Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 1 >>

Contents

why hide S. or S ?

If you are interested in whether it is S or S., look below. Here what I wish to ask is: if many many people find it an interesting topic, why hide the choice in hidden notes and the talk page? Just put a couple of sentences in the article right up front. People find it interesting. (then put in a hidden note that says don't add too much, it's not THAT interesting)

S. or S ?

Style, shmyle - this is all much ado about nothing. Harry S Truman DID have a middle name -- it was the letter S, and nothing else. This is not uncommon in America, though it is less common than it used to be -- like people have more than one middle name, or having no middle name at all, or having double first names ('''''''Jan-Michael, Mary Jo, etc.),''''''' and so on. In Truman's case, his parents apparently could not agree which grandparent's name to give him as a middle name, so since both of the candidate names began with 'S,' they gave him the letter S as a compromise. THAT is the most important thing to note in all of this discussion - the letter S was Truman's complete middle name. It was not an abbreviation.

Of course, as with anything to do with personal names, the first order of business is to ascertain what the person who bore the name actually did with it orthographically. Style manuals and policies are absolutely irrelevant if following them means you don't reproduce the person's name AS THEY ACTUALLY USED IT.

For example, all style manuals for Australian English spell the word 'labour' with a 'u' - but the political party is called "Labor Party," not "Labour." So, if you're writing about the Australian labour party, you would want to use its actual name and call it "Labor Party," not "Labour Party." Likewise, you would not want to capitalise the poetry of e.e. cummings just because your style manual says you're supposed to; it would be all wrong. Likewise, if you're in America and writing about the British Labour Party, you would want to spell it 'Labour,' notwithstanding American style directs 'labor,' because "Labour Party" is a proper name - and the native orthography of a proper name ALWAYS takes precedence over style manuals and policy directives.

So, the first order of business is to ascertain what Harry Truman preferred. The record indicates he was inconsistent. Sometimes he did "Harry S Truman" and sometimes he did "Harry S. Truman." He is dead, so he cannot be asked and there are no living sources that can provide a definitive answer. What to do, what to do?

One possiblity is to consult a style manual -- but that is inappropriate unless ONE style manual has been formally adopted for ALL of Wikipedia, in which case THAT style manual is the one that should be consulted.

But we do not need to go that far. In any personal name, it is only appropriate to use a period when the name is being abbreviated. For Example:

Thomas John Smith - no abbreviations, no periods. Thomas J. Smith - one abbreviation, one period. Thos. J. Smith - two abbreviations, two periods. T.J. Smith - two abbreviations, two periods

HOWEVER - the professional name, "TJ Smith" (as if T and J were one name, pronounced "Teejay") would not take any periods, because "TJ Smith" is itself a proper name that does not use any periods (in this case, as a professional name, it would be the name of a business - or of a person presenting him/herself as a business entity).

NOTA BENE: We are talking about PERIODS here, NOT "dots." "Dot" is computer-speak for a keystroke used in URL's and domain names: "www(dot)wikipedia(dot)org". A period, on the other hand, is an article of punctuation used to terminate sentences and abbreviate words. A "dot" is not used for the same purposes as a period, and a period is not used for the same purposes as a dot -- notwithstanding they are functionally the same thing, because they are conceptually different things.

So, the problem turns on this question: Is the letter 'S' in Harry Truman's name an abbreviation? If it is an abbreviation, it must take the period. If it is not an abbreviation, it must not take the period. Style manuals don't come into it - especially if they're just plain arbitrary and wrong.

On this point, all sources agree, including Truman himself. The letter 'S' is NOT an abbreviation, but the letter 'S' on its own is his complete middle name.

Because the letter 'S' is Truman's complete middle name, NOT an abbreviation of some longer name beginning with 'S', the use of a period is inappropriate.

SIDE STORY: One letter names are rare, but they do exist. The best-known is probably the Scottish name Y, from the Gaelic 'Aoidh,' and likewise pronounced something like "uuoy". (A variation of this name, based on the genitive form of Aoidh - spelled 'hAoidh' - is translated from Gaelic as 'Hy'.) Otherwise, all letters of the alphabet have names - and those names are sometimes used as personal names.

For the reasons given, the periods used in the name "Harry S. Truman" because the 'S' is not abbreviated but is his complete, one-letter middle name. His full legal name is thus "Harry S Truman".

No, see [1]. -- Anon
See also: Harry S. Truman#Truman's Middle Initial.--Menchi 01:59, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Someone changed 'em all back. Perhaps a reversion to the 17 December 2004 version would be in order. Chris Lawson 17:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fixed; thanks. --Dominus 18:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Happened again. Chris Lawson 04:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It might be worth putting some comments hidden in the text, in case any of these folks are doing it out of well-intentioned ignorance. -Willmcw 05:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I tried to revert the page just after I posted the above, and with a note in the Edit Summary that said something to the effect of "READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE BEFORE EDITING TO REMOVE THE PERIOD," but every time I tried to revert, it got discarded. Perhaps I'm not "important" enough to be allowed to revert stuff ;) but I agree that a note should be placed on the page somewhere. Chris Lawson 18:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Manually reverting articles is somewhat broken, or at least was last night, I do believe. --Golbez 19:13, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Glad it hear it wasn't just me - I spent 20 minutes trying to revert it. I've now added big reminders in the source text to please not change without prior discussion. That won't helpe against intentional mischief, but might forestall do-gooders. -Willmcw 23:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

