Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Please remove the dot after the S in his middle name

Please remove the dot after the S in his middle name. It is not used because it is not short for something. See The Harry S Truman National Historic site: http://www.nps.gov/hstr/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henninger ainscough (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

98.208.60.136 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

NO. He signed his name "Harry S. Truman", and that's the way it is. See the FAQ here. Also, note that the Truman library uses the "S."[1] Read the Truman library's full explanation for further info.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"See the FAQ here" - which states that either form can be correct. Moreover, is that FAQ meant to be about usage in this article or about the person/his name itself? — Smjg (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Both. And consensus (and the preponderance of sources) use the period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The preponderance of sources use it because either:

• They see "Harry S Truman" and out of ignorance assume the "." has just been inadvertently omitted.
• They are not giving his middle name, only his middle initial.

FWIW I've just looked at a few other US presidents' articles for comparison. I shall summarise my findings in a table:

Page title	Name as given in lead paragraph
Lyndon B. Johnson	Lyndon Baines Johnson
Franklin D. Roosevelt	Franklin Delano Roosevelt
George W. Bush	George Walker Bush
Ulysses S. Grant	Ulysses S. Grant

OK, so they don't all quite follow this pattern. But these cases set a precedent for using "Harry S. Truman" (first name, middle initial, last name) as the page title, and "Harry S Truman" (first name, middle name, last name) in the lead paragraph.

Moreover, this whole subject has come up many times. Have you looked through the talk page archive? — Smjg (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has come up many times. "S." is the form to use throughout. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For something of such minor importance, it is the most disputed topic in this article. If there is a definitive source that there should not be a period, then please provide it. I added Ulysses S. Grant to the table above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If there's a definitive source that the form "Harry S Truman" is wrong, please provide it. Until we can find one, one can only ask: Who has ruled that this individual must never be referred to on WP by all his names? Why has this individual been singled out?

OK, so it may be the case that he had no middle name. (It would appear that this is the case with Ulysses S. Grant, though that full name was an adopted one.) The one source we have doesn't comment on the claim that Harry's middle name is S, but merely states that it "did not stand for any name". Does anyone here have access to Harry's birth certificate? (Of course, knowing the format of birth certificates from the time and place of relevance would also help.)

Or is this your point – because there's no definitive source claiming that S is his middle name, we shouldn't claim it is? — Smjg (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this,[3] Harry didn't have one, as they weren't required by MIssouri law at that time. Although the "S." didn't stand for any one name, "in effect" it stood for both "Shipp" and "Solomon". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, he signed his name "S." and his own library calls it "S." and they should know if anyone would. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So what? "John M. Smith" is a very common way of writing someone's name, regardless of how many letters the middle name has in it. — Smjg (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If the "M." in "John M. Smith" stood for both "Michael" and "Marvin", you wouldn't write it as "M", you'd write it as "M.", in America anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If somebody had two middle names, normally it would be written "John Michael Marvin Smith" or "John M. M. Smith". OK, so one middle initial might etymologically stand for two names, but they can't both be his one middle name. Presumably, either Harry had a middle name or he didn't. My point was that knowing that his signature and institution names contain an "S." doesn't in any way prove that it didn't stand for just "S" in his legal or common name. — Smjg (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, compare this situation with Johnny Cash, whose legal name was John R. Cash. Not John R Cash, but John R. Cash. Officially, the "R." stood for nothing, just like the "S." in "Harry S. Truman" officially stood for nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But has anybody ever claimed that Johnny's middle name is "R"? What is/was his middle name legally - "R", "R." or nothing at all? — Smjg (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we find somebody alive now who has either a one-letter middle name or a middle initial that stands for nothing? (Indeed, can people still be named in such a way in any jurisdiction that uses an alphabetic script?) How is the fact of the latter represented on birth certificates, passports, etc.? Anybody out there who is named in such a way, please de-lurk and speak out! — Smjg (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There are other people who have middle names that are initials only. But we are not discussing them, we are discussing Truman. As noted in the article, he used a period when he signed presidential documents. The preponderance of sources in the article use a period, and you can't change those. Most places and things named after Truman use a period and you can't change those. Is there a compelling argument that he did not use a period backed up by reliable sources? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You've done little but repeat what people have already said and I've already debunked the relevance of. Oh, you mean whether he wrote "HARRY S" or "HARRY S." when filling in the "first names" box on a form? That is indeed something that we don't know at the moment. — Smjg (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

His ENTIRE Middle Name is "S". It did NOT stand for two different names, just "S". So the "S." stands for "S", NOT Shipp or Solomon.71.180.171.44 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't actually stand for anything, it's just a middle initial "S." complete with the period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd put in my 2 cents: As Truman stated he had no preference, it is reasonable to follow the convention used by places named after/for him, such as his library. Most of these places use "S." and hence wikipedia should follow that convention. Secondly, to clear something up, "S." doesn't stand for Shipp or Solomon, but he was named after him. Just like a mother may name her child "John" after her father "Johnathon". And I think someone asked why this has generated so much discussion, even though it's not really important. Answer: It's not a clear cut issue, unlike most (presumably) are on this page. Arguments can be made in favour of each side in this case, but not in factual issues. (Ie. the question is "should this page use the "."or not", not "Did Truman use the "." or not", the latter of which can be proven, but not the former. - Ezuvian (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single "should this page use the "."or not" question – it's two separate questions:

• Should this page use the "." or not where WP convention is to give first name, middle initial and surname (page title, infobox heading, etc.)?
• Should this page use the "." or not where WP convention is to give the person's name in full (lead paragraph)?

— Smjg (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations (AGLOSO)

I realize this is an extremely difficult topic, but I hope you guys eventually put in a link to Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations, if you think that it is important enough to be in the article. It's not in faq and I can not find that term, or its acronymn, in the archives. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The problem is:

1. "Truman, a pragmatic man who had made allowances for the likes of Tom Pendergast and Stalin, quickly developed an unshakable loathing of Joseph McCarthy." true, but "unshakable loathing" is not really an effective presidential policy.
2. "He counterattacked, saying that 'Americanism' itself was under attack by ..." Kind of omits the part about under whose's leadership AGLOSO was published under- Truman. All that's here was Truman was against McCarthy. For someone who's motto was the buck stops here, this article is not placing any blame on Truman for it. You can omit agloso, but utilizing 2 sentences to say Truman was against McCarthyism and 0 sentences for whom was, somewhat responsible - at the very least, i do not think that is fair.

That being said. This is a pretty complicated article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

keepalive66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Article claims that Truman was the last president born in the 19th Century.

Article claims that Truman was the last president born in the 19th Century.

I believe that claim belongs to Eisenhower who was born October 14, 1890. (according to wikipedia).

