Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 2

Autobiography: I Was There (Where cited)

• i4CQuest: Admiral "William D. Leahy" "I Was There" (250+ Cites)
• Wikipedia: William Leahy "I Was There" (300+ Cites)

RJBurkhart 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re*Cycling RO/CS Lessons Learned

River Orienteering / Community Stewardhsip (RO/CS) geoWIZard for Prairie Pasage Flyways @

RJBurkhart 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on a social network analysis of Truman's calendar,
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy was a trusted advsior with whom HST met regularly.

Knights Templar

Truman is in the category:Knights Templar but there is not mention of that honor in the article. We should have some explanation and source for that fact. -Will Beback 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman's middle name

Does anyone know Harry S. Truman's middle name? I am working on a project and I need to know fast! Bye.

His middle name was 'S'. In fact, this article is named incorrectly, as the 'S' in Harry S Truman is not an initial, and should not have a period. [1] -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Honestly, how many times do you people have to go over this? Truman himself used a period after the "S," but said he didn't care whether there was a period after it or not. In a sense, the "S" is an initial, because it's meant to stand for the names of "Solomon" and "Shippe," the names of his grandfathers. This isn't that complicated.

why do you say "you people" when you yourself were "going over it" as you wrote that? Anyway, I just chimed in to point out that even if his middle name was just "S", his middle name's initial letter was also "S" so his initials are H.S.T. (abbreviated like U.S.A.) unless you want to claim that you can only use a "dot" if it is an abbreviation in which case you would have to back his initials being H.ST. which seems like a nutty proposal to back.

middle name (for the 1000th time)

I added periods to two S's after reading the article from the Truman Library site [2].

That paper does not apply to the two cases you just changed. It says "all initials given with a name should 'for convenience and consistency' be followed by a period even if they are not abbreviations of names," and I agree; the initial should have a period. However, in the first line of this article and above the photo it is Wikipedia's policy to include the full names of people, not initials. -arctic gnome 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

His full name is Harry S. Truman, leaving the period off looks ridiculous and is contrary to the way in which every major information source writes his name.

What major information sourses give his full name with a period? The White House's history website [3] doesn't use a period when giving his full name, and I'd say that it's a major information sourse. -arctic gnome 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, here we go again. Does anybody know if this is in the "most pointless edit wars" page yet? Here's my take, for what its worth: Is it Wikipedia's policy? Most likely you are quoting the manual of style, which does not contain any hard and fast rules, but rather should be used as a guideline that can be adapted to the situation. Clearly this is a unique situation.

As per: [4]. "The U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual states that the period should be used after the "S" in Harry S. Truman's name." It would seem that this is not the first time that the White House has not followed its own regulations. I vote: keep the period.--Easter Monkey 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Truman Library article does not address this issue; it specifically says that it is talking about the use of the S as an initial. I agree that when used as an initial it should have a period, but in regards to the first line of this article, the question is whether his middle name written out in full should have a period. If, as Unsigned Above says, his full name has a period after the S, please show some evidence of it strong enough to show why this case should be different than Wikipedia standard and the White House’s webpage. As of right now the pro-period as presented zero evidence to support their case. -arctic gnome 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. I must be slow. You're going to hate this answer, but I say keep the period because to me it looks goofy without it, I got nothing else. It's one of those gut feeling type issues for me. Incidentally, I haven't taken the time to look, have there been previous RFC's or whatnot? It doesn't look like it. It's commented in the article that the "consensus" is to leave the period, but I don't see anywhere on here where an actual poll or other consensus building measure was used. --Easter Monkey 09:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Truman's middle name

During his life, Truman used the period consistently after the letter 'S' in his middle name. The argument from arctic gnome that it is contrary to Wikipedia's policy to use the period is without merit. Ulysses S. Grant was born Hiram Ulysses Grant and that name is not used above his photograph. Dwight D. Eisenhower was born David Dwight Eisenhower and that name is not used above his photograph. His presidential library, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and The Columbia Encyclopedia all use the period following the 'S'. It is clear that he wanted it following his name and that it was used in his proper title.