??? What happened? I had moved that, and the Older versions shows that, but the diff to mav's change shows that it was still the redirect. -- Zoe

I deleted Harry S. Truman, moved Harry S Truman to Harry S. Truman and then restored Harry S. Truman. All is well now. --mav
It really depends on what the rest of the presidents' names look like. If we included their entire middle names, we should leave out the period. But, if we only put their middle initial, then teh period is fine. My two cents. --Ratiocinate
And mine - having only a middle initial is not the same as having a one-letter middle name. Since it is an initial, it should have a period. The fact that Truman joked about treating it as a name is something of a confirmation that it isn't. Perhaps more importantly, the presidential library is named after "Harry S. Truman", as is the aircraft carrier. The point could be argued endlessly, but official usage seems to include a period. Since the point seems likely to come up again, I've restored the link between the controversial character and the explanation further down the page. toh
Taken the words out of my mouth Ratiocinate. Snopes claims that Harry's middle name really was S. On this basis, either "Harry S Truman" or "Harry S. Truman" is correct, but they give different amounts of information - the first gives the middle name and the second gives only the initial, in exactly the same way as you can write either "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" or "Franklin D. Roosevelt". His signature and the name of the library just happen to be to the precision of the second option, purely out of choice. -- Smjg 10:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Somebody please change Truman's middle name.

I don't want to change the title myself, but Truman's middle name should be changed. The S does not stand for a middle name so there should be no dot in the honorary military title. Jazz1979 04:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. The name "S" begins with an "S". See my comment under the first section. If you've evidence of whether his "honorary military title" had the dot in (stating only his middle initial) or not (stating his whole middle name), then go ahead with it. -- Smjg 08:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If he used it that way himself (as can be seen in the illustration) well, that pretty much settles it for me. It should stay "Harry S. Truman". --Valentinian 22:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
What evidence have we that he only ever used one form in his life? -- Smjg 10:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
We have the Truman Library and Museum, showing the “S.” As the plaintiff (s), you need to produce something that says otherwise. Truman said that the period should be omitted. But went on using it himself. Its "tomAto, tomahto" at this point, either should work. How much time should we spend on this issue? Please read the excerpt below:

USE OF THE PERIOD AFTER THE "S" IN HARRY S. TRUMAN'S NAME

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/speriod.htm

  • In recent years the question of whether to use a period after the "S" in Harry S. Truman's name has become a subject of controversy, especially among editors. The evidence provided by Mr. Truman's own practice argues strongly for the use of the period. While, as many people do, Mr. Truman often ran the letters in his signature together in a single stroke, the archives of the Harry S. Truman Library has numerous examples of the signature written at various times throughout Mr. Truman's lifetime where his use of a period after the "S" is very obvious.
  • Mr. Truman apparently initiated the "period" controversy in 1962 when, perhaps in jest, he told newspapermen that the period should be omitted. In explanation he said that the "S" did not stand for any name but was a compromise between the names of his grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young. He was later heard to say that the use of the period dated after 1962 as well as before.
  • Several widely recognized style manuals provide guidance in favor of using the period. According to The Chicago Manual of Style all initials given with a name should "for convenience and consistency" be followed by a period even if they are not abbreviations of names. The U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual states that the period should be used after the "S" in Harry S. Truman's name.
  • Most published works using the name Harry S. Truman employ the period. Authors choosing to omit the period in their texts must still use it when citing the names of organizations that employ the period in their legal titles (e.g. Harry S. Truman Library) thus seeming to contradict themselves. Authoritative publications produced by the Government Printing Office consistently use the period in Mr. Truman's name, notably the Department of State's documentary series Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, the Department of the Army's United States Army in World War II and two major publications of the Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the President - Harry S. Truman and the United States Government Organization Manual.
WikiDon 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
This doesn't really answer the question. The second paragraph in your quote already indicates that Harry didn't always use the "." himself. Moreover, why does everyone seem to be ignoring my point and carrying on with the false dichotomy? The only logical way that the version with the "." can be the only correct form is that his middle name was the two-character sequence "S.". Or maybe the whole concept has been illogical since its conception.... -- Smjg 19:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Truman biography at whitehouse.gov uses Harry S Truman.[2] -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 10:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is suppose to be a period after the S, however, the name in the first line and the name above the photo should give the full names, not the middle initial, so in those two cases there should be no period. -arctic gnome 18:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1945-1948

This article omits many of the events of 1945-1948, a crucial period in the Truman presidency. There should be discussion of the beginning of the cold war, the partition of Korea, the Berlin airlift, and the Marshall plan. Dominus 06:26 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Go for it! -- Infrogmation 06:34 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

College degree

Harry Truman is also the last president to not have a college degree. This little bit of trivia should be included somewhere. -Harry

Ku Klux Klan

Recently, an anonymous user changed

Some claim that he was for a short time a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but this has not been verified.

to

Some claim that he was for a short time a member of the Ku Klux Klan, this has never been verified and if he was a member he left due to the Klan's anti-Catholic policies.

I changed it back, for several reasons. Most important, it isn't clear to me what the revised version could possibly mean. If it's not known that he ever was a memeber, how could there be a reason for his quitting? It sounds like an alternative defense in a trial---"We will prove that my client did not commit the homicide, and that if he did commit the homicide, it was in self defense."

Also, I wasn't sure that the clause added was factual. I've read a lot of things that Truman had said and written about the Klan, and it seems to me that Truman would have had a lot of reasons to quit the Klan other than their anti-Catholicism. At the time he would have belonged to the Klan, for instance, he would have been in the clothing business with Eddie Jacobsen, his old war buddy, who was Jewish.

