Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 3

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

text: 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)
replies: text: The 25th Amendment, took effect 1967 NOT 1965. GoodDay 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: No VP

message: The mentions of the Korean war on this page are america-centric. 1)The introduction mentions that the war turned into a 'frustrating stalemate' and that 30,000 Americans died. Since about 2 million Koreans died, mentioning only American deaths is highly myopic
2)the section on the Korean war completely neglects the US occupation of Korea from 1945 and the brutalities that the american army committed. Also, to call Kim Il Sung a 'dictator' in 1950 is quite incorrect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvrat raju (talk • contribs) 
:First of all, this article is about an American president, and so addresses the Korean War from an American perspective. A fuller account of the war is at Korean War. American troops briefly occupied the southern half of Korea in 1945 to accept the surrender of Japanese troops, just as Soviet troops occupied northern Korea for the same purpose. After setting up friendly governments in their respective zones, both occupying powers left Korea. What sources do you have for the 'brutalities'? The characterization of Kim Il Sung as a dictator is very widely accepted. -- Donald Albury 13:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Widely accepted in China? Wikipedia is blocked there because opinions and information is state controlled. Rjensen 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Korean War 

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

message: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Second paragraph of lead section is really a mess now 

message: "His integrity, his political courage, and his firm stand for Western democracy after World War II have earned him high praise from all political corners, including, among others, conservative Senator Barry Goldwater."  Well, Barry Goldwater can say what he wants, but I am not the only one who strongly disagrees.  That description of Truman should be reserved for a real hero like Douglas MacArthur, except of course for the part about having earned high praise from all political corners.  Whether or not ones agrees with me on that, this article is blatantly biased and needs to be revised because Truman has not earned high praise from all political corners.  As shocking as it must be to some people on this site, there are some people who still  refuse to jump on the pro-Truman, anti-MacArthur bandwagon of court historians who choose to admire "safe" historical figures instead of the kind who really make history.  Compare this article to the Douglas MacArthur one and it's not even close.  They must have been written by some of the same people.  I'm putting a NPOV tag on this one until it is fixed. 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes the quote was pretty heavy POV and I removed it and the NPOV tags. Rjensen 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculously POV

message: Planetary Chaos reverted my edit  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)
thread_title:  Four or five histories or biographies a week 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Have we properly covered the actual penetration of US institutions by Communist spy networks? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why not just link to the full text? -- Donald Albury 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of 22nd amendment 

message: BYT 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brilliant! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Atom bomb 

message: 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)
thread_title: Remarks on Jews

message: 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)
thread_title: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (Sigh.) Forget what I just wrote. It's still renumbering from the beginning for no apparent reason. BYT 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we fix reference numbers? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations numbering problem fixed thanks to [[User:Rickterp|Rickterp]] (and how to avoid repeat) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Campaign Anthem

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: These are definitely gaps, as is the steel industry conflict with the Supreme Court. BYT 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep -- I will supply. BYT 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry S. Truman]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Most of the texts I've seen on Truman don't use the period. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cites, please. BYT 11:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving page

message: One of the paragraphs starts with: "He was also honored in 1975 by the establishment of the Truman Scholarship" (emphasis edded)
The paragraph is located in the section that deals with honors Truman recieved while still alive. Is it possible someone made a mistake? 1975 is, after all, three years after Truman`s death...
::Fixed this.. BYT 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible mistake 

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

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

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

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose as not usage; he is called Harry S. Truman; Clinton is not called William Clinton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

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

message: The 140,000 figure has been removed. It was not sourced in any way, and the standard figure is between 70,000 and 80,000. The Japanese said 71,000, the Americans, between 70,000 and 80,000. I've included the Army Air Force history (since they dropped the bomb) written in 1973. If someone wants to find another source, please do so. Claymoney 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 140,000 figure would appear to be the sum of 80,000 immediate casualties and 60,000 subsequent casualties from radiation poisoning and other causes.  (See Hiroshima for example.)  I agree that the wording that you changed ("140,000 were killed instantly") was not correct.  -- Dominus 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiroshima Casualties

message: Seems unencyclopedic, and a magnet for unsourced material. (I think two of the three quotes there now are unsourced.)
Thoughts? BYT 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Should all be moved to wikiquote. Adam McMaster 20:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted this... BYT 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to remove the "Quotations" section 

message: This article should not have more than one paragraph in its lead and then go to subheadings.  The first paragraphs are thick with prose and opinions and incomprehensible as the facts are jumbled.  Somebody needs to put the lead graphs on a diet making sure that pertinent facts are in the pertinent subcategories.
And as a side note, there's a whole bunch of huge paragraphs with wildly different topics in the same grafs.  It really, really makes it difficult to read.  The Dwight D. Eisenhower article is easier to read.  Franklin D. Roosevelt suffers the same bloat.  Americasroof 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not propose a redraft here so people can discuss what you'd like the opening to look like? BYT 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top heavy paragraphs in lead and elswhere. 

