Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019
Hello fellow Wikipedia Editors: Kindly consider including one sentence to the very end of this paragraph:

Presidency (1953-1961) Foreign policy In 1954, Eisenhower articulated the domino theory in his outlook towards communism in Southeast Asia and also in Central America. He believed that if the communists were allowed to prevail in Vietnam, this would cause a succession of countries to fall to communism, from Laos through Malaysia and Indonesia ultimately to India. Likewise, the fall of Guatemala would end with the fall of neighboring Mexico.[152] That year the loss of North Vietnam to the communists and the rejection of his proposed European Defence Community (EDC) were serious defeats, but he remained optimistic in his opposition to the spread of communism, saying "Long faces don't win wars".[153] As he had threatened the French in their rejection of EDC, he afterwards moved to restore West Germany, as a full NATO partner.[154]

Kindly consider inserting the following sentence (including the link to the article entitled cultural diplomacy) at the end of the paragraph shown above:

'''In 1954 he also induced Congress to create an Emergency Fund for International Affairs in order to support America's use of cultural diplomacy to strengthen international relations throughout Europe during the cold war.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration and best wished for your continued success editing Wikipedia! With best regards PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) 104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) 104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)PS 104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you thought about registering and setting up a user page? I encourage you to do so. This would get you to a point of being able to edit here. Good luck. Hoppyh (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ciao Hoppyh: Many thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it some thought. In the meantime I thought that an Administrator or Editor who has more editorial experience than I should review this change in advance since Dwight D. Eisenhower was such a prominent figure in history. Under the circumstances, I believe that it would be best for a more expert and experienced editor to examine and review the proposed change on my behalf. With this in mind, I posted an Admin help template above on the talk page since a backlog exists on the Semi-Protected Edit Request Page. I hope that this is permitted - If it is not recommended, please accept my apologies in advance. Kindly accept my sincerest thanks for your thoughtful assistance and guidance along with my best wishes for your success on Wikipedia -With best regards 104.207.219.150 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)PS


 * I am replacing the admin help template with help me. There is nothing here that requires the attention of an administrator.  --Chris (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2019
Please change the caption in the article for the image File:Eisenhower Football.jpg from "second from the left" to "third from the left". The image page describes him as "third from the left". The person third from the left also looks more like Eisenhower. Thanks. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is done. —ADavidB 19:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower
I have started Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower, if anyone wants to add anything to it. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2019
grammatical errors all throughout Shariheke (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Edit requests are for specific requests.  Feel free to make suggestions for specific improvements if there are any errors in the article.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019
Change the image next to Eisenhower's Rank in Military service to the correct rank and service branch. The image is currently that of an Air Force 4 Star General. 24.3.184.151 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to File:US-O11_insignia.svg, used in the table at the end of the article? It says it is used for Army, Navy, and Air Force. Please let us know what it should be changed to if that is not correct RudolfRed (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of File:US_Air_Force_O10_shoulderboard_rotated.svg under Military service, located under his personal details. My apologies for not being more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.184.151 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the following File:US_Army_O11_shoulderboard_rotated.svg - however this is listed as in use from 1959 to 2015, so not, I assume, the insignia Eisenhower would have worn. Can you point directly to the correct file? --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, considering that Eisenhower was legally recommissioned after his terms as president, it would work, however I personally would suggest the use of File:US-O11_insignia.svg because it leaves no room for misinterpretation.24.3.184.151 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done as suggested, thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the "very long" template?
It's been sitting there since the start of the year and I'm quite confused by it. The article is the same size as the John F. Kennedy article (which no one ever talks about reducing the size of) and is about a man who was in top positions of government for multiple decades. I don't understand how someone with such a notable, long and high ranking career would not have an article of about this size. I see it in the same vein as the Winston Churchill article, which had this same template placed on it before it was rightfully removed by who argued in favor of the article's size since Churchill was "one of THE most important people in British history, and because half of the article is refs". When I think about how long the Trump, Mike Pence or Barack Obama articles (people who all have had shorter political careers than Eisenhower but either close to or larger pages) are while we have editors trying to reduce the size of most if not all non-contemporary politician articles, it seems as if the site is pushing toward recentism and the only way to have a large article that editors don't decide to start mass removing content from because "the article CAN be shorter" is to either be President or Vice President after 2001. If I put on any of the five articles I mentioned, I would get laughed at, have my edit reverted, and be charged with vandalism. We need consistency on here very badly. Stop having pages that one user can appoint themselves the decider of all things notable on/the size police, delete a bunch of stuff, and have it go unnoticed or not addressed with consensus. --Informant16 (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing the template if no one supports otherwise within a few days. —ADavidB 11:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ADavidB, sounds good to me. Let me know when enough days have passed. That thing's been here all year and is on an article that is the same size and in some cases smaller than multiple other presidents. -Informant16 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Enough days have passed :¬)