Finally, the revised version of the sentence is stilted and sounds bad. -- Dominus 13:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to David McCullough's book, in 1922, while Truman was running for country judge, his friend Edgar Hinde talked Truman into handing over $10 as a KKK membership fee. Shortly afterwards, a KKK organizer met with Truman and offered KKK backing if he would promise not to hire Catholics if elected. Truman refused (since he had commanded mostly Catholics during WW I) and got his $10 refunded. He never attended a KKK meeting, and after that, the KKK worked against him during elections, suggesting (for example) that his grandfather was Jewish, etc. -- User:Dpm64 2005-01-11

  • "Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics#Harry Truman|Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics."

Did he ever become a member? Did he ever go to a meeting and go through the initiation process? I don't think he was ever a member; the deal was never consummated. WikiDon 15:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Why not change it to somethng like: "There are different point of view. Some believe that he was a member but he left because..." ~mister.woody

Jews

While not bad, the anon's recent edits purged all mention of his dislike for Jews and of his association with the KKK. Since I don't know how major/factual these are, I mention this here. --Golbez 20:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a reference source handy, but didn't he have a jewish business partner early on? I seem to recall that he went on to become the first Israeli ambassador to the U.S., after helping persuade President Truman to recognize Israel. I think it's essential to have some mention of the KKK episode, even though it was brief and he quit without ever attending a meeting (as soon as he found out they were anti-Catholic). Dpm64 03:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Jewish business partner you're referring to was Eddie Jacobson, who was a lifelong friend of Truman's. Regarding the KKK incident, I believe your account is the one supported by David McCulloch's recent biography. -- Dominus 14:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In any event, the establishment of Israel was part of USA foreign policy, not 'sympathy' with Jews per se.--TresRoque 13:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I would like to read more information on his decision to drop the A bomb on Japan, if anybody knowledgeable on this topic wants to add.--Sonjaaa 03:49, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

And is it true that the bomb on Nagasaki was dropped due to Truman forgetting to tell the military to not drop the second bomb?

    • No, that's not true. As they decided to do it, Truman initially made the decision to drop the first bomb (on Hiroshima), and thereafter the decision to drop more bombs was placed in the hands of the military, it was at their discretion. Because no word of surrender had been received from Japan, the military - not Truman - decided to drop the second bomb. Shortly thereafter, Truman took back the sole authority to drop the bomb to himself. The U.S. did not immediately have any more bombs to drop at that point, but just the same, if it came to the point where the country would have to drop more bombs, Truman wanted to be in control. So, in short, it's not that he forgot. It's simply that he gave the authority to drop the bomb to the military after he made the decision himself to drop the first one on Hiroshima. After he gave the authority to the military to drop the bomb, the military decided to drop one on Nagasaki, after which time Truman returned the sole authority to the presidency. The PBS Documentary Truman goes into considerable detail about this.

The Buck Stops Here

I believe that Truman did indeed coin this phrase, as a play on the already-established phrase "pass the buck". Is there any documentary evidence either way? -- Dominus 18:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to this page at the Truman Library it was not coined by Truman. -- Dominus 18:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, according to the OED, it is original with Truman:
buck9 b. fig. the buck stops here: H. S. Truman's phrase for ‘the responsibility rests here’, i.e. the buck cannot be passed any further (see quot. 1952). orig. U.S.
-- Dominus 18:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another reference confirming the conventional view that it is an old poker term: Discovery Channel (BTW, my interpretation of the OED cite is that they are not asserting he coined the phrase, only that he made it his own.) -Willmcw 19:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • He didn't coin the phrase. He simply popularized it all the more.

True.

ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from the use of a buck-handled knife to indicate the dealer in a poker game. Source: Apple computer dictionary, 1.0.1, 2005.

And, on the subject of Truman's facility with the English language, can his comment on black American men

- something to the effect that all they want is 'tight pussy, new shoes and a warm place to shit' - be verified?

--TresRoque 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell did this come up from? --Reverend Loki 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's the 'joke' that cost Earl Butz his job as Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture. I've never heard it mentioned in connection with Truman, however. -- Donald Albury 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamrt 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)"The Buck Stops Here" became associated with Harry Truman when his friend Fred Canfil gave him a small sign for his desk emblazened with the phrase. Canfil had seen one like it on the desk of a reformatory warden in El Reno, Oklahoma and had a copy made for the President. The sign was not on Truman's desk for very long, but the term stuck and eventually became acredited to Truman. (Ref: "Truman" by David McCullough 1992 P.481)

Cabinet

Shouldn't we list when they first took office instead of starting from the start of Truman's first term? After all Harold L. Ickes started his job way back in 1933, but you wouldn't know it from the table.james_anatidae 03:42, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I think that that applies to most (or all) of the cabinet members. On the other hand, you could say that the dates listed are the dates that they were members of Truman's cabinet. I think that I'll just put a note next to the table. Morris 17:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I just rolled the page back to its 28 January version and did some minor edits on it -- just cleanup, really. I noticed when I was doing that that the *only* edits to this page since then were either vandalism or reversion of such. Perhaps it's time for a temporary "locked for editing?"

On a side note, I can't think of any reason why Harry Truman, of all people, would be such a target for vandals... —chris.lawson (talk) 05:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

     On 27 November 2006, I rolled the page back to its last version 26 Nov 2006.

