell and UFO articles, but not here. Rlevse 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
VOTE: DELETE SimonATL says: "The extent of Truman's knowledge and involvement has never been demonstrated, but for more than half a century a presidential role in the incident has been both vigorously claimed and attacked." and "Truman's direct involvement has been claimed by..." Until some prof of his "knowledge and involvement" and "direct involvement" can be found it is speculation, hearsay, conjecture, rumor, tabloid journalism. To the hundreds of things that happened between 1945 and 1953, this was minor in Truman's life. It amounts to trivia for his administration. You go to the Truman Library and sift through the documents there and find something on White House letter head, or even check the biographies of Truman. They don't mention it. It was not important to the country in 1945 to 1953. WikiDon 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Equating a the claims in a book by a decorated retired military officer, documented member of Eisenhower's National Security Council, a member of US Senator's staff with "tabloid journalism" is interesting and reveals a decided bias against Corso's claims. Show me all the US government people who've lined up to deny his claims. You know, I, myself, thought this Roswell stuff was all a bunch of bunk until 2 things - Corso's book and collaborative info from Canada. Then ignoring it all and dismissing it with a humph and scorn becomes harder. Do a search on Corso on YouTube and listen to the guy. Yes this stuff is "weird," and no, the Truman Library in Independence will NOT be opening up its Roswell Incident wing any time soon, but I didn't just dream this stuff up, myself. I'll decrease the paragraph's size and I've already put the link to the actual Roswell Incident, itself. But deleting all mention of the thing is pure POV. Read Corso's book, yourself. He doesn't "conjecture" that Truman was involved. He indicates that his own superior officers explained Truman's involvement, themselves. And Corso is not the only one that points to a Truman connection. I'll add more on that ASAP. Bottom line for me. Hey, I didn't "want" to lend any credibility to this tale, but LtCol Corso is neither a tabloid journalist nor does he depend on rumor. Read the book or listen to Corso's tale at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDpmCRjx_k8 and get back to this discussion. I think a small mention is justified. SimonATL 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a discussion not a vote. Corso died in 1998. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose a VOTE. I also propose that we should make sure that all of these items should be in the article ahead of other topics: Talk:Harry S. Truman/Truman presidency timeline
Secondly items that were important to Truman, either on a personal or political level, and to his administration, and/or to the country at the time of his presidency. And things that happened before and after his presidency that were either important to him personally, politically, or things that impacted the country that are directly tied to him, happened because of him, or were known to have affected him, his family, his political advisories and supporters, and/or his friends. Additionally anything that he might have done, that was a direct verifiable result of his actions, that had long lasting impact on the country or the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDon (talk • contribs)
Please, article content is achieved by consensus, not voting. The article is well organized chronologically, and I do believe it contains the material you are referring to. I don't see a problem with a sentence that states the Roswell incident occurred and Truman may have been involved with a link to the article. Beyond that, it really gets beyond the scope here. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Gadget850 is correct, all this warrants is a sentence and a link.Rlevse 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This is what made me say tabloid: "claimed in his book," and "Whether Truman authorized such groups and the extent of a presidential role in the alledged incident's investigation has been debated." Until you have something that Truman acknowledged these conspiracy theories, they don't belong in this article. Until you can find collaborating evidence, it remains speculation, hearsay, conjecture, rumor, or what ever you want to call it. The words "claimed" and "alleged" do not belong here.
SimonATL comments:

First lets look at what is known. No one has ever claimed that "nothing happened near a New Mexico US Army Air Corps Base in New Mexico in July 1947." There was, in fact a servies of events that has come to be known as the so-called "Roswell Incident." That fact established, the questions surround the origin, circumstances, and nature of what was recovered and the extent of a US Government cover-up stretching all the way to Truman's desk in the White House. In 1994, the US Air Force finally said, in effect, "OK, we WERE covering something up out there, attempts to detect Soviet intrusions into US Air space, etc..." So now even the Air Force agrees that there was, in fact, a cover-up. The debate now centers on the nature of the cover-up, just what happened, White House involvement, etc. Colonel Corso and others claim that aliens crashed and that this fact was explained to the White House and that Truman authorized a cover-up and follow-up investigation. So let's agree on what we can here. Something significant happened out there in July of 1947 that has been corraborated by even the US Air Force, Canadian documents and some even claim, by declassified Soviet documents. Let's not blandly say, "nothing happened" or "it was some fake tabloid or imagined event." I think the known facts rise higher than that. When Larry King interviewed the Nancy Easley Johnson, the daughter of Major Edwin Easley, base provost martial (military police), who was said to have been put in charge of security and clean-up at the Roswell site, she told King that when she asked him about the incident, "My father was reluctant to ever talk about this incident. Once my sister and I discovered that an incident had occurred that he had been part of, when we asked him about it, he always told us that he had promised President Truman that he would not discuss it. And he stuck with that up until the end -- until almost the very end." OK, so this is hearsay, but we're talking about someone considered newsworth and credible by both Larry King and the producers of CNN. See http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/01/lkl.00.html for the complete transcript. One has to wonder just why a junior officer at a remote base in New Mexico would promise Harry Truman anything. Another Truman connection? Major General L. C. Craigie, although he never disclosed what he discovered, according to another officer and his personal pilot, Craigie promised President Harry Truman that he wouldn't talk about what occurred in Roswell. Any connection to President Harry Truman? The official Truman calendar Truman as having met Craigie at the Cleveland Laboratory of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics on December 17, 1947. General Craigie was also famous in that he sat on the Joint Review Defence Board that was headed up at the time by Dr. Vannevar Bush. And this is where the Canadian connection comes in. Dr. Bush was described in declassified Canadian memo as the head of a "small group looking into UFOs."

Also, by what authority is it claimed that something or some claim can not be in this article unless Truman acknowledged it? By that standard, no historians can discuss alleged bouts of depression by Theodore Roosevelt, during periods of inactivity, unless they find his own statements supporting such depression. This is hardly the case as historians have considered what those close to TR, including his own daughter, Alice have written and discussed. Where did you get this so-called "standard?" SimonATL 05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PS You spelled "alledged" incorrectly. WikiDon 02:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for simply correcting it in the article. SimonATL 05:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow Wikipedia's three principal content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Cite references from a reliable source, especially on controversial topics. Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Nor is it a soapbox, a vanity publisher, a web directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents - Such content should instead be contributed to our Wikimedia sister projects. WikiDon 06:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello hello, what do we have here then?
"Roswell Incident" controvery [sic]
Main article: Roswell Incident [a long article that doesn't appear to mention The Day after Roswell]
In 1997, LtCol Philip J. Corso, US Army, (Ret), a career US Army intelligence officer [115] and former member of the Eisenhower Administration's National Security Agency claimed in his book, The Day After Roswell, that, by executive order, [blah blah blah]
The circumstances surrounding the Roswell Incident, whether Truman authorized what the Air Force now agrees was a cover-up,[117] and the subject of the cover-up, itself, continues [sic] to be debated.
Which I think means: is relegated to mass-market paperbacks for supermarket sales.
I can't say I'd ever heard of Corso. I therefore looked him up:
Philip Corso relates in his book The Day After Roswell (co-author William J. Birnes) how he stewarded extraterrestrial artifacts recovered from a crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
Ah, he says he did it. "Original research", as we'd say hereabouts.
According to Corso, the reverse engineering of these artifacts indirectly led to the development of accelerated particle beam devices, fiber optics, lasers, integrated circuit chips and Kevlar material.
Yeah, right. And perhaps to other great mysteries of our time such as Michael Jackson's honkification and the workings of Diebold election machines. Well, the old boy was in his eighties when he had Birnes write it up; perhaps his mind was wandering.
This stuff is indulgently covered in appropriately titled articles; all trace of it should be removed from this one. -- Hoary 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If Truman's alleged involvement is allegedly important, why is there no mention in Roswell UFO incident? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, most of the added material has nothing to do with Truman, it an obvious case of WP:POINT pushing; and the consensus is it does not belong here. Rlevse 10:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One man's view -- this was a (really really really minor) cold war episode whose resulting cover story may belong in an article about popular hysteria, but not in an article about Truman. Just totally out of scale. We don't talk about what color socks he typically wore, either.

Although controversial, the Roswell incident is not so easily dismissed as "one man's view" or popular hysteria. If it was just "one man's opinion" or "popular hysteria," why was the US Air Force tasked by the GAO with an official investigation?

Personally, I don't even think this merits a sentence. (Also, note that we've gotten a lot of good work done here, and that most of it has happened through consensus rather than up-or-down votes on things.) BYT 11:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SimonATL's response.
Some simple verifiable facts.