 * These are mostly synopses of other "main" articles.


 * I think they should be kept as is to understand topics correctly, without having to keep going to "mains".


 * Similarly, while large, it is a very large topic.


 * Banner is a nice thought, but ppl keep bannering and leaving others to do their dirty work ... and, sometimes, no "work" is needed Chaosdruid (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I almost forgot ... page size ... WP:SIZERULE states:


 * "> 100 kB - Almost certainly should be divided
 * > 60 kB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)"


 * So, in this case, the "sometimes justify" applies by consensus and because it is not even at the upper suggested 100kb limit yet.


 * (from page size tool) - Prose size (text only): 95 kB (15380 words) "readable prose size" Chaosdruid (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's been long enough. I'm removing the template from the top of the article.  If anyone feels so moved, they can relocate some content to other 'main' articles, but I agree with the previous post about making sure it doesn't break up the reading flow.  Such side articles should have more details, but still be well summarized in the top article. —ADavidB 04:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The mass deletion campaign of Orser67
I noticed some mass deletions on the George H. W. Bush page and held my tongue because I had an issue with reverts on that article last year. With the recent mass deletion attempt here, it became quite clear that Orser67 is on some president-obsessed-deletion quest, defying both consensus and logic. Oftentimes there will be this claim of an article being "too long" while someone with a much shorter career like John F. Kennedy has a page of the same size or longer without issue, which either defies the logic of a shortening being needed or is just hypocrisy. More to the point, there was not a single attempt made by Orser to gather any consensus on doing this. As I stated here before, if I deleted tens of thousands of bytes of content from either the Kennedy article or that of another recent U.S. President "because I feel like it", I would get reverted and either warned of vandalism or mocked for doing such a thing. I'm still waiting for it to be articulated to me how a man (Kennedy) with a sixteen year career in elected office is allowed to have a larger article than men such as Eisenhower or Bush 41 with over thirty years. -Informant16 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Informant, first of all, as my edit summary clearly indicated, I didn't delete material pertaining to Eisenhower on Wikipedia, but rather shifted it to subarticles. This is pursuant to WP:Summary style, which states that "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article." You may believe that 100 kb isn't too long, but Article size states that an article longer than 60 kb of readable prose should "probably be divided" and an article longer than 100 kb should "almost certainly be divided" (for those curious, my edits to this page lowered the length from 95 kb of readable prose to 75 kb). By shifting information to subarticles, I have created a much more readable main article that focuses on key information, but allows those who want more information to go to the subarticles. Secondly, many of my edits concerned replacing material that was uncited, cited to low quality internet sources, or cited to books that didn't have page numbers with material sourced to higher quality academic sources with clearly-indicated page numbers. Orser67 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, since you have apparently decided to label my shifting of material to subarticles as a "mass deletion campaign," I would like to note that I fundamentally disagree with pretty much everything you do on Wikipedia. Your raison d'etre seems to be to add irrelevant material completely devoid of any long-term significance, and you seem to add pretty much anything you find via a Google search. This leads to bloated articles that provide little real understanding of the subject at hand, lack important information, and are closer to timelines than they are to actual encyclopedia articles. By contrast, my recent edits have been based on academic works written by authors who studied their subject for months or years, have access to far more relevant material than you (or I) do, and have had their work published by high-quality publishers; these works naturally have a better understanding of the meaning and long-term significance of the subject's actions. Orser67 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My point was that I did not understand the need for multiple sub articles when the main article was smaller or the same size as other individuals in the same office. It's also been established that the sub articles get much less attention than the main one, which is why there has been reluctance to create some sub articles in the past. I could easily go to the John F. Kennedy article right now, remove 60,000 bytes and cite it as my opinion that this information lacks the importance to be there and should be redirected to some sub article. The point is what you consider important and what someone else does are two different things. That's why the Donald Trump article talk page is as long as it is, because they're arguing over the importance of nearly every word. It is not important information to list the bills/statements on a topic given by an incumbent politician? If Google is bad, should I use Yahoo or Bing? Most people, whether they be senators, representatives, or non-politicians, do not have books written about them so how else would I get sourced information outside of news articles? The only reason it's even been possible for you to edit with "academic works" is because all you do is edit articles on presidents who automatically receive multiple books written about them. Very few contemporary politicians have had a book or books written about them, which enhances the need for the use of news articles, but I love the disingenuous comparison being made here. -Informant16 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:NOTNEWS; the things you add are largely news reports lacking in long-term notability. I'll grant that it can be harder to determine long-term significance with active politicians and/or individuals who haven't been the subject of academic works, but that certainly isn't the case with Bush or Eisenhower. As for the JFK article, WP:ArticleSize states that it "almost certainly should be divided," and subjectively, I think it's a bloated article with way too much unimportant information. And I didn't arbitrarily remove material from the main Eisenhower and Bush articles; I spent several days editing and reading reliable sources to try to understand what actually warranted coverage in the main biographical article. I'm sure I didn't do a perfect job, but it's a far better system than the one you use, which seems to be: "hey, I found this on the internet somewhere, I'm going to add it to Wikipedia!" Orser67 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi all First of all, let's establish some common ground.

