Talk:Attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman

message: The image :File:Oscarcollazo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Oscarcollazo.jpg

message: An NPOV tag was placed on this article on February 8, 2012, which referred to the "discussion on the Talk Page."  However, three weeks have passed and no one (including the tagging editor) has offered any "discussion."  
Unless this was a drive-by tag, please offer some discussion. Otherwise the tag will be removed. Thank you.  Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and a couple of specific NPOV statements. One is 'allegedly self-governing "commonwealth."' Alleged by whom? Another is 'In view of this consistent repression, Puerto Ricans increasingly felt their island was a classic U.S. colony', as if this was the view of almost all Puerto Ricans. (There have been regular referendums on Puerto Rican independence that show a much more ambivalent attitude than this.) But my basic concern is that an article on an attempted assassination of Truman reads mroe like a list of grievances of Puerto Rican nationalists. --Yaush (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three weeks with no "discussion" 

message: The article is unbalanced - first it devotes too much space to describing events in detail extending over a decade, as background to the "reasons" for the assassination plot. Then, it quickly disposes with the two men making a major decision to plot and try to assassinate the president. It devotes an extraordinary amount of detail to the shootout at the Blair House, as if it were the OK Corral. It is an FBI-biased account, as Secret Service agents were also involved, who are not even named here, but two were recognized by Truman for their parts in protecting him. According to one man's article, he shot Collazo. Why did the president and State Dept. ask the widow Coffelt to go to Puerto Rico? Who accompanied her on what was essentially a "state visit"? Did they help her write her speech? Did the Nationalist Party try to gain/keep political power on the island? Was there more repression in Puerto Rico afterward?Parkwells (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: The article said that Puerto Ricans felt there were "great injustices" by the 1940s, and lists the following, drawn from a wide variety of sources: in Spanish and in English, some academic, probably meeting the Wikipedia guidelines for Reliable Sources (RS); other anecdotal, but at least verifiable, but told in the context of other stories (for instance, an appreciation of a veteran actor, with mention of his having been a radio announcer who reported one of the listed events - not the best documentation.) There is no source cited that says these were contributing events to the unrest. I think first - this is too much content for an article on the assassination attempt. Secondly, this material needs better sourcing, especially to say these were contributing events. They might more appropriately be covered in an article on the independence/nationalist movement, but each and overall need better sourcing. The events follow:
*The injection of live cancer cells into Puerto Rican patients by Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads,"Puerto Ricans Outraged Over Secret Medical Experiments", Puerto Rico Herald, 2002, Vol. 6, no. 44
*the Ponce Massacre in which 19 were killed,"Apology Isn't Enough for Puerto Rico Spy Victims", The Washington Post, 28 December 1999, p. A03.  Quote: "19 were killed including 2 policemen caught in the cross-fire", compiled at Latin American Studies website, Retrieved July 8, 2009. 
*the shooting of Vidal Santiago Díaz by 40 U.S.-trained policemen,"Premio a Jesús Vera Irizarry", GeoCities websitehttp://www.wapa.tv/noticias/entretenimiento/fallece-el-actor-miguel-angel-alvarez_20110116125055.html "Fallece el actor Miguel Ángel Álvarez"], WAPA TV, 16 January 2011 
*the extrajudicial murders of numerous Nationalists, http://sembrandopatria.com/2009/01/01/fallecio-don-gilberto-martinez-sobreviviente-de-la-masacre-de-utuado/ "Don Bilberto Martinez Sobreviviente de lat Massacre de Utuado"], sembrandopatria.com Claridad, 1 January 2009 
*the jailing of Pedro Albizu Campos for his advocacy of armed resistance,"The Imprisonment of Men and Women Fighting Colonialism, 1930 - 1940", PR Dream website, Timeline, 1930, Retrieved December 9, 2009. and 
*the impending change of Puerto Rico's status to a self-governing "Estado Libre Associado" (Free Associated State), as its conditions were set by the US.Public Law 600, Art. 3, 81st Congress of the United States of America, July 3, 1950 
(Note: The conclusion that people were angered over this law cannot be derived from the law itself being used as a cited source, as that is some editor's opinion as to what the residents of Puerto Rico thought about it. The cited sources are highly variable in terms of reliability. Again, who decided on this listing of events? It is not simply a question of whether they occurred, but what they were understood to mean, and who decides that? Needs a source.)Parkwells (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Great injustices"