I have no idea how to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotmo (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I misunderstood that too when it was added. I believe it is trying to claim that, at the time of his death, Truman was the last living president to have been born in the 19th century. This is true.

It does seem like a pointless piece of trivia, however. Would anyone object if I just removed it? —Mark Dominus (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I just removed it. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I will fight you to the death over it!

On second thought, I'm not allowed to fight anything to the death. Doctor's orders.

So, it's gone and will stay gone. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012

There is no period after the "S" in Harry S Truman. It is not an abbreviation, it is a letter representing the names of both of Mr. Truman's grandfathers. Now how do I become an "established" user?

Ecasas8253 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the FAQ above. Please provide sources to back up your request. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Check the images of his signature. He habitually signed his name "Harry S. Truman." Dezastru (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Baltimore Afro-American, Truman, and Paul Robeson

Cross-posted:

I left out of Paul Robeson an article by the BAA, about Truman's press conference about the Peekskill Riots. I tried to find it in a Presidential biography - no luck. The BAA is the only paper i could find that mentioned a comment on this press conference and it was extremely pro-Robeson. But the BAA was not a major newspaper, although, if memory serves me right, the owner was vastly anti-Communist. Unless a presidential historian can be found that will mention it and analyze the press conference, then the article has to come in. I am very sorry but all the Truman biographers seem to be hagiographical (that's a shot across the bow of the Wikipedia editors doing the Truman article - pfft). Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Before or After

Text states "1918 his artillery unit fired some of the last shots of World War I towards German positions after before the armistice took effect". That doesn't really make sense - but what's correct, did they fire before or after the armistice took effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanmuc (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Korean war causalities should also list the 3.5 to 4 million Koreans killed. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/korean_war.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.15.3 (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ page

Per the Manual of Style "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so."

What are these "two styles" either of which is "acceptable"?

If it's talking about "Harry S. Truman" vs "Harry S Truman", then the only way I can see the latter being "acceptable" is if his middle name is "S". But then they are different levels of information, and the "substantial reason" is there: to state what his full name is. Moreover, further down is

Simply changing the "S." within the article will be reverted, as it will no longer match the article title.

but many other articles about US presidents already break this rule.

If his middle name is "S", we ought to allow this fact to be presented in the same way as it is in other WP articles. If he has no middle name, or his middle name is "S.", then that FAQ page shouldn't be written as if "Harry S Truman" is a valid within standard English rules (albeit forbidden on WP) way of writing his name.

See also User:Smjg/HST. — Smjg (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You have read the article? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And it states "His parents chose 'S' as his 'middle name'" and in the next sentence "The initial did not stand for anything" – strikes me as a contradiction, as well as the former contradicting the FAQ "Truman did not have a middle name". If the FAQ statement is true, then (even with the quotes) to say "middle name" rather than "middle initial" in the first statement I've just quoted is gratuitous and misleading. — Smjg (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

His name was "Harry S. Truman". The middle initial "S." didn't stand for any one thing. It could be said to stand for both "Shipp" and "Solomon". In any case, it's "S." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is "S."?

• His middle initial – I think we're already all agreed on this.
• His middle name – in which case, have you a credible, non-self-contradictory source that states so?

— Smjg (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The "S." did not stand for anything. Do you have a source claiming otherwise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As a similar example, Johnny Cash had a middle initial "R." that didn't stand for anything either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A number of sources claim that it stood for just "S". This is the whole reason the issue is disputed in the first place. If only people would stop just repeating themselves, and only post if they have something new to contribute to the discussion, we might stand a chance of getting somewhere. — Smjg (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And a number of sources claim it stood for nothing. What would you accept as a final, overriding, authoritative source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But maybe the Truman library page is the most authoritative of the online sources. I guess when it talks of "Authors choosing to omit the period in their texts" it means authors choosing to deviate from standard English rules. And if we can convince Snopes to correct their piece on the matter, it would be even better.... — Smjg (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant. Browse through the archives: there is more hash than a greasy diner. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Going by the statements that he had no middle name, what I'm really saying is that the FAQ page should still prescribe "S." but because of standard English rules rather than the contortions it does go through. I'll see what I can come up with.... — Smjg (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

He signed his name with a period after the "S". I think Harry Truman's view on the matter trumps anyone else's. 71.52.144.136 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize winning biography covers this question. McCullough wrote the middle initial with a period. "In a quandary over a middle name, Mattie and John were undecided whether to honor her father or his. In the end they compromised with the letter S. It could be taken to stand for Solomon or Shipp, but actually stood for nothing, a practice not unknown among the Scotch-Irish, even for first names. The baby's first name was Harry, after his Uncle Harrison. Harry S. Truman he would be." Truman 2003, page 26. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Both of you: I've spent all this time explaining, both here and on the page I've linked to, why what you're saying is of no significance to the matter. But do you listen? Apparently not. — Smjg (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The middle "S" is a middle name, or not a middle name, or just a middle initial, according to various sources. I worry less about English standards (there are so many of them) than actual usage by high quality sources. The sources do not quite agree so we have settled upon a style. Truman himself said the 'S' was his middle name. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Makes more sense now. So essentially, we avoid using "Harry S Truman" because sources disagree on the correctness of it. On the other hand, "Harry S. Truman" is a valid form whichever viewpoint is taken, so we stick to this form. — Smjg (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012

4th paragraph, 5th word. "truning point" should be "turning point" (a simple misspelling) Dekkon (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.PumpkinSky talk 09:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

3rd paragraph, 1st sentence under Strikes and economic upheaval - "Although labor strife became more muted after the settlement of the railway strike, it considered through Truman's presidency." I think considered was meant to be 'continued'. End of 1st paragraph under Vice presidency - misspelled "Senator from Prendergast"; should say Pendergast.