[5] [6]

--MZMcBride 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what arctic gnome means. AG is not arguing that the period does or does not belong, AG is arguing that because S is his entire middle name, it is thus WP policy to not abbreviate it at the beginning of an article; S is his whole middle name, while S. is the abbreviation of his middle name. It took me a while to wrap my mind around that. AG is saying that Harry S. Truman as the opening of the intro would be the equivalent of Franklin Delano. Roosevelt or Dwight David. Eisenhower in those respective articles. That's it. --Easter Monkey 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that it is my understanding that his full middle name is "S.". Some middle names (including my own) are just one letter with a period following, and that is the proper and full middle name. Unless there is evidence to support that his official middle name does not include the period (a birth certificate), it should remain in the article.

--MZMcBride 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anyone with a single-letter middle name, so I'll take your word on that. -arctic gnome 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Foundation

Should we also include that the Harry S. Truman Foundation exists (in McLeansboro, IL). This foundation issues scholarships each year to the college juniors who have exhibited the qualities of a "change agent." Behind the Marshall and the Rhodes, this is the most competitive US undergraduate scholarship.

Is new image needed?

Image:President Truman with Saud.jpg has just been added to the article. I question its relevancy and utility in the article. It doesn't show Truman's face, and the action depicted is a quite minor part of presidential duties (i.e., awarding medals to foreign dignitaries). -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

GA

.... was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, and has passed! Congratulations and keep up the great editting! Highway 20:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Truman Day in Missouri should be mentioned

In Missouri, President Truman is honored every year in Missouri by closing down the state government on his birthday. Perhaps someone would know which year this was first done. Joncnunn 16:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Truman - and Iranian oil, coup 1950s

I am reading a terrific book that is so timely now on the subject of Iran and the roots of terrorism, that covers Truman's decisions in regard to Iran. It's All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. A great read. I don't feel qualified to summarize it all but I am very surprised no professional historian has attempted to add it to this biography. Truman's role was nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, he declined to get involved in promoting a coup in Iran, something apparently Eisenhower was willing to sponsor. Truman appointed an anti-communist and also anti-imperialist ambassador in Henry Grady. He appointed Dean Acheson Secretary of State sympathetic to the nationalist movement in Iran. The Asst Secy of State, George McGhee, asked the British to be more equitable with the Iranians. They owned 51% of the oil company that was making handsome profits there. The workers lived in deplorable conditions without privacy, sanitation, alloted space the size of a blanket in a huge enclosure. An Israeli described them as the poorest people on earth. Now, Im going to look at Eisenhower's entry.

Does Truman have a legacy?

Should there be a section on the legacy of Truman

Reconversion?

I'm pretty sure "reconversion" isn't a word, but correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.
70.131.54.229 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reconversion = 2 : conversion back to a previous state: as b : change back to a previous complex of qualities c : change (as of industry) from a wartime basis to a peacetime basis [Webster's 3rd Unabridged] Rjensen 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Military Rank

The page had a small inconsistency about Truman's military rank in World War I. He returned home a Captain and later became a Lieutenant Colonel in the 20's. Fixed it.IndieJones

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Convicted of murder?

In the Assassination attempt section, the article states:

On November 1, 1950, Puerto Rican nationalists Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo attempted to assassinate Truman at the Blair House. Collazo was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death in 1952.

Wait a minute. You can't be convicted of murder if you didn't kill anyone. The article on Oscar Collazo says a police officer, Leslie Coffelt, was killed during the attack (something this article should probably mention), but then the Leslie Coffelt article says it was Griselio Torresola who killed him. So I can't see how the conviction of Collazo could have been for murder. Someone needs to check this (neither of the other articles mention the exact charge, that I noticed). - dcljr (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Page 812 of David McCullough's Biogrpahy "Truman" states: "Convicted on four counts, including the murder of Coffelt, Collazo was senteced to death in the electric chair. However, in 1952, and as a gesture to the people of Puerto Rico, Truman would commute the sentence to life imprisonment." It goes on to say that he was pardoned in the late 1970's by Carter. In the American legal system is it possible to be guilty for the conduct of another, if certain elements are present: see, Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247, and so on. I guess that's what happened in that case--McCullough doesn't specify. - Mattweng