Fact 1. A day after the Roswell incident, July 8th, 1947, the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field Military authorities issued a press release, which stated: "The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence officer of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc." Lt. Walter Haut was the public-relations officer at the base in 1947 and was the man who issued the original and subsequent press releases after the crash on the orders of the base commander, Col. William Blanchard. SimonATL 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact 2. The US Army's statement was picked up by various news agencies. For example, The Sacramento Bee, July 8, 1947 published the following story:

"Army Reveals It Has Flying Disc Found On Ranch In Mew Mexico

Sacramento Bee July 8, 1947

ROSWELL (N.M.). July 8. (AP) --The army air forces here today announced a flying disc has been found on a ranch near Roswell and is in possession of the army. Lieutenant Warren Haught, public information officer of the Roswell Army AIr Field, announced the find had been made "sometime last week" and had been turned over to the air field through the cooperation of the sheriff's office.

Higher Headquarters

"It was inspected at the Roswell Army Air Field and subsequently loaned by Major Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence office in Roswell to higher headquarters."

The army gave no other details. Haught's statement:

"The many rumors regarding the flying discs became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th (atomic) Bomb Group of the 8th Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves county.

"The flying object landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week. Not having phone facilities, the rancher stored the disc until such time as he was able to contact the sheriff's office, who inturn notified Jesse A. Marcel, of the 509th Bomb Group intelligence office."

Inspected at Roswell

"Action was immediately taken and the disc was picked up at the rancher's home. It was inspected at the Roswell Army Air Field, and subsequently loaned by Major Jesse Marcel to higher headquarters."

Fact 3. On July 9th, the US Army completely changed its story to the well-known weather balloon story.

Fact 4. In 1994, once again, the US Air Force changed its story in response to an inquiry from the General Accounting Office, the office of the secretary of the Air Force published a report, "The Roswell Report: Fact Versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert." The report concluded that the Roswell incident had been attributable to something called Project Mogul, a top-secret project using high-altitude balloons to carry sensor equipment into the upper atmosphere, listening for evidence of Soviet nuclear tests.

Fact 5. In 1997, a second U.S. Air Force report concluded that the claims bodies were recovered were generated by people who had seen crash-test dummies dropped from the balloons.

Fact 6. Sworn Affidavits do not constitute hearsay - See US Federal Rule of Evidence.

Fact 7. Late June 2007, Walter Haut, that same public affairs officer, the former Lt. Walter Haut via his estate releases a sworn sworn affidavit to be opened only after his death in which he asserted that the weather-balloon claim was a cover story and that the flying disk and aliens had been recovered by the military and stored in a hangar. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287643,00.html

According to Fox News' account Haut described seeing not just the craft, but alien bodies. In this same sworn affidavit, Haut talks about a high-level meeting he attended with base commander Col. William Blanchard and the Commander of the Eighth Army Air Force, Gen. Roger Ramey. Haut states that at this meeting, pieces of wreckage were handed around for participants to touch, with nobody able to identify the material. He says the press release was issued because locals were already aware of the crash site, but in fact there had been a second crash site, where more debris from the craft had fallen. The plan was that an announcement acknowledging the first site, which had been discovered by a farmer, would divert attention from the second and more important location. Haut also spoke about a clean-up operation, where for months afterward military personnel scoured both crash sites searching for all remaining pieces of debris, removing them and erasing all signs that anything unusual had occurred. Haut then tells how Colonel Blanchard took him to "Building 84" — one of the hangars at Roswell — and showed him the craft itself. He describes a metallic egg-shaped object around 12-15 feet in length and around 6 feet wide. He said he saw no windows, wings, tail, landing gear or any other feature. Haut says in that same affidavit that he "saw the alien bodies." He saw two bodies on the floor, partially covered by a tarpaulin. They are described in his statement as about 4 feet tall, with disproportionately large heads. Towards the end of the affidavit, Haut concludes: "I am convinced that what I personally observed was some kind of craft and its crew from outer space."