I noticed that the opening of the article had been vandalized. Suggest possible lock down of article for one month. (2215 Nov 2006 (PST)) - macphile

"distinguished"

The word "distinguished" has been temporarily reverted and placed here pending clarification of this phrase,

sent a distinguished American delegation to the U.N.'s first General Assembly;

this phrase presumabley refers to the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Fransisco from April to June of 1945 (seeing the reference to Eleanor Roosevelt). However, the distinguished Soviet spy Alger Hiss headed the delegation. Hopefully this one sentence can be rewritten in such a way as to eliminate the glorious attribute that a Soviet GRU operative acted as the United Nations first General Secretary. Thank you. Nobs01 18:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hiss could have been considered "distinguished" before he became something else? WikiDon 18:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

RE: Puerto Rican versus Puerto Rico

Sirs, the link Puerto Rican takes you to a different article than Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican is about a person, persons, or a people. Puerto Rico is a geographic place or a territory by phyisical definition. There are Puerto Ricans have NEVER been to Puerto Rico. I think that there is room for both links, to what they refer. The two assassins should go to Puerto Rican. Besides, does it cost anymore to have two links? It costs four brackets; "[[ ]]"? WikiDon 18:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The Puerto Rican article is not very informative. Someone reading this article, who clicks through on a link, presumably wants information about the Puerto Rican independence movement, not an article about ethnic affiliations.--Bcrowell 18:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like that article should be broken into two: 1) Puerto Rican means: a person of Puertarican desent, and 2) the "Puerto Rican independence movement" should be its own article? WikiDon 19:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Truman's VP

I have just edited this article to show that Barkley was not Truman's VP for the whole term. From the time Truman took over from FDR in 1945 to after the 1948 election, there was no VP. The office was vacant. We could list who was next in line during this time, but I feel this would rise to the level of trivia. This also applies to Gerald Ford and LBJ. - Hoshie | Image:ChagosFlag.png 10:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Autobiography: I Was There (Where cited)


RJBurkhart 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re*Cycling RO/CS Lessons Learned

River Orienteering / Community Stewardhsip (RO/CS) geoWIZard for Prairie Pasage Flyways @
River Orienteering / Community Stewardhsip (RO/CS) geoWIZard for Prairie Pasage Flyways @


RJBurkhart 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on a social network analysis of Truman's calendar,
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy was a trusted advsior with whom HST met regularly.

Knights Templar

Truman is in the category:Knights Templar but there is not mention of that honor in the article. We should have some explanation and source for that fact. -Will Beback 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman's middle name

Does anyone know Harry S. Truman's middle name? I am working on a project and I need to know fast! Bye.

His middle name was 'S'. In fact, this article is named incorrectly, as the 'S' in Harry S Truman is not an initial, and should not have a period. [3] -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Honestly, how many times do you people have to go over this? Truman himself used a period after the "S," but said he didn't care whether there was a period after it or not. In a sense, the "S" is an initial, because it's meant to stand for the names of "Solomon" and "Shippe," the names of his grandfathers. This isn't that complicated.
why do you say "you people" when you yourself were "going over it" as you wrote that? Anyway, I just chimed in to point out that even if his middle name was just "S", his middle name's initial letter was also "S" so his initials are H.S.T. (abbreviated like U.S.A.) unless you want to claim that you can only use a "dot" if it is an abbreviation in which case you would have to back his initials being H.ST. which seems like a nutty proposal to back.

middle name (for the 1000th time)

I added periods to two S's after reading the article from the Truman Library site [4].

That paper does not apply to the two cases you just changed. It says "all initials given with a name should 'for convenience and consistency' be followed by a period even if they are not abbreviations of names," and I agree; the initial should have a period. However, in the first line of this article and above the photo it is Wikipedia's policy to include the full names of people, not initials. -arctic gnome 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

His full name is Harry S. Truman, leaving the period off looks ridiculous and is contrary to the way in which every major information source writes his name.

What major information sourses give his full name with a period? The White House's history website [5] doesn't use a period when giving his full name, and I'd say that it's a major information sourse. -arctic gnome 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, here we go again. Does anybody know if this is in the "most pointless edit wars" page yet? Here's my take, for what its worth: Is it Wikipedia's policy? Most likely you are quoting the manual of style, which does not contain any hard and fast rules, but rather should be used as a guideline that can be adapted to the situation. Clearly this is a unique situation.
As per: [6]. "The U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual states that the period should be used after the "S" in Harry S. Truman's name." It would seem that this is not the first time that the White House has not followed its own regulations. I vote: keep the period.--Easter Monkey 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The Truman Library article does not address this issue; it specifically says that it is talking about the use of the S as an initial. I agree that when used as an initial it should have a period, but in regards to the first line of this article, the question is whether his middle name written out in full should have a period. If, as Unsigned Above says, his full name has a period after the S, please show some evidence of it strong enough to show why this case should be different than Wikipedia standard and the White House’s webpage. As of right now the pro-period as presented zero evidence to support their case. -arctic gnome 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you're saying. I must be slow. You're going to hate this answer, but I say keep the period because to me it looks goofy without it, I got nothing else. It's one of those gut feeling type issues for me. Incidentally, I haven't taken the time to look, have there been previous RFC's or whatnot? It doesn't look like it. It's commented in the article that the "consensus" is to leave the period, but I don't see anywhere on here where an actual poll or other consensus building measure was used. --Easter Monkey 09:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Truman's middle name

During his life, Truman used the period consistently after the letter 'S' in his middle name. The argument from arctic gnome that it is contrary to Wikipedia's policy to use the period is without merit. Ulysses S. Grant was born Hiram Ulysses Grant and that name is not used above his photograph. Dwight D. Eisenhower was born David Dwight Eisenhower and that name is not used above his photograph. His presidential library, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and The Columbia Encyclopedia all use the period following the 'S'. It is clear that he wanted it following his name and that it was used in his proper title.

