Talk:1952 steel strike

message: I don't see how "hysteria" can be consistent with a neutral point of view. I think we need to pick a more neutral term to describe McCarthyism. Binarybits (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hysteria 

message: I don't think very many economists would agree with the following analysis:
: The division of labor was specifically designed to unlink wages from prices. If prices rose automatically with wages, the inflationary spiral would continue unabated. Placing the onus solely on workers to keep wages low risked the wrath of labor, a lesson the administration had learned from the WWII experience. Delinking wages and prices leveled the playing field. Both workers and employers would now be forced to justify, independently, the wages and prices they demanded.
The implicit assumption here is that price and wage controls are an effective way to control inflation. I believe the consensus among economists is that inflation is almost always a reflection of monetary policy, and that only restraining the growth of the money supply will bring inflation under control. So the sentence "if prices rose automatically with wages, the inflationary spiral would continue unabated" not only strikes me as unnecessary editorializing, but is also dubious as a matter of economics. I think we need to describe this issue in a way that avoids spurious economic theorizing.
The entire paragraph is backed up by a single citation to the Marcus book, without any page numbers. The lack of page numbers makes it difficult to verify which specific parts of the paragraph are supported by the book and which are elaborations or interpretations. Binarybits (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflationary spiral 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/murray.html
** In 1952 steel strike on 2011-05-25 03:30:00, 404 Not Found
** In 1952 steel strike on 2011-06-04 17:49:31, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The lead paragraph in the section "Wage control policy during the Korean War" says that because of McCarthy's attacks, Truman in 1950 was looking for ways to prove that he was tough on communism. The next paragraph concerns the 1950 communist invasion of South Korea, and Truman's response. The sequence strongly implies (but does not state explicitly) that Truman committed US troops in Korea as a political ploy to counter McCarthy's criticism. This ignores the fact that Truman had been a strong anticommunist for years, and three years previous (1947) had proclaimed the Truman Doctrine of containing communism, and established loyalty boards to rid the federal government of communists and communist sympathizers. The article should not imply things that that it cannot state explicitly. Unless there is a reliable source tying Truman's entry into the Korean war to Joe McCarthy, then the paragraph about McCarthy's attacks should be removed as irrelevant to the article. Plazak (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the claim is cited. To argue the citations are incorrect would be original research. Both cites in current citation no. 2 are reliable. Is the argument that the citations don't say this? Second, I don't see any incompatibility. Truman was indeed a fierce anti-communist. McCarthy had asserted he was not. Truman now sought a way to prove McCarthy wrong. That the North Korean incursion fit both Truman's innate, fierce anti-communist agenda as well as helped disproved McCarthy's claims can both be correct, can't they? - Tim1965 (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you recognize in your post above, the juxtaposition of the first two paragraphs (both true in themselves) suggests that McCarthy's criticism of Truman had a role in Truman's reaction to the invasion of South Korea. You ask in your final sentence if two motivations "can both be correct" Of course they can be correct, but can be, without a reliable source is just speculation. Any number of things can be correct; the proper question to ask is are they correct? To suggest such a connection (as the juxtaposition clearly does) without a reliable source is certainly Original Research of the type WP:SYNTHESIS, and (as you correctly note) WP:OR has no place in this article. Truman's time in office and his leadership during the Korean War have been minutely examined in any number of books, by Truman himself, by members of his administration, as well as by many serious historians. Certainly, if there is any causal connection between these two events, it should be well documented by some reliable source. That's all I'm requesting: a reliable source, in place of what appears to be speculation and Original Research. If you can supply such a reliable source, please do so.  Thanks.  Plazak (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe McCarthy and the Korean War 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1952 steel strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902202335/http://www.uswa.com/ to http://www.uswa.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1952 steel strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804110133/http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/history/history/murray.cfm to http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/history/history/murray.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Truman's argument was that "the US war effort in Korea was being crippled". What evidenced relevant to that assertion has surfaced since then? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the strike hurt the US in the Korean war? 

message: Any reason we aren't naming that one newspaper that supported the seizure? All citations are to hardcopy, and I haven't found which newspaper that is yet. 2600:1702:1B41:5350:5C22:1E78:29D5:2C40 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Newspaper with major circulation