Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Highest Army Rank

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

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

Halo series

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

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

The S in his name

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding "Harry S Truman Building" reference

The saga continues: Even though the consensus here is for inclusion of the period after "S" in all written references to HST, notably including references in this article (see top of this talk page), the State Department has seen fit to list this building's title as above. [1]. Thus, we should keep the no-period usage when referencing that building. A reference in the legacy section links to a WP article that reflects the State Department's (presumably authoritative) take on the building's name . BYT 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Kfar Truman

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

Sysop needed -- please make fix

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

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

Minor correction

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

RE: Article Condoms

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

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

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

Post-game analysis

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

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

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

Missouri a "southern state"?

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

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

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

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

Democratic NATO?

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

76.105.183.46 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is FDR to be linked or not ?

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

80.218.55.131 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Dates

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

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

SEE ALSO: m:Help:Date formatting and linking

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

Cabinet

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

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

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

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

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

Truman the Tiger

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

The "Roswell Incident"

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SimonATL's response.
Some simple verifiable facts.

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

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

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

Sacramento Bee July 8, 1947

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

Higher Headquarters

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

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

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

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

Inspected at Roswell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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