1. A discussion was underway about removing a "too long" banner. (see above) 2. The consensus of that discussion was to remove the banner.
 * The reasons were mainly because the majority felt it was not too long, but a comment was made that material could be moved.

3. The banner was removed. 4. Before the comment " might be moved", and while discussion was still underway, someone decided to just remove material from the article to sub articles (according to them, I have not checked to verifiy the move) So, I have rolled back the deletion. This needs more discussion. I would have at least expected some sort of plan as to what should be considered for being moved, and what the new text would be - BEFORE ay action was taken. Why? Because the consensus was to leave it as it was, even though it was NOT at a size that even warranted beign cut down. So, let's have a new vote? Remove anything/leave it as it was after the banner was removed.

If there is consensus to remove material, what - and let's get consensus on that "remove/leave" before anyone goes against the status quo which was to ONLY remove the BANNER. Let's not keep this edit "conflict" going Chaosdruid (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As you said, there was an earlier discussion where the consensus was only to remove the banner; I don't see what that has to do with my efforts to try to get this article to better adhere to Summary style. If people want to actually look at the edits I made and restore some things that I deleted, I have zero objection to that. But I strongly object to the wholesale reversion of my edits only on the basis that "the article doesn't need to be shorter" when Article size stated that the article "Almost certainly should be divided". Orser67 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chaosdruid, if you're going to revert my edit, can you please take a close look at what I actually changed? I just re-read the old/current version of the Eisenhower article, and I'm really struggling to find details that I removed that seem like they warrant mentioning on this page. And many of the things I did remove lacked citations, or had tags like "citation needed" or "failed verification". Orser67 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Orser, don't go there.


 * I reverted your edit because it was against consensus.


 * I was involved in the original discussion, and we agreed that there was NOT too much material and to remove the banner.


 * While that discussion was underway, you totally ignored the discussion and ploughed ahead with cutting the article down.


 * You should have jooined the discussion and stated your case. At that point, no one wanted to cut the article up.


 * A day after your edits, someone suppported leaving the banner
 * I then appealed to both sides to start a discussion on whether or not material needed removing, and if the consensus was to remove some, to discuss and agree on what should be changed/removed


 * Your lack of understanding is basic. You say "there was an earlier discussion where the consensus was to only remove the banner"


 * That is NOT the same as "the consensus was to remove the banner"


 * You have twisted the meaning, or you simply do not understand that basic difference.


 * If you read the comments in that discussion, you can see that people pass opinion on whether they feel the article needs cutting down.