Ie JaneWatson 23:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ie JaneWatson (talk • contribs)

Done. PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

KKK

See Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.56.98 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's overblown B.S. McCullough dismisses it sharply. None of it belongs here. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, nothing I've seen says he was a member. He probably didn't distance himself from them too much in 1924 or so, but those were the times and the height of KKK popularity and we're talking Missouri here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Truman briefly considered joining the KKK but did not. It would have been a disaster for his connection to the Catholic Pendergast machine. The perhaps 5,000 votes the KKK said they could deliver would be countered by the loss of many more thousands of votes from the machine. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If he had, he probably wouldn't have a Wikipedia article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Atomic bombing

This discussion is inappropriate to Truman's biography. Please take it up at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is totally partial regarding to the atomic bombing and it is disappointing as an encyclopedic article, even more for a featured article. Let's start with this: "In a trenchant new book, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock concludes that the bombings were not only unnecessary, but were based on a vengeful policy that actually harmed American interests. He writes (pp. 124, 132): ... By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ... Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas." "American leaders who were in a position to know the facts did not believe, either at the time or later, that the atomic bombings were needed to end the war." "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963." "Shortly after "V-J Day," the end of the Pacific war, Brig. General Bonnie Fellers summed up in a memo for General MacArthur: "Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place." "Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented: It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." "In a 1960 magazine article, Szilard wrote: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."" "After studying this matter in great detail, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey rejected the notion that Japan gave up because of the atomic bombings. In its authoritative 1946 report, the Survey concluded: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms ..." "General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender." General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."" (from here). A not so deep research gives away clearly that the section about the atomic bombing in this article: 1. It hides essential information of the number of deaths caused by the atomic bombs, besides how it was planned to be launched over workers houses and devastating civilians and children, without prior warning, creating new diseases and keeping the horror over several generations. 2. It hides essential information regarding how Japan was looking for peace from April and May on 1945, and it was already surrended when the bombs were launched (Japan surrended with the only condition of keeping the Emperor). 3. It hides essential information on how the whole scientific community, including Albert Einstein, were against the use of the bomb, and they were ignored. As well, regarding to highly respected historian from the University of California Tsuyoshi Hasegawa ideas (also supported by historian Edwin P. Hoyt in his 1986 study) pointing that the atomic bombs did not lead Japan to surrender. To name only a few, besides the quoted text at the begining. 4. Dedicates several paragraphs to try to justify the murder of hundreds of thousands innocents that happened there, talking repeatedly, over and over again, about the same and single idea and point of view of trying to justify how completely destroying two cities full of innocents could have hipotetically serve to save more lives (which is not true, because Japan was seeking peace months before that). That is the thought of Truman, but in this kind of article there should be the whole picture, not only that over and over again. In short, if you really care about this article and its truthfulness you should widen your research beyond one point of view and beyond propaganda and complete and contrast the information. Viento Turquesa (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC) There are multiple viewpoints regarding what made the Japanese surrender, and how important the atomic bombs were. You have selected only the arguments for one viewpoint and failed to consider the others. This biography of Truman is not the place to you should aim at; your target is primarily the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Please go there and check out the pro and con arguments, making sure to read all of the main sources. You will be surprised at how detailed and authoritative are some of the scholars' arguments in favor of the atomic bombs being very significant in the decision of Japan to surrender. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC) I agree that the OP needs to seek another venue for his concern. We are primarily interested here with a description of the circumstances of the decision, the decision itself, and how it impacted Truman and what he thought about it. He was always convinced he had done the right thing. What others think about his decision, and many do, is beyond the scope of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Surely I have considered just this point of view in contrast with the one and only propagandistic included in this article. However, beyond points of view, the biography of a person must include how many people his decisions killed, and it's not there. That's a fact, not an opinion. The documents of Japan seeking peace from April 1945 are facts, not opinions. Japan had no war power in that moment, and that's a documented fact. Then we can discuss on right, wrong, good and evil, and those are opinions; but facts are facts, and an encyclopedic article must include them. Later on you can talk about what his thoughts were, once you have set the whole scene. Viento Turquesa (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Monday-morning quarterbacking. If Japan wanted to surrender in April, they could have done so. And even after the bombings, there were Japanese efforts to prevent the Emperor from broadcasting his surrender message. The bombs ended the war which the Japanese started by attacking us, saving countless thousands of American lives. And because the Japanese pulled us into the war, they are the ones responsible for the deaths of their own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC) You should dig deeper into facts. What you said there is like saying the Twin Towers attack's deaths were responsibility of the Americans, while they were clearly and sadly the victims. Viento Turquesa (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC) "No war power"? In early August 1945 Japan was still controlled by officers who wished to continue fighting. That's why the USA was still fighting Japan at that time. If you want to talk about the "war power" of Japan, you should note the utter futility of Japan attacking the USA in December 1941. The industrial power of Japan in 1941 was about one-tenth that of the USA; there was never any hope for Japan winning a drawn-out war. The problem was war chiefs of Japan who were unwilling to admit defeat. Anyway, this biography is not the place to argue. Truman biographers agree that he basically rubber-stamped the plan that was already set in motion long before he knew about it. He did not labor very long over his decision. His goal was to save American lives; he did not have a goal to save Japanese lives. There was a war to win... Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC) No, there was not. War was already won, long before that. And, even in a hypotetical case of "not won war", by saying that you are justifying nazism, Twin Towers attack, Japanese exterminations in China and any other massacre under the same thought of "I care about myself and **** the rest". Yet all those where treated as terrible things, as they were. We must learn from our mistakes to become better. Viento Turquesa (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Where are you getting your facts from? Mad magazine? The Japanese refused to surrender. The bomb forced them to. All these other ideas are theories. The bomb ended the war, and that's a fact. It was horrible, but it was the optimal military decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC) You have a compilation of a lot of references up there in the link I quoted (this one), which I see you have not checked. From American generals who lived the process (General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, General Curtis LeMay, Admiral Leahy...) and USA presidents (Eisenhower), among others (the United States Strategic Bombing Survey), with references to books, documents and speechs. I'm not telling this to you: Eisenhower is, and General MacArthur who lived the process in first line. And the USSBS. Americans. For instance: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963." "General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender." General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."" "After studying this matter in great detail, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey rejected the notion that Japan gave up because of the atomic bombings. In its authoritative 1946 report, the Survey concluded: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, [...]" That link is just one example (which I specially like because it's a nice compilation), but you can find a lot more with little research. As long as you want to learn about it, of course. Viento Turquesa (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

First assassination attempt/dislike of Jews (source)

Could someone look at incorporating the information in this link into the article? Doesn't appear to be the most reliable website and it runs counter to the information on Truman that is in the Wikipedia article, but it is well cited. http://ariwatch.com/OurAlly/AttemptedAssassinationOfTruman.htm Kbog (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The assassination attempt has been covered well enough in the article. We do not need to use a self-published unreliable website to expand our coverage of it, since there are many high-quality sources available instead. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't read the link. The article is about explosive letters sent by Zionist terrorists. Read the first sentence of the article on the Truman assassination attempt: The "second" of two attempts. Kbog (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I "looked at" the link and saw it was incredibly unreliable. It cannot be used at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe this will work out. [4] is a photo of the original news article describing Margaret Truman's (his daughter) and Ira. R. T. Smith's (White House staffer) agreeing allegations of the plot. [5] goes into detail about the event, which is also referred to in the Wikipedia article about letter bombs. Let's at least sort out whether we want this to be included in Wikipedia or not, so that the articles can agree with each other. Why don't we write something like, "The first attempted assassination of Harry Truman occurred in 1947 when members of the Stern Gang allegedly sent letter bombs to the White House." Then include a quote by Margaret Truman from her book. That leaves it somewhat ambiguous while providing useful information. Kbog (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The dcdave website is unusable as a reliable source. The newspaper article is okay, though. We can also use Margaret's book about her dad, and the book by Ira T. Smith called Dear Mr. President.... That's three sources: two books and one book review in a newspaper. The incident should be added to the Stern Gang page. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think calling it definitely "the first attempted assassination" is appropriate if there's an "allegedly" to follow. I'm not thrilled about the sourcing without a lot of inline attributions. Has this been addressed in the major biographies of Truman? Both the Margaret and Smith books are primary sources. Do we have anything scholarly on it?-Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the addition. This (subscription needed, but you can view the title) indicates that a former leader of the Stern Gang denied it in 1972. I don't see that we can treat this as historical fact. We need something more recent, and scholarly, in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph