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

message: Do we really need that picture? It seems POV to me, if there has to be a picture commemorating President Truman`s brave decision to drop the bomb, then one of the mushroom cloud or something like that would be better.Stevenscollege 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eager to hear other editors' opinions on this, but I would be inclined to add a photo -- say, of V-J day -- and leave this image, which certainly seems historically relevant. BYT 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stevenscollege.  It seems more designed to inflame than to inform.  It might be more appropriate in the article about the bombings.THD3 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: OK with me, leave it out.Rlevse 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atomic Bomb victim

message: I'm planning to write a couple of graphs about this, unless someone beats me to it. The incident is, I think, the last "big event" of HST's administration that completely remains undiscussed in the article.
Here's a good overview if anyone feels like tackling this before I do:
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1394
BYT 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Draft complete -- what do people think? BYT 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman's attempt to seize the steel industry 

message: In this pair of edits, I tackled a particularly conspicuous example of what I regard as a misfeature of the article: linking of a book to a particular retailer.
A more typical example is what's now note 112:
 
The frogtownbooks.com page is an ad for a particular copy --
Very Good in Good+ dust jacket; Previous owner's small inscription to the top of the free front end paper. Covers and spine show some rubbing and wear to the extremities. Dust jacket has extensive chipping to the edges with some smudging. Otherwise solid, internally clean and in very good condition in a good+ dust jacket.
-- of this book. It's a page that presumably will be pulled the moment the book -- signed, and yours for just $14.58! -- is sold. But that's only one problem. The other one is that this is an unnecessary link to an arbitrarily chosen retailer. The fourth listed kind of "links normally to be avoided" are:
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
Of course, the frogtownbooks offering described above predates the introduction of ISBNs. Well, that's what library catalogues, abebooks.com and the like are for. Let readers decide; don't push them toward any one retailer or group of retailers.
I'd go ahead and zap all of this myself, but it seems to have been added with some deliberation. Would anyone care to defend it? -- Hoary 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left the fn in but cut the fogtown link, I didn't notice it was an ad when I used it. I was just trying to find a weblink for the book.Rlevse 10:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to zap these links. However, I'm about to knock off for a quick dinner and the demands of the "real world". -- Hoary 10:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I did a little more, but then I paused, tired (and a bit bored). There's a good deal more to be done.  Or maybe I'm unusual, but when I see an external link on what's obviously a book title, I expect to be taken to the etext of that book. In only one of the instances I've seen so far does the link go to an etext. That's not to say the alternatives are all junk: some are worthwhile, but they're not what they first appear to be, and need rearrangement accordingly. -- Hoary 11:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Books linked to specific retailers

message: * Given the length of this section, suggest splitting it to Bibliography of Harry S. Truman. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there other cases where this has been done?Rlevse 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as the articles listed in :Category:Bibliographies by subject?  (That cat needs some cleaning- many of the articles are double catted with :Category:Bibliographies by author).  The Joan of Arc bibliography is one of the better examples.  I'm sure I read something about splitting long bibliographies in WP:MOS, but I cannot find a reference (WP has been abysmally slow toaday as well).
* Consider using Citation templates; this will standardize the look, as well as providing a way to properly insert links.
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The video in question is on Commons, thus this is rather duplicative of the Commons link; I suggest this section be deleted.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Rlevse 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Any objection to replacing  with ?  This would make the nested banners look like Talk:Bibliography of Harry S. Truman.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fine.Rlevse 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banners 

message: A few more thoughts:
*"increasingly frail" under Vice President--if this refers to his health, it's irrelevant, if his political power, it's unclear.
*"(Many voters complained that the members of the military were being released too slowly.)"  If this is to be included, explain what impact it had--did they accelerate the return as a result, or what?  Might be unnecessary detail though.
*Can usage of "mothballed" be reduced? (replace with a synonym)
More later... --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, except Ileft mothballed alone. It's only used twice, not a big deal.Rlevse 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More things to consider 