 * Why? Because the banner was saying "this article is too big and needs cutting down".


 * Therefore, logically, if one agreed to removing the banner, one was agreeing that the aritlce did not need cutting down in size, as the banner was asking for the article to be cut down in size.


 * I am completely and utterly neutral, but I am, however, going to voice my opinions. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chaosdruid, from my perspective, it seemed that the only conclusion reached in the earlier discussion was about whether or not to remove the banner, and was not specifically about any other edits that should or should not be applied to this page. I considered that discussion closed because another editor had (quite justifiably) already removed the banner based on the discussion. With that said, I do sincerely apologize if I misconstrued your earlier comment; when you said that the "status quo which was to ONLY remove the BANNER", I thought you meant that the discussion had only reached the conclusion to remove the banner, but I apparently misunderstood what you were saying. Looking more closely at the above discussion now, I do disagree with your interpretation of WP:Article Size; I think that the fact that the article was quite close to the level of "Almost certainly should be divided" is a strong indication that the article should, well, be divided. That may not be the case for every single article, but I think it is for this one, and I think that readers are much better served by moving some information off to subarticles (per Summary style), as I have tried to do. And honestly, I don't think that I really removed all that much information, but instead simply summarized his life more concisely. Anyway, you have my thanks for responding to my request for taking a closer look at my edits. Orser67 (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals and reduction changes

 * Lead paragraph too long, should be split into two Chaosdruid (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Uncontested change as no text altered Chaosdruid (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (/ˈaɪzənhaʊ.ər/ EYE-zən-how-ər; October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was an American army general and statesman who served as the 34th president of the United States from 1953 to 1961. During World War II, he was a five-star general in the Army and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe. He was responsible for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful Invasion of Normandy in 1944–45 from the Western Front.


 * Proposing change to paragraph 1, as the second para has the invasion supervision and better flow for the historical timeline. I would move the names and other pertinent info into the other para - may also be better to merge paras 1 & 2 if they are not too big? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Eisenhower was born David Dwight Eisenhower, and raised in Abilene, Kansas in a large family of mostly Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. His family had a strong religious background; His mother was a Lutheran, married as a River Brethren, and later became a Jehovah's Witness. Eisenhower, however, did not belong to any organized church until 1952.[2] He cited constant relocation during his military career as one reason. He graduated from West Point in 1915 and later married Mamie Doud, with whom he had two sons. During World War I, he was denied a request to serve in Europe and instead commanded a unit that trained tank crews. Following the war, he served under various generals and He was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1941 and, after the United States entered World War II, Eisenhower oversaw the invasions of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43, and Sicily, before supervising the invasions of Normandy in 1944–45, and of Germany. After the war, he served as Army Chief of Staff (1945–1948) and then took on the role as president of Columbia University (1948–1953). In 1951–52, he served as the first Supreme Commander of NATO.


 * I am proposing cutting the second lead para down. Some details seem superfluous. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments
NOTE - guys, this sort of thing muddles up the section above, so I have separated them.

THe section above is for the lead - and any other proposed changes.

The lead HAS TO REFLECT the article body, so anything removed below (from the article), needs to be removed from the lead - unless direct linking to the sub-article is created)


 * I would definitely be up for taking a look at the lead line-by-line, but for the other sections I'm hoping you'd consider going about this a slightly different way. Instead of trying to compare diffs (which I agree would be extremely difficult), maybe we could look at the things I changed section-by-section, restore any content that shouldn't have been removed, and also make any other alterations as necessary. I have my proposal for the first section of the article here, and would like to give my thoughts on each of the edits that I made:


 * Firstly, I condensed the family background into the early life section. In my experience, such sections are unusual, and I didn't think that this article warranted three whole paragraphs about things that happened before Eisenhower was born, especially when Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower exists.
 * The first paragraph of my proposed new version includes brief background on both of Eisenhowers parents, and explains why Eisenhower was born in Texas even though he spent most of his childhood in Kansas and his parents had previously lived in Kansas. It also includes the reason for his nickname, the fact that his named was reversed shortly after being born, and the number of his siblings. Imo, the main thing I completely took out here was the paragraph discussing the Eisenhower's father's ancestry.
 * The second paragraph briefly discusses Eisenhower's childhood and delves into his mother's religion. I mentioned that Eisenhower never joined the proto-Jehovah's Witnesses, but I took out later mentions of his religion since I think it makes more sense to cover this under personal life. I also took out the story about his younger brother since it was uncited, and I also took out the part about Eisenhower considering Abilene his hometown; I felt that this version made it pretty clear that he spent almost his entire childhood in Abilene.
 * The next paragraph discusses the circumstances under which Eisenhower decided to attend West Point. I don't think I cut much here, and I actually added a longer explanation of how Eisenhower took a test to get into West Point.
 * The final paragraph of the section goes over Eisenhower's time at West Point. I took out some details about his knee injury and some other sports he played, but I retained what I believed were the key points, which is that he was obsessed with football and badly injured his knee. I also added a sentence discussing how his knee nearly prevented him from going into the army. Orser67 (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , I wrote a long response to the concerns of the three of you yesterday, but my PC crashed and I lost it all before publishing it. I'd read each of your thoughts and efforts to tighten up the article. However, in trying to understand the problems that you all were sorting through, I found it extremely difficult to follow the changes that had been made since the first contested by Informant16. I've had this happen where I've been involved before, when someone has made substantial changes to an article and in the course of doing so, moved a good deal of text or sections around, and made changes within the text at the same time. Trying to follow all those changes becomes extremely difficult, and I expect that most editors simply would not be willing or able to follow them all, or to have the time available to do so. I've had to print out such articles at times to sort through the edits, and that's not an option for everyone who edits the encyclopedia, given the logistics and/or the expense. Most editors of any articles probably are making minor edits, or adding relatively brief new material or subtracting minor amounts of existing text while aiming to improve the article. So I fully understand Informant16's reversions of the initial deletion. I should say that I greatly appreciate the efforts each of you have made toward improving this particular article. I note further that since this consensus process began to evolve, three editors who were not previously involved have made comparatively minor changes to the article. In the task of my understanding and absorption of the proposed changes, I was surprised to learn so much about a president and officer whom I have admired. I also noted that there have been more than two dozen editors who have worked on the article this year, making 100 edits. Given that Ike retired as president almost 60 years ago and died over 50 years ago, I was quite surprised that the article has gotten so much current involvement of so many editors and interest of so many more readers; the page views have been remarkable as well. So I look forward to reviewing the proposed changes, a workable piece at a time, and hope I can spare as much time as possible to be a part of the process. Thanks once again to you all. Activist (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just discovered that when I entered your User name, I'd left off the initial two dashes. I'll post my earlier note directly to your Talk page. I apologize for my error. Activist (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Welcom activist, sorry to hear about the crash - it is very annoying when that happens!


 * I have to agree, and I think Orser has a great soution here, but I WOULD prefer to see the diffs to each change made, perhaps we can compare the diffs from last week to the new material to see what has gone??


 * Similarly, when we talk about material moved, I would appreciate being show WHAT has been moved, and be able to see it added to the sub-article. That needs more work, as you would have to post the original, show what is being left, and what is to be moved into the sub. One issue, and I am not accusing anyone here, is that we have all seen edit summaries that say "mived this" and then realised they actually change da lot of material, deleted some, added a bit here and there, and only moved half of what should have been moved.
 * I think we can probably agree that after a short time we will be able to see what each others work is like, and how much we can trust each other to do this the best way for the reader and articles. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All reasonable points. But for this section, at least, could we at least try to simply eyeball the differences between what I have in my sandbox and what is currently in the sections of "family background" and "early life and education"? If there's a way to get the diffs working in a useful way, I would be fine with that, too. Orser67 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As for what's being moved to the subarticles, for this section it would really just be the details regarding Eisenhower's ancestry. Orser67 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on recent edits

 * 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.