Shouldn't the first paragraph mention the fact that Truman is the first and only head of state to have ordered a nuclear attack? Pass a Method talk 02:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I think not. Truman was never the driving force behind the Manhattan Project, and when he learned of it he simply rubber-stamped it, letting its own inertia carry it forward. The nuclear attack was really part of the legacy of FDR. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

However, the fact remains that Truman is the only president who has ordered a nuclear attack. Is that not a significant and notable fact? DocRushing (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth a mention, perhaps in the Legacy section?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fallen under Soviet control? You mean given up by the US and the Allies.

"Truman was a strong supporter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which established a formal peacetime military alliance with Canada and many of the democratic European nations that had not fallen under Soviet control following World War II."

This is incorrect. Many countries that sacrificed a lot were given up to the Soviets by the US. To say they had fallen to the Soviets is to say that it was not because of the Allies, especially the US and UK that handed them over to the Soviets. And this article cannot be edited directly? How about the 120,000 thousand Romanian soldiers who fought to liberate Europe once the Soviets were moving forward finally without intent to destroy Romanians completely and shortened the war by 6 months?

That's 120k deaths. There are many other factual inaccuracies, usually due to poor wording on the writer's part.

But hey, it's wikipedia, anyone can edit anything ... except NOT!

No wonder Wales' company Wikia is so desperate to do anything but fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucian303 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To the anonymous user above:

The sentence in question in the article does not discuss the circumstances under which those nations became under the control of the USSR.

If you wish to correct anything which you consider to be inaccurate, please feel free to do so, but please do it in a proper way, and please present appropriate evidence to support your edits.

If you wish to pursue the circumstances to which you allude, please do so on the pages which deal with the events or nations involved.

Please also sign your comments on this page.

DocRushing (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There's enough to argue about with Truman without writing the article in such a way as to create more. That's one reason why this article takes a very neutral tone. Sometimes these days, people deem a neutral tone to be insufficiently supportive of their point of view. I can't help that. As for Jimbo, anyone will tell you I am no friend of his. He in any event has no influence on content as he rarely edits an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Image Edits - Overcrowding/Pertinence - Potential MOS:Image Problems

I have removed the following image due to overcrowding problem: File:Lyndon Johnson signing Medicare bill, with Harry Truman, July 30, 1965.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Two men at a desk with a document one is signing with their wives standing behind them|Truman (seated right) and his wife Bess (behind him) attend the signing of the Medicare (United States)|Medicare Bill on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson Hoppyh (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the following and will replace it with a more pertinent image of the Tuman Library. It has been established by consensus (see e.g. Lincoln, Kennedy, Eisenhower) that stamp images are more appropriately referenced with a link in order to make more efficient use of the premium that space demands in presidential articles:

File:Harry S TRuman 1973 Issue-8c.jpg|thumb|165px|

[[US Presidents on US postage stamps#Harry S. Truman|Stamp issued in 1973, following Truman's death—Truman has been honored on five U.S. postage stamps, issued from 1973 to 1999.sfn|Kloetzel|Charles|2012|pp=50, 61, 71, 91, 99sfn|Smithsonian Institution|1973sfn|Smithsonian Institution|1984}}sfn|Smithsonian Institution|1986sfn|Smithsonian Institution|1995sfn|Smithsonian Institution|1999 Hoppyh (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I put them back. It's not overcrowded and there is nothing wrong with stamps. What consensus? PumpkinSky talk 02:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As you wish, but it has been my experience that stamp and coin images have in the past obstructed/endangered GA and FA ratings of the presidents' articles, as well as the (obvious) overcrowding of text with the Medicare Bill pic. See FA review of A. Lincoln at Archives #21 & 22 on Lincoln Talk p.. Hoppyh (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Lincoln FAC was a brave effort, but that article may be effectively impossible to FA for reasons having nothing to do with images. This is a FA. I will not say that an article has never been FAR'd over image crowding. Never say never and I don't spend much time over there. But I've never heard of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States

According to the information provided in Chapter 3 of these documentaries, there are reasonable doubts that Japan's capitulation was due to the use of the bomb. Hence I try to make the following sentence a bit more neutral: Truman's decision to use atomic weapons against Japan allegedly led to a speedy end of the war but remains controversial. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see something more scholarly. Putting in "alleged" there makes it clear to the reader that the editorial voice of Wikipedia views the matter skeptically, which is itself POV.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt. Mentioning the controversial nature of the decision is enough until or unless better refs are presented. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The word "allegedly" is a terrible choice. I changed the sentence to say that the surrender of Japan followed the atomic bombs, with no assumption of why they surrendered. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I had a go with it to change it to Truman's intent, which is certainly true, and noted that it has become controversial. Was at the time, though rather muted behind images of sailors kissing nurses.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's better: the intent should be stated. Certainly the controversy was muted at the time. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it indeed a better wording now. Thank you all. Arcillaroja (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt statements?

A recent post at Wikiquote brought some attributions in this article to my attention, when I began to look for sources.

In 1954, Eleanor Roosevelt said that Truman had "made the only decision he could," and that the bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."

The statements are cited to: Tenuth, Jeff (July 5, 2002). "Truman on Trial: Not Guilty". History News Network. Retrieved September 1, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

But I find no indication of any statements of Eleanor Roosevelt at those links, though one similar to one is made by the author of that article, and I thus believe that these attributions might be an error of some kind. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I will delete it immediately. I do not remember adding that to the article (or reading, it, honestly). The article received a fairly decent source check in its more recent FAC, I suppose that slipped by somehow if it was present in that form then.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Communists creeping off topic

In September 2006, Rjensen commented that this biography should not be a general history of the era. The tendency to add general history continues; the FA version of this article from 2012 contained a lot of material about communists and Alger Hiss even though Truman's position can be stated without telling the reader about all of the developments. Basically, Truman kept his head low, to avoid controversy. Not much more needs to be stated.