As Fox News pointed out in its coverage of the story, "What's particularly interesting about Walter Haut is that in the many interviews he gave before his death, he played down his role and made no such claims. Had he been seeking publicity, he would surely have spoken about the craft and the bodies. Did he fear ridicule, or was the affidavit a sort of deathbed confession from someone who had been part of a cover-up, but who had stayed loyal to the end? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287643,00.html SimonATL 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SIMONATL's Comment. I find it amazing that people don't want any mention at all of this incident in the article on Truman even though Corso and other's claim a direct link to the Truman White House. Sure - all this stuff sounds crazy, weird, hysterical, etc., but we now have not only Corso, but key witnesses such as Walter Haut, that same public affairs officer who wrote the original press release for the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force making sworn affidavits to be released only after their deaths. I have no particular ax to grind here, but have to ask myself the same questions Fox News did. Why would Walter Haut, who has always played down his role make provision for a sworn affadavit to be released only after his death? Why is everyone so uncomfortable with some of these facts? In July 1947, The US Army Air Force, first officially admits the recovery of a flying disk, then denies it the next day. In late June 2007, two years after his death, a signed, notarized and sworn affadavit is released by the selfsame (former lieutenant) Walter Haut, the same man who wrote the original July 1947 press release in which he describes a cover-up. Can just will all this away with sarcasm and ridicule. I find it rather intersting that Corso claimed that this same ridicule would be the best vehicle in keeping all this under wraps.

Unlike many people's opinions, I am not a UFO nut nor am I pushing some particular agenda. I have an undergraduate degree in history, am a retired military officer and have authored a number of totally verifiable articles in wikipedia including the Field artillery team , William R. Rathvon, Tweed Roosevelt, and many others. I've added photos and contributed text to articles on Theodore Roosevelt and his family. (I'm a member of the Theodore Roosevelt Association) I've also contributed some in Spanish, on military history, Latin and many other areas as well. I'm interested in the historical rather than hysterical aspects of the connection between the Truman White House and the Roswell Incident.

I'm sorry my added paragraph to the excellent Harry Truman article has touched off such a firestorm. Since it has been 3 years years since I once again looked into this Roswell business which I originally read of about 10 years ago, I guess I've just personally gotten past my initial shock over it. The reactions of the skeptics in this discussion remind me so much of my own initial ("this is impossible, fantastic, hysterical, couldn't have happened, etc. ..blah blah blah...) reactions.

I suggest the scoffers read the wikipedia article on Paradigm shift, the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I read that book in college and found it quite useful, and its idea is simply this. When observers detect new information or phenomena that can no longer be explained by traditional explanations or theories, they can do one of 2 things, dismiss the evidence or look for anothe explantion or theory. This discussion on the Roswell Incident fits the his concept quite well. Since this alien business doesn't fit the preconceptions of many wikipedia editors, these people have to attack and/or dismiss the facts themselves (the "it simply never happened" it COULDN'T have happened) approach. I took this same approach myself and understand it. But the more I looked at what has been coming out over the past 10 years, the more uncomfortable I became with simply dismissing the story. Recently, while orginally no less skeptical than many of you here, the book by Corso, his several hours of commentary on Youtube on why he wrote the book, and finally the sworn affidavits of the public affairs officer, have made me take a another look into the story. It will be interesting to read the Truman article 50 years from now. By that time, I suspect, a paradigm shift will have been made in general public opinion into a new view on this alien stuff in the so-called Roswell Incident will probably be a yawner rather than a shocker. Contrary to some opinions expressed here, I'm interested in the historical rather than hysterical aspects of the connection between the Truman White House and the Roswell Incident. SimonATL 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you answer Gadget850's question about if it's so important why it's not already in the Roswell article? Now you reinsert it in part and on a par with "Administration and Cabinet" and "Supreme Court appointments"? Hardly. I agree to complete removal so obviously so does BYT. Anyone else?Rlevse 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm apologize for not answering some questions in a linear fashion, but moving up into the place where the question was first raised.

Rlevse Question. If it's so important why it's not already in the Roswell article? SimonATL's Answer. I tell you what, I'll add expand that article to include the latest information including 2 items in particular - Lt Walter Haut, the 504's public affairs officer's recently released affadavit of complicity in the alien spacecraft cover-up and the Colonel Corso claim of a Truman White House connection.

Please read my comments on why this info should be in the article. Also, I greatly pared down the proposed paragraph and would be happy to discuss an insertion point into the article. From work I have done on the Theodore Roosevelt article, that group of editors is really touchy about the article layout, and for equally good reasons. They also didn't like a Teddy Roosevelt trivia section (was never my idea). So here's what I'm proposing. I'll update the Roswell Incident article and then go back to this article and will discuss an insertion point into the article.