In the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, there is a dispute over a recent edit. There are two main aspects to the edit: the amount of material cited to newspaper and internet sources was reduced in proportion to the amount of material cited to academic sources, and some of the material in the article was moved to subarticles (reducing readable prose size from 95kb to 75kb) pursuant to Summary style and Article size. One user prefers that the edit stand, and the other seeks to revert it in its entirety. Orser67 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Orser67. The banner and some sections of this article are simply too long and give too much extraneous information. As long as the information is given later in the article or in subarticles, I support removing some of the extra information. And more academic citations is never a bad thing. HAL  333  19:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "The banner"? Do you mean the lead/lede? The lead should be a summary of the article, so if it is a big article, the lead will be big. It should be around 5 or 6 paragraphs. I just looked, it is not too big, but I have split the strangely long para into two for ease of reading.
 * Having information in the sub articles is NOT a reason for removing it from this article. Some points MAY be unnecesary, or spurious, but the problem is that you need to show that it actually does need changing.


 * Why? Because the person making the change has to show it is necessary.


 * If they do not get consensus on their change, it stays as is.


 * 1. This article is on a president who is an extensive topic covering many years across many wars and policy changes - he did a lot, a lot happened, so there is a lot to say


 * 2. This article has been the roughly the same size for 4 years
 * 3. Removing THAT amount of material is indeed a large change.
 * 4. THe article has NOT reached the "it needs chopping up" guideline, which is a guideline, and not a hard rule, and even says "some topics may warrant this size of article"


 * 5 We all agreed it did - though I will be copyediting it at some point in the next two days, starting later tonight.
 * So, everyone should be keeping an eye on the discussion about proposed changes, examining the evidence for whether a change is needed, whether or not it is an improvement, and whether or not it is at the standard of a GA.


 * My opinion is that it I haven't read the article yet, it is big, and it might benefit from some removal or non-important words to reduce the kb size without removing any facts.


 * I would do the copyedit, then see how big it was. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Chaosdruid, as I said above, thank you for taking a look at the edits I made. I just want to make one quick point, as well as one request. Manual of Style/Lead section holds that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." So while the lead could potentially be 5-6 paragraphs, as you proposed, I do think it's worth noting that the general style adhered to by most Wikipedia articles is to have a max of four paragraphs. Secondly, while you take a look at the edit I made, I ask that you pay special attention to the sources used, as a major part of what I was trying to do was to get some better sourcing in the article. For example, I don't believe that that this link is a great source to use for stating that Eisenhower "made the varsity football team" at West Point for multiple reasons, including the fact that the actual page seems to be about his time coaching a football team in 1916 (after graduating from West Point). Orser67 (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, for clarity, it is probably easier to simply copy bits you would like changed, into the section below, so we can all see what we are talking about on the same page.


 * It is quite difficult to check the changes using diffs, as the article is garbled up and one cannot easily track what has gone where, what has changed etc. It is a great tool for small and medium changes, but not really for that amount.


 * The key for me is "usually be no longer than". In general, articles would not get to this size. It is not unusual for us to have four or five or even six paragraphs for important and larger articles.


 * The difficulty is what to take out, if anything. I would copy and paste the paragrahps, show what I wanted to change, and see if you get consensus. Anything in th elead SHOULD be in the article body, so removing stuff from it should not affect the article "contents". I would say that the lead is in need of quite a large change to it's prose. It is mainly a list of points as sentences, and needs to be much more flowing. There is not much that I can see we could easily take out without losing balance, it is unfortunate that he did indeed doa lot of things, most of which are still relevant and world-changing. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede certainly needs a bit of edit. Even Eisenhower's mother being Lutheran then becoming Jehovah's Witness was included. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020
ok so i needed to add that he was also a 4th ranked general in the military WikiMod233 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ This request is too vague. What's a "4th ranked general"? And what is your source?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
Change thumbcaption at #In_service_of_generals: "Eisenhower (far right) with three unidentified men in 1919, four years after graduating from West Point" to "Dwight Eisenhower, far right, with three friends (William Stuhler, Major Brett, and Paul V. Robinson) in 1919, four years after graduating from West Point." or shorter: "Dwight Eisenhower, far right, with three friends in 1919, four years after graduating from West Point." Source: Image description, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eisenhower_transcontinental_military_convoy.jpg Second Source: https://www.in.gov/indot/3959.htm Janpipilip (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020
Hello: I suggest to change the "Eisenhower continued Truman's policy of recognizing the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the legitimate government of China, not the Beijing regime" to "Eisenhower continued Truman's policy of recognizing the separatist Republic of China (Taiwan) as the government of China, not the legitimate Beijing government", because it's quite self-evident that a 35 980 km², 7 million people island ruled by a party who lost the war cannot be the legitimate ruler of a 9,596,961 km2, +500 million people country. Duzlo102 (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The policy was what the policy was, they called it what they called it, and your opinion does not change that. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