[7] [8]

--MZMcBride 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what arctic gnome means. AG is not arguing that the period does or does not belong, AG is arguing that because S is his entire middle name, it is thus WP policy to not abbreviate it at the beginning of an article; S is his whole middle name, while S. is the abbreviation of his middle name. It took me a while to wrap my mind around that. AG is saying that Harry S. Truman as the opening of the intro would be the equivalent of Franklin Delano. Roosevelt or Dwight David. Eisenhower in those respective articles. That's it. --Easter Monkey 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that it is my understanding that his full middle name is "S.". Some middle names (including my own) are just one letter with a period following, and that is the proper and full middle name. Unless there is evidence to support that his official middle name does not include the period (a birth certificate), it should remain in the article.

--MZMcBride 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anyone with a single-letter middle name, so I'll take your word on that. -arctic gnome 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Foundation

Should we also include that the Harry S. Truman Foundation exists (in McLeansboro, IL). This foundation issues scholarships each year to the college juniors who have exhibited the qualities of a "change agent." Behind the Marshall and the Rhodes, this is the most competitive US undergraduate scholarship.

Is new image needed?

Image:President Truman with Saud.jpg has just been added to the article. I question its relevancy and utility in the article. It doesn't show Truman's face, and the action depicted is a quite minor part of presidential duties (i.e., awarding medals to foreign dignitaries). -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

GA

.... was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, and has passed! Congratulations and keep up the great editting! Highway 20:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Truman Day in Missouri should be mentioned

In Missouri, President Truman is honored every year in Missouri by closing down the state government on his birthday. Perhaps someone would know which year this was first done. Joncnunn 16:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Truman - and Iranian oil, coup 1950s

I am reading a terrific book that is so timely now on the subject of Iran and the roots of terrorism, that covers Truman's decisions in regard to Iran. It's All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. A great read. I don't feel qualified to summarize it all but I am very surprised no professional historian has attempted to add it to this biography. Truman's role was nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, he declined to get involved in promoting a coup in Iran, something apparently Eisenhower was willing to sponsor. Truman appointed an anti-communist and also anti-imperialist ambassador in Henry Grady. He appointed Dean Acheson Secretary of State sympathetic to the nationalist movement in Iran. The Asst Secy of State, George McGhee, asked the British to be more equitable with the Iranians. They owned 51% of the oil company that was making handsome profits there. The workers lived in deplorable conditions without privacy, sanitation, alloted space the size of a blanket in a huge enclosure. An Israeli described them as the poorest people on earth. Now, Im going to look at Eisenhower's entry.

Does Truman have a legacy?

Should there be a section on the legacy of Truman

Reconversion?

I'm pretty sure "reconversion" isn't a word, but correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.
70.131.54.229 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reconversion = 2 : conversion back to a previous state: as b : change back to a previous complex of qualities c : change (as of industry) from a wartime basis to a peacetime basis [Webster's 3rd Unabridged] Rjensen 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Military Rank

The page had a small inconsistency about Truman's military rank in World War I. He returned home a Captain and later became a Lieutenant Colonel in the 20's. Fixed it.IndieJones

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Convicted of murder?

In the Assassination attempt section, the article states:

On November 1, 1950, Puerto Rican nationalists Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo attempted to assassinate Truman at the Blair House. Collazo was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death in 1952.

Wait a minute. You can't be convicted of murder if you didn't kill anyone. The article on Oscar Collazo says a police officer, Leslie Coffelt, was killed during the attack (something this article should probably mention), but then the Leslie Coffelt article says it was Griselio Torresola who killed him. So I can't see how the conviction of Collazo could have been for murder. Someone needs to check this (neither of the other articles mention the exact charge, that I noticed). - dcljr (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Page 812 of David McCullough's Biogrpahy "Truman" states: "Convicted on four counts, including the murder of Coffelt, Collazo was senteced to death in the electric chair. However, in 1952, and as a gesture to the people of Puerto Rico, Truman would commute the sentence to life imprisonment." It goes on to say that he was pardoned in the late 1970's by Carter. In the American legal system is it possible to be guilty for the conduct of another, if certain elements are present: see, Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247, and so on. I guess that's what happened in that case--McCullough doesn't specify. - Mattweng