Right. In Florida (and probably in most other jurisdictions in the U.S.) it doesn't matter who kills a person during the commission of a felony, the person or persons committing the felony can be charged with murder. The 2005 Florida Statutes 782.04 Murder (3) This means that if someone defending himself or herself against a crime accidently kills an innocent bystander, the person or persons committing the crime can be charged with murder, even though they had nothing to do with the killing. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. The statement "You can't be convicted of murder if you didn't kill anyone" is not necessarily true. If you are part of a conspiracy to commit a felony, you're legally as guilty of murder as is the guy who pulled the trigger. Aside from the theoretical deterrent factor, that law could also give the authorities some flexibility with reluctant defendents, as in: "Testify against the triggerman, and we'll get you a lighter sentence." Wahkeenah 15:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar situation with Charles Manson. He himself committed no violent acts, but was part of the conspiracy to commit a series of felonies. Don't think it's stretching things to say that Manson was convicted of murder, is it? Or would we have to say that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder? The distinction didn't seem to trouble McCullough in writing about the Collazo case. BYT 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The technical difference could be that Manson obviously ordered the killings, whereas it's unclear (at least from the articles) who was in charge of the assassination attempt. I also wouldn't disagree that there was a revenge factor in sentencing him to death, along with the theoretical deterrence factor. Presumably Truman recognized that, and that's why he changed his sentence to life. Carter pardoned the guy, and it appears he was unrepentent after 29 years in the slammer, and that's why those who kill or attempt to kill the President should be kept on ice for life, in my opinion. Hinkley, for example, has no business walking the streets. It will be only a matter of time before he shoots someone else. Wahkeenah 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All lovely analysis... but I notice no one's actually changed that part of the article. It still doesn't even say who was killed... or that anyone was killed. I'd rather not try to make the changes myself since I don't have access to the sources you guys do. - dcljr (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's well-covered in the articles about the individuals. Maybe someone could check those articles out and clarify this one a bit. Wahkeenah 02:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it. See if you find it a little clearer now. Wahkeenah 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. - dcljr (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the 1952 Election section be moved to the section of the article devoted to his second term?

All of the events discussed there take place before January 20, 1953... BYT 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

S.

I was under the impression that the "S." in Harry S. Truman stood for Spencer. In fact other languages on this very website state that.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

Then they are wrong. See #S. or S ?, #Harry S. Truman's middle name and #middle name (for the 1000th time) for discussions of the issues with his middle initial. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

Should we nominate this for Featured article status? What do people think? BYT 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I nominated it [7]. BYT 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, yesterday might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 16:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WWII veteran?

The following edit I have removed from the Trivia section is a bit to much for me:

Likewise Truman and Eisenhower were the only World War I and World War II veterans as Presidents-although Truman as a Reserve Colonel was not on active duty in World War II because he was a Senator}.

I have a problem with saying someone who was not on active duty was a veteran of WWII. -- Donald Albury 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, because I thought the text made it clear what the situation was, but now I'm thinking that some rephrasing might be a better idea. Truman was in the armed forces during WW2, which certainly makes him a veteran, but I guess it does sound a little odd to say he was a vet of WW2.--Birdmessenger 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I've moved the whole Trivia section here because none of it is sourced. The section has been marked 'unsourced' for more than a month. Do not move any of it back to the article page with a source.

Trivia
{{unreferenced}}

• In 1949, President Truman appointed Georgia Neese Clark Treasurer of the United States. Since then, every subsequent Treasurer has been a woman.
• "Tell him to go to hell!" - Truman's first response to the messenger who told him that Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted him to be his running mate.
• Truman watched from a window as guards had a gunfight with two men trying to break in and kill him (November 1, 1950). One of the men was killed, the other was convicted of several crimes and sentenced to death, Truman commuted the sentence to life in prison. Jimmy Carter freed the man in 1979.
• Truman loved to play the piano. As Vice President, he was photographed playing an upright while the young Hollywood starlet Lauren Bacall was perched atop it provocatively (by 1945 standards). The controversial photo was the talk of the nation, and led some to conclude that Truman did not take the office of Vice President seriously.
• Truman was a great-nephew of John Tyler.
• Truman was left-handed, but his parents made him write with his right hand, in accordance with the custom for all students in American elementary schools at that time.
• Truman popularized the saying, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." He had first heard this line in the 1930's from another Missouri politician, E.T. "Buck" Purcell.
• Truman was named one of the 10 best-dressed senators.
• Truman was the first president to take office during wartime.
• Truman is the subject of a Mindless Self Indulgence song entitled "Harry Truman."
• Truman was the nephew of the outlaw Jim Crow Chiles who was suspected in nine murders. Chiles was killed in a shootout along with his twelve year old son in 1873.
• Truman was the first of only two World War I Veterans to become President {The other was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Likewise Truman and Eisenhower were the only World War I and World War II veterans as Presidents-although Truman as a Reserve Colonel was not on active duty in World War II because he was a Senator}.