. DrMel (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Tributes - there is an Eisenhower Airport in Wichita, Kansas
I don't have the knowledge or the time to add it without running foul of the standards Wikipedia uses to keep itself great, but the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport was renamed after Eisenhower several years ago and there is now a museum for the president. I think this should be listed as a tribute?

See the Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_National_Airport

official website: https://www.flywichita.com/

Media: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/11/wichitas-airport-decides-it-really-likes-ike.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.244.85.62 (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021
Article flatly says Eisenhower was born and raised in Abilene, Kansas but at top lists Denison, Texas as his birthplace. Either revise text narrative to include Denison, Texas or change listed birthplace to Abilene, Kansas. Which one is it? 2600:1702:3092:0:E511:732D:BDDF:AF7B (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌> Born in Denison, raised in Abilene. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph in the lead section begins with: ; no mention of birthplace is made in the introduction. Both the Infobox and the Early life and education clearly state that he was born in Denison, Texas. Drdpw (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"The system could also be used as a runway for airplanes"
Discussing the Interstate Highway System the article now states:
 * The system could also be used as a runway for airplanes

Is this true, or only folklore? --78.73.226.176 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021
Add a section in Personal Details called Other Political Affiliations then under it put Independent (before 1952) Politicsdude108 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable secondary source that says he was "independent"-- I think he was nonpolitical and like other army officers he refused to vote in any election. Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 00:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Name "Eisenhauer"
The name "Eisenhauer" does not mean "iron hewer/miner". The German word "Eisen" in this context refers to a pick (a miner's tool), not to the metal iron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:320b:5501:b0a6:be5b:27d0:9825 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source for verification of this information? —ADavidB 02:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Disputed: Threatened use of nuclear weapons to end Korean War
The article mentions that President Eisenhower threatened using nuclear weapons to end the Korean War. This claim is disputed. Here are the mentions in the current Wikipedia article:
 * Introduction: "In 1953, he threatened to use nuclear weapons until China agreed to peace terms in the Korean War. China did agree and an armistice resulted which remains in effect."
 * Korean War, Free China and Red China: "Once in office, when the Chinese People's Volunteer Army began a buildup in the Kaesong sanctuary, he threatened to use nuclear force if an armistice was not concluded."

Eisenhower's issuance of a threat is disputed. In his Washington Post article of August 11, 2017, historian William I. Hitchcock writes:
 * Some historians and policymakers have long looked to a specific case to claim that such nuclear threats against North Korea have worked in the past. In 1953, they assert, the newly elected Dwight D. Eisenhower, determined to redeem his campaign pledge to end the unpopular Korean War, passed along a secret message to the communist Chinese and the North Koreans: Agree to an armistice, or we will unleash our nuclear weapons on you. … The trouble is, it never happened. Ike’s nuclear bluff, and its supposed success at ending the hostilities, is a dangerous myth, one that gave later presidents false confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear intimidation. … Yes, Eisenhower considered using nuclear weapons on North Korean and possibly Chinese targets. But this plan was being discussed only at the most secret levels of the U.S. government and was kept hidden from the enemy.