message: I was just thinking of checking the images when one got deleted.  All of the images need cleanup.  They should all use  for common sourcing.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In LOC per Commons page, don't see the problem.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything at the LOC is owned by the government.  A lot of their collections include news media photos.  Under "REPRODUCTION NUMBER" where it says "publication may be restricted", that's their way of saying it's under copyright.  If it says, "no known restrictions for usage", that means it is PD. So yes, this one needs to go. --B 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.Rlevse 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Iffy, may not sure what to do here.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is distinctly possibly that this copyright was not renewed ... unfortunately, we have no idea, so we can't use it. --B 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.Rlevse 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Tagged a FU, don't see the problem.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously copyrighted, but unquestionably an iconic photo - this one is one of the most famous photos ever and obviously qualifies for fair use. --B 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kept.Rlevse 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't see why they have to be from NARA. I'll ask B about these.Rlevse 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Under "US Senator | First Term": Truman always defended the patronage by saying that by offering a little, he saved a lot. I don't understand what this means. (Maybe I can guess, but I don't want to.) -- Hoary 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wikilinked this. The article has section on US political patronage.Rlevse 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a little, a lot

message: Under "1940 election": Truman said later that the Masonic election assured his victory in the general election over Kansas City State Senator Manvel H. Davis. Where did he say this? -- Hoary 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Manvel H. Davis had the link to the Time article.   page 3. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! -- Hoary 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK with me.Rlevse 14:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: masons

message: Under "Truman Committee": In 1943, his work as chairman earned Truman his first appearance on the cover of Time. He would eventually appear on nine Time covers and be named the magazine's Man of the Year for 1945 and 1948. Am I unusual in caring very little about Time and its namings of this or that person? A cynic might say that this merely went to show that Luce thought Truman's mug would sell copies of the magazine, which in turn means not much more than that he was newsworthy in the US and that the US public wasn't sick of him. Cumulatively, these little mentions of the Time human of the year (etc) look to me like publicity for that magazine. And if it is significant, is it so significant as to merit description in an overly long article? -- Hoary 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time Person of the Year is not an award, it is a recognition of people who have been newsworthy for that period.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Time'' and things of the year

message: At the end of "United Nations and Marshall Plan": To strengthen the U.S during the Cold War against Communism, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 and reorganized military forces by creating the Department of Defense, the CIA, the U.S. Air Force as a separate service from the U.S. Army during World War II, and the National Security Council. This seems very strange. If we remove "during World War II", it's no longer strange (though offhand I don't know if it's historically correct). Is this the right fix, or should this be fixed in some other way? -- Hoary 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit more wordy, but more accurate.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! -- Hoary 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: creations and reshuffles

message: At the end of "Defense cutbacks": The Marine Corps, its budgets slashed, was reduced to hoarding surplus inventories of World War II era weapons and equipment. This appears to be about the period "through FY 1950", so the "World War II era" had ended no more than five years previously. The US was (and is) a large nation, and in large areas within it (e.g. the southwest) land was cheap and the climate non-corrosive. So what would have the sensible alternative been with bigger budgets: Selling off the machine guns, etc., to those private citizens equipping themselves for "hunting" or "self-defense" (ha ha), and replacing them with yet more lethal alternatives? Something seems strange here. -- Hoary 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, military units hoard gear whereever their base is because they know if the let it get shipped off somewhere, they'll probably never get it back. This way, they maintain physical control of it.Rlevse 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: five-year-old hardware

message: In "1948 election": a full million turned out for a New York City appearance.McCullough, p. 701: Can somebody with access to the book check this? It's a long time since I was last in NYC and I can't claim to know it well, but I do think I would have heard of any "venue" with even standing-room only capacity for "a full million" people, and I haven't heard of any. -- Hoary 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Central Park, of course, but wouldn't a million people have destroyed it? (I hate to lower the tone hereabouts, but wouldn't a million people have needed tens of thousands of opportunities to relieve themselves?) -- Hoary 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: someone made the clarification.Rlevse 10:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a million people in NYC

message: At the end of "Soviet espionage and McCarthyism": Truman was never able to shake the image of being unable to purge his government of subversive influences. Image among whom? Page number reference, please. -- Hoary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the public. I made correction.Rlevse 10:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image among whom?

message: I'm all in favor of reducing hype, but I think this caused sufficient destruction and misery to merit (?) the term "war". Am I missing something? -- Hoary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, esp since the main article uses "war". I changed it.Rlevse 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops- I meant to do that when I added the link.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Korean conflict"