-- Donald Albury 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The beginning looks like the work of pro-Truman court historians, as if there are not still plenty of people around today who consider him a horrible president who was soft on Communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shield2 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 September 2006.

Seems fairly even-handed to me... if it is waivers from NPOV, it's not by much. Care to offer a solution to the perceived issue? --Reverend Loki 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

this is biography of a person, not history of an era

The whole article is a bio of Truman, that means minimal concern with issues he did not actually deal with (like renovating White House or demobilizing Army after ww2 or dealing with Vietnam). Some more attention to politics, which he did deal with, is probably called for. The interesting stuff on army in Korea should go to the army article. Rjensen 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen: Your deletion of referenced and important facts dealing with the consequences of Truman's defense cutbacks in Korea (resulting in the deaths of Americans, I might add) is unjustified and uncalled-for. It is a small paragraph and ESSENTIAL to understanding the initial debacle when U.S. forces deployed to Korea, as well as WHY Truman fired his Secretary of Defense only 3 months after South Korea was invaded (and in the middle of a WAR). I realize that it will be considered negative POV by Truman defenders, but facts are facts...TIM 22 SEP 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.244.1 (talk) .

The argument for retaining is cogent--as long as it is factually stated.--Buckboard 09:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

biography or general history of US?

This is a biography of HST, and not a general history of the era. Details of episodes in which Truman was not directly involved have to be kept as brief as possible. (For example, the Hiss case and spy cases, the demobilization of the military after ww2, the details of the fighting in Koprea). This allows the article to focus on main decisions that Truman did make. Rjensen 10:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

REPLY TO RJENSEN: We are all aware that there are space limits to any wiki page, and we all want to keep the page trim and usable. However, your continued deletion of referenced facts dealing directly with HST and his administration is unwarranted and POV-based.

Your cuts are POV in that your deletions of (fully-referenced and cited) material invariably seem to occur in sections that could be deemed critical of HST or his admin. I notice you left in my contributions to the Espionage or Korea sections where I gave credit to HST or attempted to explain questionable actions on his part ('patriotic man with a strongly regional viewpoint') yet quickly deleted facts on his wholesale slashing of Defense department programs and budget requests!

The Truman administration essentially lost its relection bid b/c of U.S. failures in Korea - knowing at least a few facts as to why is essential to understanding why Truman, a man who started with the largest navy and amphibious fleet in the world, lacked by 1950 even the surface ships with which to enforce a blockade of Korea, and why the Army was so underequipped (lacking even adequate ammunition supplies and heavy tanks). Or why he fired his secretary of defense in the middle of a war. You even deleted the referenced, widely acknowledged, and oft-cited reason Truman used to slash conventional defense programs: his firm belief (shared by his defense secretary) that U.S. dominance in atomic bomb technology would render most conventional forces irrelevant to future conflicts. As to the spy case, most objective people would deem it important that a defecting Soviet spy (Bentley) implicated high-level Truman and Roosevelt officials, allegations that Truman was forced to address in a press conference and which began the McCarthy period. (I certainly could have made it longer - I could have listed the names of these officials (with keyed links), or include the fact that Bentley's accusations were later shown to be true by excruciatingly comprehensive revelations from KGB archives, VENONA, and memoirs of former Soviet NKVD officers!!). I did not do so for space reasons. To excise Bentley, the Bentley memo to Truman, and her accusations against administration officials completely from HST history is wrong and POV in light of the magnitude of the scandal.

Moreover, you continue to add information and Korean War book references yourself to the HST page while cutting the contributions of others. So I find it hard to accept your justifications.