I am marking the statements as disputed in the article with a reference to this talk section.--A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "He suggested that he would “unleash” the Nationalist Chinese forces on Taiwan against communist China, and he sent only slightly veiled messages that he would use any force necessary (including the use of nuclear weapons) to bring the war to an end unless peace negotiations began to move forward."
 * The internet doesn't have a clear consensus. All that is certain is that Eisenhower thought about using nuclear weapons. I think we should keep that he threatened nuclear weapons, but anytime it says he openly threatened nuclear weapons, remove the word "openly". He certainly did not openly threaten nuclear weapons. PrinceTortoise (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise
 * If there's conflicting evidence then I don't think it's justifiable to state that he made that threat (which is what the article is currently doing). And without verifiable, reliable sources, we can't assume (WP:OR!) that what he did say constituted a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons. So I think we have two options: either we note the fact that sources disagree on whether he made that threat, or we just don't mention it. I prefer the latter as it's more encyclopedic. -- Hux (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Reflecting on the debate, I was only able to locate sources that either linked back to this Wikipedia page or that couldn't corroborate any material threats of nuclear force. I have taken the liberty of citing a Presidential Studies Quarterly article and editing the page to clarify the matter, reflecting the apparent reality that, while the consideration of the Eisenhower administration of the usage of nuclear weapons is fact, any outright threats communicated to the People's Republic of China have yet to have evidence unearthed. LonelyProgrammer (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Allied Commander from “1951 - 1952”
The accomplishments section lists him as the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe from 1951 - 1952, and doesn’t even mention the role from 1943 to 1945. He was named Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in 1951 - 1952, and there should be some mention about the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe during the war SOMEWHERE. 2600:1700:70CA:5640:C1F4:FAB:DD10:88A5 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021
I recommend that you add the post nominal initials RE before GCB as he is entitled to use them, being a knight of the Order of the Elephant. I also reccomend that the title His Excellency be added, as this is also given to the knights of the Order of the Elephant.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021
The Vice President is listed as Kefauver which is wrong. The VP was Richard Nixon. Kefauver was Democrat on a competing ticket. 173.227.40.115 (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is corrected. —ADavidB 05:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WW2 Role
Why is Eisenhower’s time as a leading general in WW2 not listed as offices in the infobox? Crazy Jay Fox (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * U.S. President Eisenhower visited TAIWAN 美國總統艾森豪於1960年6月訪問臺灣台北時與蔣中正總統-2.jpg

End of Korean War in lead
"In 1953, he considered using nuclear weapons to end the Korean War, and may have threatened China with nuclear attack if an armistice was not reached quickly. China did agree and an armistice resulted which remains in effect."

While this threat has been discussed a lot, I am not aware it being the main reason for the end of the war, which the writing of the sentence seems to imply by omitting all the other reasons as to why an armistice might have been reached. I think a better version of this paragraph would be to leave out any specifics and just simply state more or less that the war ended during his administration. The details could be left to the rest of the article Rousillon (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022
Hi,

Please change “”Swede" Hazlett” to “Edward E. "Swede" Hazlett”.”.

Part of the section on Eisenhower planning to go to college by switching off years, explains the brother not going to school earns money for their going to school the next year.

“When Edgar asked for a second year, Dwight consented and worked for a second year. At that time, a friend "Swede" Hazlett was applying to the Naval Academy and urged Dwight to apply to the school, since no tuition was required.”

The hotlink given above in Eisenhower’s wiki simply says “”Swede" Hazlett”. Only when clicked do we found out his full correct name is “Edward E. "Swede" Hazlett”.

Thank you.

Ken Jacowitz KenJacowitz (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I added "Edward" to the link. I don't believe the middle initial is necessary, and the individual's article is named without it. —ADavidB 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Promote "In service of generals" section to be a top-level chapter instead of a section within the "World War I" chapter
Currently the section "In service of generals", which covers Eisenhower's career between World War I and World War II, is a section within the "World War I" chapter. Nothing in this section has anything to do with World War I; it should be a chapter in its own right, at the same level as the "World War I" and "World War II" chapters, and renamed as "Between the World Wars: In service of generals (1918–1941)". The "In service of generals" phrase is an accurate characterization of Eisenhower's inter-war years, so it makes sense to keep it in the chapter title.

Also, the starting year of the "World War II" chapter should be changed from 1939 to 1941, the year that the U.S. actually became a combatant.

I'm happy to make these changes myself, but before doing so, I thought it would be appropriate to give others a chance to comment on them since this is a fairly high-profile article. RHodnett (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Medal of Honor
Why wasn't Eisenhower awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions as was some other wartime participants were for their leadership skills Gramps80 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Harry S. Truman which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023
add honorific_prefix = General of the Army to Eisenhower, just like Omar Bradley and George C. Marshall's profiles. Historygeek64 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)