Recent additions by new editor Samarkand12 have built the section up even more, though at least Truman's reaction is being expanded rather than the general history. However, I think the section can be pared down quite a bit. Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly Truman tried to keep his head down, but the Republicans yanked it up at every opportunity, the Truman-Acheson White House, and from there a skipping stone to Hiss. I think we should discuss before paring to much less than we had at the FA a couple years back. I think we need some context, since the position today in the media seems to be it was all Joe McCarthy's fault when it wasn't Nixon's.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits a second time and I think they may be too favorable to Truman. The thing is, he can say anything he wants but it's his Justice Department prosecuting Hiss and it's his pardon pen that was never extended to Hiss.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Law of the Sea

That article baldly states that Truman/his administration were solely responsible for the replacement of the freedom of the seas principle under international law, unilaterally extending US claims to the end of the continental shelf. If so, it deserves cited mention here, along with the rationale. Surely by 1945, the issue wasn't Japanese or Nazi German fishing fleets so something odd was going on (unless they were simply applying the original FotS compromise and saying that the range of American rocketry was responsible for extending the controlled area of the sea...) — LlywelynII 23:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Family of Harry S. Truman

In the main article there is not much on Truman's ancestors and notable relations outside of his immediate family. Meanwhile there is significant coverage in Wikipedia of the extended families of other prominent political figures including President Barack Obama and his immediate predecessor George W. Bush. Like Obama and Bush, Truman's ancestry and family relations reveals much about the history of the United States, the migratory patterns of its citizens and the interconnections between its people. As a result, his ancestry as well as of the other presidents is of significant interest to historians and genealogists. The publication of the book Ancestors of American Presidents by Gary Boyd Roberts is one such example. At the very least there should be a sub article about Truman's family and perhaps individual articles on key ancestors, such as Thomas and Elizabeth Shipp, who are also direct line ancestors to other prominent figures such as Obama and Sen. John Edwards. Igbo (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about his religious views, either

Truman was a Baptist, but he was also a biblical literalist, and is also described as having been a Christian Zionist in this source[6], which is a book review of this book[7].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Some sources on Truman's religious affiliation.[8][9][10][11]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a statement on his religion. He was not very religious. see the excellent article: Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, "Religion and the presidency of Harry S. Truman in Gastón Espinosa, ed. Religion and the American Presidency: George Washington to George W. Bush (2009) pp 219-49 Rjensen (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks like an interesting book. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No mention in article of the "S" vs "S." issue?

(NOTE: This is NOT a rehash of the "'S' vs 'S.'" controversy itself, but rather about mentioning it in the article.)

I'm a bit surprised that there's not a word in this article about the endless arguments (outside of Wikipedia) about Truman's middle initial. Yes, we have the sourced statement of what it stands for. Yes, we have an image of his signature (although this is no longer properly sourced, since it claims to be hand-traced from an image on a no-longer-existing webpage). But many real-world discussions of Truman include the question of whether or not to use the period, yet anyone coming here to discover answers will get nothing. They could sift through the talk-page FAQ and archives, but that's not article text.

I've looked through said talk-page data, and I didn't notice any discussion about including the question (or an answer) in the actual article. Did I miss something, or has no one dared to include a reasonably succinct statement (with sources)? Perhaps something like this, to follow the sentences about the meaning of the "S", and parenthesized as a side issue:

(Truman himself typically used "S." in signatures, but once said (perhaps jokingly) that it didn't matter to him whether people included the period. Most U.S. style guides that include guidance recommend the period.)

I'd think that citing the Truman Library's statement for the first sentence, and the relevant pages in the style guides for the second, would be sufficient for sourcing. In fact, the Library's statement that "Most published works and claims... employ the period" and its list of conforming government-publishing guidelines is probably enough all by itself. How does everyone feel about including this tidbit in the article? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That most works use "S." doesn't tell us anything - see User:Smjg/HST. Thinking about it now, I suggest something like this:

"Since the S did not stand for anything, his full name is sometimes written as "Harry S Truman" without the period, but most U.S. style guides discourage this."

(with adequate sources, of course) — Smjg (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote, after the "S." in the first mention of his name? It would be very clear what the footnote is about, as it is unusual to put one in the middle of someone's name.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is it an issue? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is what an issue? I'm trying to figure out a way of making it convenient to the reader without having a bit of a detour in the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is such insignificant information as to warrant delegating to a footnote, rather than having it somewhere in the main article text? I'd say it's something that somebody might be looking for when coming to the article, and on this basis in the main article text would be better.

For the record, once upon a time the article did have a section on this. But then somebody merged it into the "Personal life" section, and then successive editors have for reasons unknown trimmed down the information until nothing remains of it. But then again, virtually all this time it has been guilty of the unfounded assumption I mention in my piece, so this is something to avoid. The simple statement I proposed above makes no such assumption. (It may be the case that many of said style guides make this assumption in their explanations, but I'm not sure if we should worry about this.) — Smjg (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Has any change been made? I don't notice any mention in the article. I would support adding a sentence to the article because I do think it is one reason people will come to the article -- it is the reason I came. How about something like this: "The "S" did not stand for anything, a common practice among the Scots-Irish. This has led to a debate about whether there should be a period after the "S" with the Truman Library and influential style guides (fill in the blank) supporting using a period." There could then be a note with a longer explanation or even better lengthy quotes from the Library's statement that flesh out the dispute in a bit more detail, including mentioned Truman's own comments. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we reached that stage, the discussion died out. If you want to prepare a full draft, including refs, that would save work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I daresay, it is not insignificant. I came here for exactly that information and got nothing. Iago2¹² 09:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also believe it is significant and came here for that information, because I had always been taught it had no period and was about to contact my daily paper for making the mistake.Conscientia (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone prepare a draft? I don't have my Truman references anymore, gone to the library. We could put it in a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the issue is substantive enough, and the article is long enough, to warrant a brief discussion of the S vs S. issue. In fact, I came to this article for just that reason (I saw Truman discussed elsewhere) and was surprised to see no reference to it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics

Isn't it noteworthy that Harry Truman was also a Klansman for a while: Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics --41.151.80.123 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a sentence on this. As I recall, he signed up but immediately returned his card. It does not seem significant, especially given his later actions in civil rights. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The later actions are real enough. They were in and after 1948, when the atmosphere politically was very different to that in 1924 and for a long time before 1924. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissouriOzark1947 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is significant and should be included, even if he returned the card, particularly given his later Civil Rights work. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Harry S. Truman → Harry S Truman – His middle name is S. The article does not mention that it stands for something, for a good reason: it stands for nothing other than itself. Therefore to "pretend" to abbreviate it when there is no abbreviation to be had is confusing. Not suggesting we should delete either, but I think we should switch to call the fella by his correct name. In case of doubt, I am not from the United States, so I have no particular bias on this other than correctness. Si Trew (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - see the discussion above on this very issue. For most cases I would say we should research what standard practice is for Scots with a middle initial rather than a full middle name, but this is a President of the United States. The article (or an older version of it) mentions that the Associated Press Stylebook specifically recommends the inclusion of the period for Truman's name specifically, that's a very big indicator for how this article should be titled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - see Talk:Harry S. Truman#No mention in article of the "S" vs "S." issue? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We're a tertiary source. We may have a MOS, but on substantive matters such as a president's name, we bow to the sources and overwhelmingly, they refer to Truman with an (.) after the S.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reliable sources use a period, so we do too. Calidum 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Idiotic move request if there ever was one. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per everything that has already been said. Harry used a period, reliable sources use a period, and therefore the article uses a period. JOJ ^Hutton 00:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Withdrawn. I was asked most politely on my talk page to consider withdrawing this nomination by User:George Ho. by nominator. I can see a SNOWBALL coming me, but I still feel it is wrong to list anyone's name wrongly. Redirects are fine to it, but this is just wrong, we list the real name first, nicknames, given names, ekenames, and so on after.

This came up via my listing at WP:RFD#Harry S Truman where it was a procedural close by @BDD: as that it should be brought to WP:RM. So I did. I would have let it lie there (both BDD and I are regulars over at RfD).

I realise I am going to "lose" this one, but sincerely would thank you all for your considered input and I hope you will accept that I couldn't find all the links you did, it depends on how one searches. I still think it would be only fair on a fellow to give his name as what his given name was. We don't have Harold S Truman or Harold S. Truman for example, as misnomers, but I see this is not a misnomer from the RS given. (Since I sign often just "S." in real life, like Kafka's protagonists were just K.).

as an aside. Oddly enough, and this is complete coincidence I assure you, on one of the fillers at the start and ends of ad breaks (I forget what those are called) on the UK's Yesterday Channel or as I tend to call it the Hitler Channel (I was watching something about the Siege of Stalingrad, it was pure coincidence, I had time to kill whereas neither Stalin not Hitler had time enough to) were the words on the caption, and I noted to my surprise that the caption said "The middle name of Harry S. Truman was S". So perhaps it's kinda right but wrong at the same time: WP:NAME obviously is WP:COMMONNAME, but this is on the fulcrum, it just seems the wrong way around to me, that we should use the given name and redirect to it.

Thank you all for your good faith. Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

End of WW II

In the introduction, the text states that the Allies concluded WW2 a few weeks after the death of FDR and Truman's ascendancy to the presidency. Clearly, it means the war in Europe not WW2. But I didn't correct the sentence because it seems the author's original intent was to connect the end of the war in Europe to the beginning of the Cold War, given its vital place in Truman's presidency. But this needs to be done without the factual error that WW2 in its entirety ended a few weeks after Truman became president. I'll leave it to someone else (I'm new to editing Wikipedia) to find a way to correct the error without losing the connection of the end of the war in Europe to the beginning of the Cold War. EMU History1994 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

good point. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestine and Israel

I came upon this and I noticed that the section on recognition of Israel seems to be written with bias in. As read, it (1) implies Truman unequivocally supported the Zionist position, thus only presenting a partial truth and (2) completely omits his serious needs of financial support in an election cycle to continue to a second term.

The brief description explains support of the arab position as realpolitik hammered by the State Dept purely on the value of oil, and the zionist position as an honorable position bending towards justice (to borrow a phrase from MLK).

For example: "Truman replied that he would decide his policy on the basis of justice, not oil."

The discussion omits much of what Truman thought, especially as he pushed for a bi-national state, with an internationalized Jerusalem, and expected Palestinians to be equals in the resulting political order. He later expressed strong words condemning the ejection and system depopulation of Palestinians from their lands. Of course, none of this is here.

The discussion also completely omits zionist support of his campaign to extend his presidency for another 4 years.

These are all heavy and serious topics that need to be added into this section. No doubt he thought something should be done, and these need to be explained clearly, as it currently provided a skewed perspective of what this president thought. I'm not making any changes as of yet, as I'm not a fan of changing sections without opening a forum to host this in, however, the section as-is is incredibly misleading and should be corrected.

---

To be sure, Truman had no regrets about Israel after he left office. Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion recounted how when, during a meeting in New York in 1961, he praised the former president for his “constant sympathy with our aims in Israel … tears suddenly sprang to his eyes.” But in the years leading up to, and in the months following, American recognition of Israel in May 1948, Truman was filled with doubt and regret about his role. The rosy portrayal of Truman’s unquestioning commitment to and constant sympathy with Israel, which is often linked to a picture of the younger Truman as a Christian Zionist, is dead wrong.

As president, Truman initially opposed the creation of a Jewish state. Instead, he tried to promote an Arab-Jewish federation or binational state. He finally gave up in 1947 and endorsed the partition of Palestine into separate states, but he continued to express regret in private that he had not achieved his original objective, which he blamed most often on the “unwarranted interference” of American Zionists. After he had recognized the new state, he pressed the Israeli government to negotiate with the Arabs over borders and refugees; and expressed his disgust with “the manner in which the Jews are handling the refugee problem.” </ref>

---

Snippet from Feature article for Judis's book http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116215/was-harry-truman-zionist

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-American-Origins-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0374161097 Book referenc eon amazon.

207.38.43.28 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Here's a fascinating opinion column by William Safire in the New York Times. It contains some interesting quotes from President Truman.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Recognizing Israel

I don't think we should quote his memoirs regarding his motivations for recognizing Israel, because it's all in hindsight, and a better approach would be to describe his attitudes leading up to the recognition. I think the following paragraph properly summarizes what can be found in reliable sources:

“ In 1944, then Senator Truman said: "Today, not tomorrow, we must do all that is humanly possible to provide a haven for all those who can be grasped from the hands of Nazi butchers. Free lands must be opened to them." But he did not support any and all methods of accomplishing that humanitarian goal, and in particular was initially no fan of Israeli independence, as he explained on November 24, 1945: "I told the Jews that if they were willing to furnish me with five hundred thousand men to carry on a war with the Arabs, we could do what they are suggesting in the Resolution [favoring a state]  - otherwise we we will have to negotiate awhile....What I am trying to do is to make the whole world safe for the Jews. Therefore, I don't feel like going to war for Palestine." But he did ultimately support recognition of Israel, due not just to moral considerations, but also for other reasons such as his very difficult reelection battle, his desire that Israel not turn to the Soviet Union for friendship, and the need to alleviate difficulties in Europe without resorting to unpopular increases in immigration to the United States. All the same, Truman had reservations, and wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt in 1947: "Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath." ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fake reference