And if HST's Korean War and Soviet spy scandal facts are so irrelevant, why is THIS useless trivia still in place??:

"In the early and middle Seventies, Truman captured the popular imagination much as he had in 1948, this time emerging (posthumously) as a kind of political folk hero, a president who was thought to exemplify an integrity and accountability lacking in the Nixon White House. James Whitmore was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Truman in the one-man show "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" and even the pop band Chicago wrote a song about the nation's former president. Among the lyrics[43]: We’d love to hear you speak your mind In plain and simple ways Call a spade a spade Like you did back in the days You would play piano Each morning walk a mile Speak of what was going down With honesty and style America’s calling Harry Truman Years later, Truman was the first figure mentioned in Billy Joel's history-themed stream-of-consciousness song "We Didn't Start the Fire". The bestselling David McCullough biography Truman further popularized the late President, as did the HBO miniseries loosely based upon it (and starring Gary Sinise)." -TIM 24 SEP 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.244.1 (talk) . Please log in and sign your edits! --Reverend Loki 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out a couple of things. TIM: When arguing for the inclusion of your edits, no need to keep stating that they are fully referenced - he isn't removing them because they aren't fully cited. Instead, he is arguing that they stray to far from relevency. I can add a paragraph about how yummy Lamar's donuts are with 15 citations to back it up, doesn't mean it belongs in this article. And as a purely etiquette issue, it helps to be logged in when making edits, especially when signing edits on the talk page, believe it or not. It just makes it easier when reconciling the edit history and to reduce the likelyhood of identity spoofing. Maybe not a huge thing, but still...
That said, RJensen: Yeah, a lot of the info he is presenting does fit within the scope of this article. If you feel there is a POV issue in the presentation of this article (which is very understandable, from what I've seen), then edit it to remove the POV, not the information. --Reverend Loki 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that our anonymous contributor is adding misinformation and misleading info. One sentence about HST not liking the Marines is enough; the rest can go in the Marines article. The stuff about demobilizing Army is highly misleading, suggesting it was Truman's decision. It certainly was not. Of course the military demobilized after a huge war; that was a unanimous national decision. Citation of the Blair book is the problem I guess, as it suggests maybe US did not have the equipment or soldiers for Korea. I have been editing the Korean article and going through the major studies. It is FALSE that US lacked supplies, equipment or soldiers. There was plenty in Japan and they were quickly shipped to Korea faster than needed. MacArthur decisively defeated the North Koreans and recaptured Seoul a mere 90 days after it fell to invaders--that's pretty fast. Rjensen 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, Rjensen CLAIMS he's editing for space/relevancy reasons, but has no problem leaving in song lyrics, or even my contributions that are laudatory to Truman or explain questionable actions - but then he deletes facts he doesn't like. So I'm not buying the lack of space/relevancy' argument (especially in light of his last paragraph above).

As to comments on Korean War shortages: "It is FALSE that US lacked supplies, equipment or soldiers. There was plenty in Japan and they were quickly shipped to Korea faster than needed" -I haven't found ANY scholar willing to support this view of Korean War history, nor for that matter anyone in the 24th Infantry (the unit first shipped to Korea) that would substantiate RJensen's claims. See Col. Harry G. Summers' comments on what happened to his armored platoon commander when their 75mm tank shells bounced off Soviet T-34s, or their tank retriever died for want of a starter solenoid. No anti-tank mines. No 3.5-inch bazookas (that could penetrate heavy tank armor). Check the official White House Memorandum I've listed showing the lack of Navy ships to enforce a blockade. Read Walter LaFeber, heck even Col. Hackworth (who served in Korea and found the dug-up bodies of 24th Inf. troops killed earlier in the summer with hands tied behind their backs, then buried by the NKPA.

"MacArthur decisively defeated the North Koreans and recaptured Seoul a mere 90 days after it fell to invaders--that's pretty fast. -Yeah, MacArthur took Inchon with the Marines - but they had to strip recruitment depots of every man, withdraw Marines from Pusan, then retrieve enough WWII landing craft that had been reserved to Army use!