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

message: All very noteworthy, but it seems of minor importance when set aside the Korean "conflict", McCarthyism, etc. Couldn't this be radically shortened and any content not already in the article on the White House moved there? -- Hoary 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the balcony was quite controversial at the time.    I do agree that it needs to be chopped.  It does set the context for the assassination attempt.
It was a major PR disaster when it played out. Played into national question of whether he belonged there in the first place, could fill FDR's shoes, had the right to make such changes, etc. National processing of this was an important part of his national "audition."  BYT 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White House renovations

message: This section is just a short list; I think all of these are already linked in the article.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut, totally redundant.Rlevse 10:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major legislation and executive orders

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

message: We've all done a great job so far. Prose-only size is 58k, file size is 108.5k. This is on par with the FA on Gerald Ford and just under the upper limit of what's considered acceptable for an article on someone of this significance. Any more suggestions at this point.Rlevse 11:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's been 3 days with no more talk page inputs or article edits, I'll go ahead and list of FAC.Rlevse 11:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still serious problems with three images.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: pls fix or delete. You didn't say which ones.Rlevse 11:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: #Images  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above in Images section.Rlevse 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: When did he deliver the longest State of the Union address ever, 3 hours?  Calvin Coolidge 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1946, but sent not oral, I don't see that this is in the article and may not need to be, but see . Rlevse 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Don't really care if it's in the article...  Odo 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Odo|"Everything's under control."]]

message: Glad to see the article passed.  Overall, it's an excellent article, though I'm still not sure the atomic bombings section is quite right, now that I see it without any numbers.  Also, I think more needs to be mentioned about debate within the Truman administration (e.g. "Committee of Three") on use of the atomic bomb.  The sticking point was whether to demand an unconditional surrender, or allow the emperor Hirohito to remain as symbolic leader, in a constitutional monarchy, as the Japanese wanted.  I'm not good at copyediting, but have come up with the following that incorporates some of these points which I think are relevant. --Aude (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with what is said here, it's well done. My problem with this is that at 59k of prose, the article is already big (too big some would same) and on the very border of what most consider acceptable for someone of HST's stature, 60k.  My suggestion would be to leave the article as is or only make minor tweaks, and put the fine work of Aude's in the main atomic bomb article, which could definitely use improvement.Rlevse 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have tried to shorten the paragraph.  Also, maybe the casualty figures are not essential.  That's covered in the subarticle.  But, deliberations within the Truman administration on this issue are relevant, as much as other parts of the article (e.g. 1948 election).  Some other copyedits may be possible in the suggested paragraph, as well as other sections of the article. --Aude (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Replacing what is in the article section with this is okay with me.Rlevse 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Reference for the first paragraph:
* 
References for the casualty numbers:
* 
* 
* 
</blockquote>
I'm sure there are more sources to address these points.  Though, I'm somewhat on wikibreak and don't have lots of time at the moment to locate them. Also, maybe some detail from what I suggest above can be cut, to make it more concise, and other changes.  It's important that whatever changes to the article are agreeable to everyone here. --Aude (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with what is said here, it's well done. My problem with this is that at 59k of prose, the article is already big (too big some would same) and on the very border of what most consider acceptable for someone of HST's stature, 60k.  My suggestion would be to leave the article as is or only make minor tweaks, and put the fine work of Aude's in the main atomic bomb article, which could definitely use improvement.Rlevse 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have tried to shorten the paragraph.  Also, maybe the casualty figures are not essential.  That's covered in the subarticle.  But, deliberations within the Truman administration on this issue are relevant, as much as other parts of the article (e.g. 1948 election).  Some other copyedits may be possible in the suggested paragraph, as well as other sections of the article. --Aude (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Replacing what is in the article section with this is okay with me.Rlevse 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Any reference for that?  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest Army Rank

message: What is the meaning of the first paragraph?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.225.34 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was reverted vandalism.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Halo series

message: 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. . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding "Harry S Truman Building" reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kfar Truman 

message: 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)
replies: text: Another sysop unprotected. We don't protect the featured article of the day.--Chaser - T 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: You are mis-stating what that page says, Chaser. --W.marsh 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sysop needed -- please make fix 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post-game analysis 

message: Several members (Portugal, Turkey, Greece) were not democratic. Anti communist alliance is more accurate.
76.105.183.46 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic NATO?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is FDR to be linked or not ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Truman the Tiger