Right. In Florida (and probably in most other jurisdictions in the U.S.) it doesn't matter who kills a person during the commission of a felony, the person or persons committing the felony can be charged with murder. The 2005 Florida Statutes 782.04 Murder (3) This means that if someone defending himself or herself against a crime accidently kills an innocent bystander, the person or persons committing the crime can be charged with murder, even though they had nothing to do with the killing. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. The statement "You can't be convicted of murder if you didn't kill anyone" is not necessarily true. If you are part of a conspiracy to commit a felony, you're legally as guilty of murder as is the guy who pulled the trigger. Aside from the theoretical deterrent factor, that law could also give the authorities some flexibility with reluctant defendents, as in: "Testify against the triggerman, and we'll get you a lighter sentence." Wahkeenah 15:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Similar situation with Charles Manson. He himself committed no violent acts, but was part of the conspiracy to commit a series of felonies. Don't think it's stretching things to say that Manson was convicted of murder, is it? Or would we have to say that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder? The distinction didn't seem to trouble McCullough in writing about the Collazo case. BYT 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The technical difference could be that Manson obviously ordered the killings, whereas it's unclear (at least from the articles) who was in charge of the assassination attempt. I also wouldn't disagree that there was a revenge factor in sentencing him to death, along with the theoretical deterrence factor. Presumably Truman recognized that, and that's why he changed his sentence to life. Carter pardoned the guy, and it appears he was unrepentent after 29 years in the slammer, and that's why those who kill or attempt to kill the President should be kept on ice for life, in my opinion. Hinkley, for example, has no business walking the streets. It will be only a matter of time before he shoots someone else. Wahkeenah 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
All lovely analysis... but I notice no one's actually changed that part of the article. It still doesn't even say who was killed... or that anyone was killed. I'd rather not try to make the changes myself since I don't have access to the sources you guys do. - dcljr (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It's well-covered in the articles about the individuals. Maybe someone could check those articles out and clarify this one a bit. Wahkeenah 02:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I did it. See if you find it a little clearer now. Wahkeenah 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. - dcljr (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the 1952 Election section be moved to the section of the article devoted to his second term?

All of the events discussed there take place before January 20, 1953... BYT 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

S.

I was under the impression that the "S." in Harry S. Truman stood for Spencer. In fact other languages on this very website state that.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

Then they are wrong. See #S. or S ?, #Harry S. Truman's middle name and #middle name (for the 1000th time) for discussions of the issues with his middle initial. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

Should we nominate this for Featured article status? What do people think? BYT 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I nominated it [9]. BYT 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, yesterday might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[2]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[3]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.[4]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[5]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[6]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[7]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[8]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[9]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [10]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 16:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WWII veteran?

The following edit I have removed from the Trivia section is a bit to much for me:

Likewise Truman and Eisenhower were the only World War I and World War II veterans as Presidents-although Truman as a Reserve Colonel was not on active duty in World War II because he was a Senator}.

I have a problem with saying someone who was not on active duty was a veteran of WWII. -- Donald Albury 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, because I thought the text made it clear what the situation was, but now I'm thinking that some rephrasing might be a better idea. Truman was in the armed forces during WW2, which certainly makes him a veteran, but I guess it does sound a little odd to say he was a vet of WW2.--Birdmessenger 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I've moved the whole Trivia section here because none of it is sourced. The section has been marked 'unsourced' for more than a month. Do not move any of it back to the article page with a source.

Trivia
{{unreferenced}}

  • In 1949, President Truman appointed Georgia Neese Clark Treasurer of the United States. Since then, every subsequent Treasurer has been a woman.
  • "Tell him to go to hell!" - Truman's first response to the messenger who told him that Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted him to be his running mate.
  • Truman watched from a window as guards had a gunfight with two men trying to break in and kill him (November 1, 1950). One of the men was killed, the other was convicted of several crimes and sentenced to death, Truman commuted the sentence to life in prison. Jimmy Carter freed the man in 1979.
  • Truman loved to play the piano. As Vice President, he was photographed playing an upright while the young Hollywood starlet Lauren Bacall was perched atop it provocatively (by 1945 standards). The controversial photo was the talk of the nation, and led some to conclude that Truman did not take the office of Vice President seriously.
  • Truman was a great-nephew of John Tyler.
  • Truman was left-handed, but his parents made him write with his right hand, in accordance with the custom for all students in American elementary schools at that time.
  • Truman popularized the saying, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." He had first heard this line in the 1930's from another Missouri politician, E.T. "Buck" Purcell.
  • Truman was named one of the 10 best-dressed senators.
  • Truman was the first president to take office during wartime.
  • Truman is the subject of a Mindless Self Indulgence song entitled "Harry Truman."
  • Truman was the nephew of the outlaw Jim Crow Chiles who was suspected in nine murders. Chiles was killed in a shootout along with his twelve year old son in 1873.
  • Truman was the first of only two World War I Veterans to become President {The other was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Likewise Truman and Eisenhower were the only World War I and World War II veterans as Presidents-although Truman as a Reserve Colonel was not on active duty in World War II because he was a Senator}.

-- Donald Albury 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The beginning looks like the work of pro-Truman court historians, as if there are not still plenty of people around today who consider him a horrible president who was soft on Communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shield2 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 September 2006.

Seems fairly even-handed to me... if it is waivers from NPOV, it's not by much. Care to offer a solution to the perceived issue? --Reverend Loki 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

this is biography of a person, not history of an era

The whole article is a bio of Truman, that means minimal concern with issues he did not actually deal with (like renovating White House or demobilizing Army after ww2 or dealing with Vietnam). Some more attention to politics, which he did deal with, is probably called for. The interesting stuff on army in Korea should go to the army article. Rjensen 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen: Your deletion of referenced and important facts dealing with the consequences of Truman's defense cutbacks in Korea (resulting in the deaths of Americans, I might add) is unjustified and uncalled-for. It is a small paragraph and ESSENTIAL to understanding the initial debacle when U.S. forces deployed to Korea, as well as WHY Truman fired his Secretary of Defense only 3 months after South Korea was invaded (and in the middle of a WAR). I realize that it will be considered negative POV by Truman defenders, but facts are facts...TIM 22 SEP 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.244.1 (talk) .

The argument for retaining is cogent--as long as it is factually stated.--Buckboard 09:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

biography or general history of US?

