Talk:Harry S. Truman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
When the FAC director promotes or archives the nomination, a bot will update the article talk page.
Good article Harry S. Truman has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Archives: 1

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] Requested Move

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

  • Oppose. S is a middle name, not an initial. —ExplorerCDT 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- consensus of long standing embraces the period here. BYT 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    The article's already been speedy-moved back to the title with the period anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

  • Support There is consensus and evidence that the period belongs. mweng 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.Shield2 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.Shield2 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 youShield2 09:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Brilliant!

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

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHarry_S._Truman_aa7b.html"