Paragraph placement. For the sake of discussion. Please think about this point as well. Let's say that while buried in the stacks of the Truman Library in Independence, MO, you came upon the actual executive order on the investigation. OK, so now you have Truman, himself providing the proverbial smoking gun and it's all out there and there's a congressional investigation and all this stuff comes out and the cats out of the bag and several years pass and we're all collectively past that denial period, where would the small paragraph I last wrote fit into the overall article?

Is this stuff just hysterical hype? Well I used to think so, myself, until a key witnesses started coming forth, often within months of dying and making statements. And the clincher was the original public affairs officer of the 504th, Walter Haut's signed and notarized legal deposition. He's the guy that released the original press statement announcing a flying saucer on July 8th, 1947 (undeniable fact), then retracted the statement the next day (undeniable fact), then didn't want to discuss it for the next half century, and finally makes provision for it's release (undeniable fact) in June of 2007 after a 2 year period following his death in 2005. That's arguably admissable in a courtroom under the dying declaration exception to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Sure this alien crash business might one day fall into that "inconvenient truth" category, but if it's true, it can't hurt me, is my take on all this. I'll share one more item to be deleted in a few days from this discussion. I'd be happy to speak over the phone with any of the editors and discuss some more info on have that I can't post here. Email me if you are interested. SimonATL@yahoo.com Thanks. SimonATL 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point, it was not ALREADY there. Rlevse 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
All articles must follow Wikipedia's three principal content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Cite references from a reliable source, especially on controversial topics. Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. WikiDon
Re the Wikipedia article on the Roswell Incident. Understand and updating it is what I intend to do, striving for "Verifiability," and "references from reliable source"(s). By "original research," what I meant was that I have been able to pull together information from several reliable sources on other topics totally unrelated to this Roswell business. If you bothered to look at the final iteration of the paragraph I wrote on the Roswell Incident, I used the expressions, "it has been claimed" "continues to be disputed," etc. This hardly equates to POV.
I respect the opinions of you editors that put together an excellent overall article on Truman that is as good as the one on TR (The TR article has also been a featured article). Once I update the general Roswell Incident article, work on this one. Check my other contributions and articles and you'll note that I'm not a POV type of person. SimonATL —Preceding comment was added at 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

from: bruce condell (truppenfuhrung page [qv]) i find this constant party-political/leftist bias distressing. historians have only one duty: to present the whole and unbiased truth. in such a case: what justification is there for these boring political rantings. those who claim 'leninest' justification for their propositions should remember that lenin and the others were a product of a west-asiatic /east-european philosophy which had little relationship with europe and with marx and they had only a distant relationship with the west european emerging democracies. (in spite of the assertions of the activists) marx stated that: (in his view) socialism could only come into existance when capitalism was fully developed. 'quote: prof. a. grayling, queen mary colllege, U. London. With my regrets gentlemen bruce (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ - {{cite journal - |last= - |first= - |title=The White Case Record - |journal=Time Magazine - |volume= - |issue= - |pages= - |publisher= - |date=November 30, 1953 - |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,823119,00.html - |doi= - |id= - |accessdate=2006-10-03 }}
  2. ^ - {{cite web - |last=Moynihan - |first=Daniel Patrick - |title=Chairman's Forward - |work=Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy - |publisher= - |date=1997 - |url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html - |format= - |doi= - |accessdate=2006-10-03 }}
  3. ^ Carter, Kit. "The Army Air Forces in World War II". Office of Air Force History, Washington, D.C. 1973: 685. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Atomicarchive.com. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  5. ^ "The answer reached the President at five minutes past four that afternoon, Tuesday, August 14. Japan had surrendered." McCullough, p. 461.
  6. ^ "Atomic Bomb Chronology: 1945–1946". Tokyo Physicians for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved 2007-07-28. "H. Truman told Y. Stalin about A-bomb experiment. Stalin was already informed by spy of Trinity but never revealed it."
  7. ^ "Interview Transcripts: The Potsdam Conference". The American Experience. PBS. Retrieved 2007-07-26. "Truman approached Stalin at the Potsdam conference and very carefully said to Stalin that he had this new weapon."
  8. ^ Truman, Harry S. (1955). Year of Decisions. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. p. 416. ISBN 156852062X. Stalin hoped we would make 'good use of it against the Japanese.'
  9. ^ McNulty, Bryan. "The great atomic bomb debate". Perspectives. Ohio University. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
  10. ^ ""The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Gar Alperovitz and the H-Net Debate"". Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?. Doug-long.com. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_S._Truman/Archive_3&oldid=1085444811"