This is a biography of HST, and not a general history of the era. Details of episodes in which Truman was not directly involved have to be kept as brief as possible. (For example, the Hiss case and spy cases, the demobilization of the military after ww2, the details of the fighting in Koprea). This allows the article to focus on main decisions that Truman did make. Rjensen 10:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

REPLY TO RJENSEN: We are all aware that there are space limits to any wiki page, and we all want to keep the page trim and usable. However, your continued deletion of referenced facts dealing directly with HST and his administration is unwarranted and POV-based.

Your cuts are POV in that your deletions of (fully-referenced and cited) material invariably seem to occur in sections that could be deemed critical of HST or his admin. I notice you left in my contributions to the Espionage or Korea sections where I gave credit to HST or attempted to explain questionable actions on his part ('patriotic man with a strongly regional viewpoint') yet quickly deleted facts on his wholesale slashing of Defense department programs and budget requests!

The Truman administration essentially lost its relection bid b/c of U.S. failures in Korea - knowing at least a few facts as to why is essential to understanding why Truman, a man who started with the largest navy and amphibious fleet in the world, lacked by 1950 even the surface ships with which to enforce a blockade of Korea, and why the Army was so underequipped (lacking even adequate ammunition supplies and heavy tanks). Or why he fired his secretary of defense in the middle of a war. You even deleted the referenced, widely acknowledged, and oft-cited reason Truman used to slash conventional defense programs: his firm belief (shared by his defense secretary) that U.S. dominance in atomic bomb technology would render most conventional forces irrelevant to future conflicts. As to the spy case, most objective people would deem it important that a defecting Soviet spy (Bentley) implicated high-level Truman and Roosevelt officials, allegations that Truman was forced to address in a press conference and which began the McCarthy period. (I certainly could have made it longer - I could have listed the names of these officials (with keyed links), or include the fact that Bentley's accusations were later shown to be true by excruciatingly comprehensive revelations from KGB archives, VENONA, and memoirs of former Soviet NKVD officers!!). I did not do so for space reasons. To excise Bentley, the Bentley memo to Truman, and her accusations against administration officials completely from HST history is wrong and POV in light of the magnitude of the scandal.

Moreover, you continue to add information and Korean War book references yourself to the HST page while cutting the contributions of others. So I find it hard to accept your justifications.

And if HST's Korean War and Soviet spy scandal facts are so irrelevant, why is THIS useless trivia still in place??:

"In the early and middle Seventies, Truman captured the popular imagination much as he had in 1948, this time emerging (posthumously) as a kind of political folk hero, a president who was thought to exemplify an integrity and accountability lacking in the Nixon White House. James Whitmore was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Truman in the one-man show "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" and even the pop band Chicago wrote a song about the nation's former president. Among the lyrics[43]: We’d love to hear you speak your mind In plain and simple ways Call a spade a spade Like you did back in the days You would play piano Each morning walk a mile Speak of what was going down With honesty and style America’s calling Harry Truman Years later, Truman was the first figure mentioned in Billy Joel's history-themed stream-of-consciousness song "We Didn't Start the Fire". The bestselling David McCullough biography Truman further popularized the late President, as did the HBO miniseries loosely based upon it (and starring Gary Sinise)." -TIM 24 SEP 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.244.1 (talk) . Please log in and sign your edits! --Reverend Loki 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out a couple of things. TIM: When arguing for the inclusion of your edits, no need to keep stating that they are fully referenced - he isn't removing them because they aren't fully cited. Instead, he is arguing that they stray to far from relevency. I can add a paragraph about how yummy Lamar's donuts are with 15 citations to back it up, doesn't mean it belongs in this article. And as a purely etiquette issue, it helps to be logged in when making edits, especially when signing edits on the talk page, believe it or not. It just makes it easier when reconciling the edit history and to reduce the likelyhood of identity spoofing. Maybe not a huge thing, but still...
That said, RJensen: Yeah, a lot of the info he is presenting does fit within the scope of this article. If you feel there is a POV issue in the presentation of this article (which is very understandable, from what I've seen), then edit it to remove the POV, not the information. --Reverend Loki 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that our anonymous contributor is adding misinformation and misleading info. One sentence about HST not liking the Marines is enough; the rest can go in the Marines article. The stuff about demobilizing Army is highly misleading, suggesting it was Truman's decision. It certainly was not. Of course the military demobilized after a huge war; that was a unanimous national decision. Citation of the Blair book is the problem I guess, as it suggests maybe US did not have the equipment or soldiers for Korea. I have been editing the Korean article and going through the major studies. It is FALSE that US lacked supplies, equipment or soldiers. There was plenty in Japan and they were quickly shipped to Korea faster than needed. MacArthur decisively defeated the North Koreans and recaptured Seoul a mere 90 days after it fell to invaders--that's pretty fast. Rjensen 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, Rjensen CLAIMS he's editing for space/relevancy reasons, but has no problem leaving in song lyrics, or even my contributions that are laudatory to Truman or explain questionable actions - but then he deletes facts he doesn't like. So I'm not buying the lack of space/relevancy' argument (especially in light of his last paragraph above).

As to comments on Korean War shortages: "It is FALSE that US lacked supplies, equipment or soldiers. There was plenty in Japan and they were quickly shipped to Korea faster than needed" -I haven't found ANY scholar willing to support this view of Korean War history, nor for that matter anyone in the 24th Infantry (the unit first shipped to Korea) that would substantiate RJensen's claims. See Col. Harry G. Summers' comments on what happened to his armored platoon commander when their 75mm tank shells bounced off Soviet T-34s, or their tank retriever died for want of a starter solenoid. No anti-tank mines. No 3.5-inch bazookas (that could penetrate heavy tank armor). Check the official White House Memorandum I've listed showing the lack of Navy ships to enforce a blockade. Read Walter LaFeber, heck even Col. Hackworth (who served in Korea and found the dug-up bodies of 24th Inf. troops killed earlier in the summer with hands tied behind their backs, then buried by the NKPA.