As I said, MY contributions are referenced - each paragraph, sometimes every other sentence, and my references are up to date - I don't use old 1960 histories like some. Here's just a few: Blair, Clay, The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953, Naval Institute Press (2003) Krulak, Victor H. (Lt. Gen.), First to Fight: An Inside View of the U.S. Marine Corps, Naval Institute Press (1999) LaFeber, Walter, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1980, 7th edition New York: McGraw-Hill (1993) Lane, Peter J., Steel for Bodies: Ammunition Readiness During the Korean War, Master's Thesis: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (2003) McFarland, Keith D. and Roll, David L., Louis Johnson And the Arming of America: The Roosevelt And Truman Years (2005) Summers, Harry G. (Lt. Col.), The Korean War: A Fresh Perspective (1996) Wolk, Herman S., The Blueprint for Cold War Defense, Air Force Magazine (March 2000)

In addition to military memoirs and modern histories there are now declassified Soviet archival information available on what Stalin was told about U.S. defense readiness - uncle Joe knew more about our unpreparedness than RJensen does today! - Tim 25 SEP 2006

Tim is overflowing with POV here--and now he adds anecdotes about missing solenoid parts. Fact is: Truman decisively defeated the North Koreans in 90 days in a country with no US military presence. How fast a victory does he want--80 days? (Compare Afghanistan in 2001: 65 days). MacArthur had to move soldiers and supplies from here to there--true enough. Is that a complaint or something? The goal is to have a NPOV encyclopedia, and Tim should think about that goal. Also he needs to give page numbers rather than mention of an 800 page book (by Blair). Rjensen 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No references Rjensen? Didn't think so. You delete my material, then give no references at all for your replacement material.

If you had read Blair's 800-page book you'd find out that MacArthur's Inchon was a true 'hail mary' - the UN nearly got pushed into the sea at Pusan before Inchon could take place, it was a darned fine-run thing. Not that Inchon had ANY effect whatsover on the initial US deployments from Japan and the 24th ID in the summer of 1950!!

And why WAS Defense Secretary Johnson fired only 3 months after the Korean War began, hmmm? -Tim 25 SEP 2006

Keep in mind that Clay Blair's book is notoriusly revisionistic--it's on the far side of the historiography, primarily because he has very strong POV (he attacks Truman and most generals as incompetent and Eurocentric--seems to think most should be court martialed). He is wrong about the supply system--it worked in June-Sept 1950 far better than in, say, 1941-42. I think POV is why Blair cited here, the editor likes its POV whether credible or not. Fact is that Truman won his war in 90 days, and that's pretty good. (Compare Bush in Iraq or LBJ in Vietnam). Rjensen 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

didn't Bush 43 win the war in Iraq in like 2 weeks and started setting up a new government? What is wrong with using a book that attacks the person? I mean the guy had an approval rating of 22.. He was not backed by any major paper when he went for re-election, he became president by being appointed VP at the last second and road FDR's coat tails in. Most people then and since thought truman to be a bad president. And I think it was Mccarthur that won the defeated the koreans in 80 days.. Truman manged to snatch defeat from almost certain victory. That is why Eisenhower had to treaten to use nukes and it is why North Korea is now testing their own nukes. Most people back then think that if Mccarthur was left to do his own thing he would of won and today we wouldn't be dealing with north Korea.Mantion 02:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

Maybe someone should edit the intro to show how much Truman's approval ratings seesawed during his presidency. He went from a high of 87 percent right after becoming president a low of 23 percent during the Korean War. -October 04 2006

I am sorry I didn't see this, yes I agree it is important for people to know that a president with ultra low approval ratings could be viewed as a good president decades later.Mantion 01:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Presidency

I saw a movie at Truman's Library, It stated that shortly after taking office there was a large railroad strike, and Truman ordered the workers back to work.. When that didn't work he suggested that if the workers did not go back to work, that he would use army personel. Then he immediatly asked that congress draft every striking employee. It was awsome the coolest move I had ever seen any president do.. I don't know who's tread this is, but I want to know if it would be ok if we added this. I think it really shows his strenght as a leader. Another interesting thing is shortly after taking office he was said to have to many Chronies and was considered to "ordinary". Well there was a lot of great info at the truman library if your ever in Indpendance you should go.. Mantion 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That may seem cool but what he was really doing was drafting his political enemies so they couldn't fight him anymore. In my view that goes against democracy and freedom and is evil. -Rouleau

Find some proper documentation and give it a write up. However, remember that this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion column, and therefore your thoughts about how "awesome" or "evil" that action is should be left out. And yes, the Truman Library is pretty cool place - added bonus if you are a fan of painter Thomas Hart Benton, for his mural. --Reverend Loki 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)