Reference 254 is a fake reference. It is just the Truman wikipedia page so a circular path. Lakeshake (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you don't have to bring something like that to the talk page, just delete the ref. (Which it looks like someone has done.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

KKK

Why is there no mention of Truman's membership in the KKK in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.243.252 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It has been discussed here before and the consensus was that there is no evidence that he was a member, and the reliable sources agree that he was not. The discussion could be resumed, if appropriate. —Mark Dominus (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a detailed discussion at Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics#Harry_Truman, which this article should probably point to. —Mark Dominus (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Atomic bombings

The lede should be reworded as it suggests Japan surrendered only because of the atomic bombings, and that an invasion was certain. Many historians believe the Japanese surrender was due more to the Soviet entry into the war on 9 August 1945 and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Also it has been widely written that a naval blockade would have starved Japan into unconditional surrender within weeks, without any need for an invasion of the home islands. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:4010:674F:6E32:6CF2 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC))

His name is Harry S Truman, not Harry S. Truman.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

His middle name was S, and pretending that S. is correct, based on the idea that if a mistake is pervasive, then the mistake should be considered correct, is a falsehood, and is perpetuating an error. This very article states that his middle name is S and stands for nothing. Reporting facts is to be unbiased, and fact finding is not a democracy. Facts are facts and do not change. The fact is that his name is, in fact, Harry S Truman. This is one of the most taught and remembered facts in American history, and it is time to correct this article. Thank you. HaroldBuddy (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Harry_S._Truman/FAQ. Calidum ¤ 03:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can imagine, this has been discussed before. Near the top of the page we have a Frequently Asked Questions section which is dedicated to this question. Basically, Truman signed his name with a period after the S, which is why we use that form. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I read the FAQ and it seems like a mistake was made in 2001. We should correct that mistake. His legal name was Harry S Truman. In order not to look like a weirdo, he may have signed his name Harry S. Truman sometimes, but this doesn't make it right. Besides, by having Harry S Truman, we promote the correct usage and also spark curiosity why it is not Harry S. Truman. As a compromise, we could write in the first sentence something like "Harry S Truman, also known as Harry S. Truman was a ...." Lakeshake (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's try this for a while. Lakeshake (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA WORLD CONGRESS ON HARRY TRUMAN - DECEMBER 13, 2016

Whereas there is not agreement on whether to reference "Harry S Truman" in the first paragraph,

Whereas it is assumed that all Wikipedians will act in a calm manner to discuss and not take swipes at other users in any form,

Whereas all participants agree that Harry S. Truman and Harry S Truman has been used in a legitimate fashion,

Therefore, this Wikipedia World Congress is convened for at least 48 hours. Lakeshake (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

For Harry S. Truman
1. commonly used
2. Used later by the White House after "Harry S Truman" is used at the top and title. https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photos/33-harry-s-truman 3. Is the way it is now

For Harry S Truman
1. commonly used
2. Used as in the title by the White House. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photos/33-harry-s-truman 3. Is an informative and unusual form of a name
4. Is his legal name.
5. No consensus is for Harry S. Truman as evidenced by the hidden text in the article stating that the consensus is unclear.

For compromise
1. Wikipedia way 2. Listing Harry S Truman does not make the article ugly or undesirable.

To use only Harry S. Truman is WRONG. It is false. It is against compromise. CBS News say "Syria Dictator Assad" on TV but in Wikipedia we are more neutral.

Therefore, I proposed Harry S. Truman (also known as Harry S Truman) (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was an American.... Lakeshake (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I withdraw that proposal because it doesn't meet the usual Wikipedia practice of using the president's full name first. However, the above proposal is an improvement of the current version because it is closer to the usual Wikipedia practice. It should really read "Harry S Truman (also rendered as Harry S. Truman) (May 8, 1884-December 26, 1972) was an American..." Lakeshake (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by WP:SECONDARY references rather than a thoughts offered by individuals in a conference of users.

Arguably the finest biography of Truman is Truman written by David McCullough, who says on page 26:

In a quandary over a middle name, Mattie and John were undecided whether to honor her father or his. In the end they compromised with the letter S. It could be taken to stand for Solomon or Shipp, but actually stood for nothing, a practice not unknown among the Scotch-Irish, even for first names. The baby's first name was Harry, after his Uncle Harrison.
Harry S. Truman he would be.

You'll note that the middle S has a period in McCullough's book. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll note that the White House official website does use Harry S Truman at the top but does concede to Harry S. Truman later in the bottom. That might be a splendid compromise that we copy in Wikipedia so I will do it. Very tastefully, I might add. Lakeshake (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's easy enough to cherry-pick sources to find it with or without the period. Since multiple reliable sources, including the McCullough book mentioned by Binksternet, include the period, and since Truman included it himself in his signature, it seems reasonable that the Wikipedia article should reflect that. The construction "Harry S. Truman (also Harry S Truman)" is just confusing; for clarity's sake, it might be appropriate to say something like "Harry S. Truman (sometimes rendered Harry S Truman, without the period). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense to have the "(somtimes rendered Harry S Truman, without the period)Lakeshake (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• There is zero need to list "Harry S Truman" as an alternate name in the lead, because it is not an alternate name. The note "b" readers can click on sufficiently explains the situation to readers. Calidum ¤ 21:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose adding anything to the first sentence. The footnote is adequate and given that many people are there to get summary info from the article, I dislike to see the first sentence sidetracked.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The "I don't like it" rationale is not considered a major consideration in Wikipedia. Sorry. I don't like that. Lakeshake (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I find the arguments at Talk:Harry_S._Truman/FAQ persuasive, and I suggest that we leave the article alone, and not clutter up the lede paragraph with trivia. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, leave the dot, and don't clutter up the lede. The mention of the dotless middle initial belongs in a subsidiary section if anywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Possibilities may include

• SELECTION A Harry S. Truman (also known as Harry S Truman) (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was an American....

• SELECTION BHarry S Truman (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was an American.... (then have an explanation in the text. Note that Harry S Truman was his legal name and that other presidents' Wikipedia articles don't have middle initials even though many are in common use, such as Franklin D. Rooosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush)

• SELECTION CHarry S. Truman (sometimes rendered Harry S Truman without the period) (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was an American....

• SELECTION D Harry S Truman (also known as Harry S. Truman) (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was an American....