"MacArthur decisively defeated the North Koreans and recaptured Seoul a mere 90 days after it fell to invaders--that's pretty fast. -Yeah, MacArthur took Inchon with the Marines - but they had to strip recruitment depots of every man, withdraw Marines from Pusan, then retrieve enough WWII landing craft that had been reserved to Army use!

As I said, MY contributions are referenced - each paragraph, sometimes every other sentence, and my references are up to date - I don't use old 1960 histories like some. Here's just a few: Blair, Clay, The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953, Naval Institute Press (2003) Krulak, Victor H. (Lt. Gen.), First to Fight: An Inside View of the U.S. Marine Corps, Naval Institute Press (1999) LaFeber, Walter, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1980, 7th edition New York: McGraw-Hill (1993) Lane, Peter J., Steel for Bodies: Ammunition Readiness During the Korean War, Master's Thesis: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (2003) McFarland, Keith D. and Roll, David L., Louis Johnson And the Arming of America: The Roosevelt And Truman Years (2005) Summers, Harry G. (Lt. Col.), The Korean War: A Fresh Perspective (1996) Wolk, Herman S., The Blueprint for Cold War Defense, Air Force Magazine (March 2000)

In addition to military memoirs and modern histories there are now declassified Soviet archival information available on what Stalin was told about U.S. defense readiness - uncle Joe knew more about our unpreparedness than RJensen does today! - Tim 25 SEP 2006

Tim is overflowing with POV here--and now he adds anecdotes about missing solenoid parts. Fact is: Truman decisively defeated the North Koreans in 90 days in a country with no US military presence. How fast a victory does he want--80 days? (Compare Afghanistan in 2001: 65 days). MacArthur had to move soldiers and supplies from here to there--true enough. Is that a complaint or something? The goal is to have a NPOV encyclopedia, and Tim should think about that goal. Also he needs to give page numbers rather than mention of an 800 page book (by Blair). Rjensen 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No references Rjensen? Didn't think so. You delete my material, then give no references at all for your replacement material.

If you had read Blair's 800-page book you'd find out that MacArthur's Inchon was a true 'hail mary' - the UN nearly got pushed into the sea at Pusan before Inchon could take place, it was a darned fine-run thing. Not that Inchon had ANY effect whatsover on the initial US deployments from Japan and the 24th ID in the summer of 1950!!

And why WAS Defense Secretary Johnson fired only 3 months after the Korean War began, hmmm? -Tim 25 SEP 2006

Keep in mind that Clay Blair's book is notoriusly revisionistic--it's on the far side of the historiography, primarily because he has very strong POV (he attacks Truman and most generals as incompetent and Eurocentric--seems to think most should be court martialed). He is wrong about the supply system--it worked in June-Sept 1950 far better than in, say, 1941-42. I think POV is why Blair cited here, the editor likes its POV whether credible or not. Fact is that Truman won his war in 90 days, and that's pretty good. (Compare Bush in Iraq or LBJ in Vietnam). Rjensen 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
didn't Bush 43 win the war in Iraq in like 2 weeks and started setting up a new government? What is wrong with using a book that attacks the person? I mean the guy had an approval rating of 22.. He was not backed by any major paper when he went for re-election, he became president by being appointed VP at the last second and road FDR's coat tails in. Most people then and since thought truman to be a bad president. And I think it was Mccarthur that won the defeated the koreans in 80 days.. Truman manged to snatch defeat from almost certain victory. That is why Eisenhower had to treaten to use nukes and it is why North Korea is now testing their own nukes. Most people back then think that if Mccarthur was left to do his own thing he would of won and today we wouldn't be dealing with north Korea.Mantion 02:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

Maybe someone should edit the intro to show how much Truman's approval ratings seesawed during his presidency. He went from a high of 87 percent right after becoming president a low of 23 percent during the Korean War. -October 04 2006

I am sorry I didn't see this, yes I agree it is important for people to know that a president with ultra low approval ratings could be viewed as a good president decades later.Mantion 01:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Presidency

I saw a movie at Truman's Library, It stated that shortly after taking office there was a large railroad strike, and Truman ordered the workers back to work.. When that didn't work he suggested that if the workers did not go back to work, that he would use army personel. Then he immediatly asked that congress draft every striking employee. It was awsome the coolest move I had ever seen any president do.. I don't know who's tread this is, but I want to know if it would be ok if we added this. I think it really shows his strenght as a leader. Another interesting thing is shortly after taking office he was said to have to many Chronies and was considered to "ordinary". Well there was a lot of great info at the truman library if your ever in Indpendance you should go.. Mantion 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That may seem cool but what he was really doing was drafting his political enemies so they couldn't fight him anymore. In my view that goes against democracy and freedom and is evil. -Rouleau
Find some proper documentation and give it a write up. However, remember that this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion column, and therefore your thoughts about how "awesome" or "evil" that action is should be left out. And yes, the Truman Library is pretty cool place - added bonus if you are a fan of painter Thomas Hart Benton, for his mural. --Reverend Loki 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHarry_S._Truman_Archive_1_1d56.html"