message: I will assume that the above Talk Page entry "Great Injustices" was written in good faith. However, even assuming good faith, it is difficult to fathom the logic or constructive value behind it. The editor lists several historical events, and then demands to see a source which confirms that "these were contributing events to the unrest" in Puerto Rico in 1950.
So let me ask this editor...if someone came to where you lived, and:
#injected your neighbors with live cancer cells
#shot and killed 19 others in broad daylight
#shot a barber in his barbershop, with 40 armed men, in broad daylight, and the shooting was reported live via radio
#executed political dissidents without a trial, or due process of any sort
  
Do you (the editor) feel that there "would be no unrest" in your neighborhood? The fact that insurrections occurred in eight towns in Puerto Rico on October 30, 1950, is prima facie evidence of this unrest, whether you (the editor) agrees with it or not. 
This editor then proceeds to use the alleged "lack of sourcing" as the basis for massive edits to this and other articles without discussion or editorial consensus.
I do not agree with this type of editing, and it should stop.  Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That the grievances of Puerto Rican nationalists are legitimate does not change the fact that this is not, or at least should not be, an article on the grievances of Puerto Rico nationalists. So much emphasis on this smacks of WP:COAT. --Yaush (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical Disconnect, as a prelude for Tendentious Editing

message: Neither this article nor the main Truman article support suggestion of "second" assassination attempt, as previously found only in Lead and not supported by a cited RS. The Truman article does not mention letter bombs.Parkwells (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a second assassination attempt

message: The editor User:Onlinetexts keeps adding, to the opening sentence of the article, a source that I don't think would pass WP:IRS. It's called AriWatch, and appears to be a personal website] belonging to an unknown author or group of unclear credentials that uses it to promote Objectivism. There's no page on that site indicating who runs it, and what, if any, editorial controls are exercised on it.
I removed it, citing WP:IRS, and Onlinetexts reverted it, without providing a rationale or edit summary. I removed it again, this time replacing it with two other sources: Politico and the Truman Library, and offered further explanation of this with a message on Onlinetexts' talk page. He did not respond to the message, but reverted the article again, without any rationale or edit summary, or attempt to communicate with me.
Onlinetexts has made 174 edits since 2008, has nothing on his user page, and at the time I posted my message on his tp, just two messages on it from 2008. 
If he would be willing to discuss why he disagrees with my rationale here, that would be welcome, but given his silent treatment to date, I don't think that's likely.
If anyone agrees that the two new sources I added are preferable to the anonymous web page one, can you revert it? I can't do so, since I've already reverted the article twice. If he reverts again, he'll be in violation of 3RR. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of the first source cited in the article

message: What kind of gun did Collazo use?  The article mentiones Torresola having 9×19mm German Luger, but nothing about Collazo's weapon.   Elsquared (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collazo's gun 

message: This article, according to the lead and despite the title, is about the second of two attempts. When was the first? DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered this as well – there isn't much on it, and it seems to be barely known about, but in 1947 a letter bomb addressed to Truman was caught in the White House mail room. I discovered this from List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#Harry S. Truman, referencing this archived link of the 1972-12-01 edition of the Tri City Herald, itself referencing a "new biography written by Truman's daughter". In any case, the incident wasn't publicized then, it's not mentioned in Harry S. Truman, nor is it mentioned in the Truman Library's website's biography of the man; it seems to have been a rather minor thing. There's been a lot of back-and-forth in the edit history on this topic; seems like a good source hasn't been found (at first it cited a dubious site and then with no citation at all). From what I can tell, "the second of" first appeared in . In the interest of clarity I'm changing the first sentence from "The second of two assassination attempts..." to "An assassination attempt...". (NB. "an attempt" doesn't mean "only" attempt!) oatco (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the first?