Given these alternative choices, which do you prefer? You may choose multiple solutions. The purpose is to gauge the best alternate choice so this can be discussed rather than have too many candidates, which can be unwieldy. Lakeshake (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option E aka the longstanding version only you have a problem with. Four editors and myself have expressed this preference. It's time you drop the stick. Calidum 19:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Of A, B, C, and D, the only option that isn't likely to confuse many readers is C. However, there appears to be consensus for option E, and I think the arguments for it are persuasive. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• OPTION E causes problems. Every US presidential biography has the President's full name in the first sentence. Only Harry S Truman has an error in not presenting it as such. This has caused more than 12 years of debate by many editors. Most are very polite and get worn out, eventually leaving. OPTION B and D meet good standards that this article should follow. I am flexible and open to discussion. Lakeshake (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the use of the period (0ption E, otherwise known as the status quo) - There is no conceivable reason to change this because of the views of a single editor when multiple reliable sources use the period. Lakeshake, please read WP:IDHT, as you are exhibiting exactly this behavior. Also, you should re-read WP:CONSENSUS, as your remarks elsewhere indicate that you do not recognize that there is a clear consensus on this page to use the period, which there is. I counsel you to drop this issue, and to stop harassing Calidum about it, lest a block for disruption be addressed your way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option E (keep the period and leave it at that) the man himself used this, and so do many high quality sources, including David McCullough's biography as Binksternet pointed out. All the other options except Option B are needless repetitions of his name (punctuation not withstanding). Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option E: It is noteworthy that no one here has referred to Truman's own autobiography, The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman (nor does the article-I will add it), which specifically identifies the "S" as an initial so that he would have two intials (H.S. Truman, or H.S.T., or the same without the periods), meaning that whatever you would do to show his first initial you would also do for the second (and third). RM2KX (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

While this series of edits by Rjensen are in general quite good, I wonder at the prominent placement of the dropping of the atomic bombs. It feels a little too quick and stark to me. Also, I don't know if we should label Truman so broadly as a moderate.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I might leave the 'moderate' question to others but I agree the atom bombs don't need to be in the first sentence -- in fact the way it's expressed now makes it sound like he personally threw them out of the plane... Overall I find the previous opening para more appropriate. On a structural note, while I don't particularly have an issue with moving the cabinet and international trips subsections to subarticles, it looks unprofessional to retain just headings and main article pointers (plus one sentence in the trips section). I think either we should have a summary paragraph in each or else the headings should be dropped and the main article links worked into the article some other way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the initial bit about atom bombs. Truman's involvement was not so significant; when he was told about it, he approved of the ongoing program. He chose to continue the plan as formulated by FDR and his military leaders. It's enough that we tell the reader about the bombs later in the lead section. No need to pummel the reader with that one fact. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

hey thanks! I agree that abombs should be dropped from opening. "Moderate" in domestic policy I think works. He was to the right of Wallace & FDR for example, and replaced all of FDR's famous liberals with conservatives like Vinson & Tom Clark. the liberal proposals Truman did make ("Fair Deal") rarely passed Congress. I agree with Ian Rose about "the headings should be dropped and the main article links worked into the article" Rjensen (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The dropping of the atomic bombs was unquestionably the most critical event of the Truman presidency. I don't know if it was a continuation of FDR's plan; that hypothesis is hearsay and conjecture. What I DO is that Truman made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan, and he deserves the credit for ending the war. You cannot give credit to a dead man (FDR). I still think that this information deserves to me mentioned early in the lead. As a matter of fact, the ONLY two things that I remember about Truman is the dropping of the bombs and his upset win over Dewey in 1948. He was a great president who never went to college. Anthony22 (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the bombs are appropriate for prominence in the first paragraph, although they are mentioned again in the fourth. If we were seeking consensus on the question, by my count we are at 4-2 against inclusion very early, but I concur that the destruction of two Asian cities deserves mention equal to the rebuilding in Europe enabled by the Marshall Plan. RM2KX (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I feel like the whole lead is too long--it's one of the longest I've seen. That's fine, but ask yourself: If the lead were only one or two paragraphs long, would the atomic bombs be mentioned? RM2KX (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The dropping of the atomic bombs was certainly one of the most important events of the twentieth century. The Manhattan Project was started by Roosevelt, but the military decision to drop the bombs was Truman's and is one of the defining events of his presidency. It should be mentioned in the lede paragraph, and I am amazed that there is any serious argument otherwise. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Top image

A better top pic?

Present top pic

I think the pic at right would be a better top pic. It is not in color, but color pictures were uncommon back in the 1940s, so there are a lot more black and white images to choose from. In the present color pic, he looks gaunt, and also his head is tiny in proportion to the overall picture (that might be improved by cropping but the gauntness would remain).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support the black & white image. It does feel more era-appropriate, and there seems to be a general dislike of the current pic, although I am ok with whichever is chosen. RM2KX (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  An IP has just now unilaterally inserted a new top pic.[12]. I think it's an improvement and therefore will not revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Independence in lead

If I look at it from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with Truman, I would ask why the Grandview farm being "near Independence" has any relevance. Yes, I would find out why later, but until then it seems out of place. Grandview actually is nearer to Lee's Summit, if I know my Missouri geography, and nearer to Overland Park, Kansas. If I don't know Missouri geography, it would make more sense to say the farm was near Kansas City, to give me a better idea of location. RM2KX (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wording of the explanation of the S in the article

I'm sure this has been edited a lot, so I want to run this by the community instead of just doing it: I feel like the second sentence contradicts the first (the S did stand for something in particular--in fact, two particular things--his grandfathers). Also, in rephrasing it into one sentence I can attach the two references to both pieces of it. How does the following sound? (Minus the formatting.)

• While the "S" did not stand for any one name, it was chosen as his middle initial to honor both of his grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young.[7][8]

I would also tweak the wording about the period, and include at least a couple of great sources as examples, or attach a footnote leading to a list of sources. So the whole paragraph would read:

• Harry S. Truman was born on May 8, 1884, in Lamar, Missouri, the oldest child of John Anderson Truman (1851–1914) and Martha Ellen Young Truman (1852–1947). His parents chose the name Harry after his mother's brother, Harrison "Harry" Young (1846–1916). While the "S" did not stand for any one name, it was chosen as his middle initial to honor both of his grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young.[7][8] The initial has been regularly written and printed followed by a period.[add footnote for examples] A brother, John Vivian (1886–1965), was born soon after Harry, followed by sister Mary Jane (1889–1978).[9]

RM2KX (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the footnote, a shortened version of the one at the article lead. Apparently we can't have too many references to the same answer (see today's edits and reversions). But the rest of my question still stands. RM2KX (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As a typesetter of a Missouri Family of typesetters I can tell you the period doesn't belong there. Certainly my dad typeset the 33rd president's name many times since he ran for office only once as president: 1948 - the year I was born.

Kingsfoil (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)