Talk:Harry S. Truman/Archive 4

Middle name Abbreviation
"S" is Harry S Truman's complete middle name. Thus a period in the article title is unnecessary, inefficient, and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.211.52 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew Harry Truman personally. Harry had NO middle name, only an initial. Not only is the period (which indicates an abbreviation) "unnecessary, inefficient, and inaccurate", it's inconsistent  with Harry's presidential page at http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html .  Do you think YOU know more than the people at the White House?  The period should NOT be there. Just because the rest of the world is wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be - this is the main reason I HATE to use Wiki as a reference for ANYthing. /s/ C. Brooke Gruenberg (brookela)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookela (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing the "people at the White House" as a source of the definitive truth is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.26.180 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally think I know more than people at the White House. WikiDon (talk)

--— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we keep having this discussion? The man signed his own name with a period. Seems conclusive to me. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who thinks that the period doesn't belong should start by convincing the The Harry S. Truman Library and Museum to rename themselves. Rickterp (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dissenters, look at it this way: if his middle name is "S", then his middle initial is "S." So it's not incorrect to say Harry S. Truman. —Werson (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose. But this is only applicable when it is used as an initial. The title of a wikipedia page uses an initial like this, so I say keep the period there. But the name listed at the beginning of the article in bold uses the whole name (e.g. George Walker Bush, not George W. Bush). Used in that sense, it should not have the period. So, I say change that one. Sampackgregory (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, however, I have a problem with using additional symbols to reduce meaning in general. This seems to be a major stylistic violation in the vein of White and Strunk Rule #19. I mean, why, exactly, should one use a period? What does this clear up? Perhaps in a system of some sort where every person is listed with a middle initial it would be consistent and appropriate to use a symbol, but isn't this the opposite of what is going on here?Sampackgregory (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article currently uses "S." in Truman's name except for the names of a few institutions that use "S". Truman's middle initial is discussed within the article: Truman's middle initial. The issue has been extensively discussed; those discussions are available in the archives.

The use of "S." versus "S" is simply a matter of style, as both ultimately have the same meaning. As such, either usage would be correct, but one style must be used in a consistent manner. Changing the usage in one section of the article without changing all usages, including the article title, creates an unacceptable inconsistency.

The article has been titled "Harry S. Truman" since it was created on August 23, 2001, used this title when it was promoted as a featured article on August 30, 2007 and was stable for the intervening six years. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Harry S Truman, also commonly documented as Harry S. Truman..." Why can't we appeal to both meanings in the first line? 76.24.133.221 (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a whole section on the issue. Why is it so important that it needs to be at the beginning?  --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  09:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So, "we screwed it up, so let's keep doing it that way"? Good idea. Great justification. There is a reason, "sort of" for arguing that "S." is not inaccurate -- it does not change the fact that it is unnecessary and inefficient. He's got a fairly unique middle name, let's enjoy it, not hide it. The guy was an American, and being an individual in a nation of same is what being American is all about. Further:

"Perhaps in jest" is THEIR surmission, not a fact. Clearly, HE thought it shouldn't be done that way, or he would never have mentioned it -- and probably used the period himself out of habit only to keep idiots from trying to correct it and/or him when he was younger (I had a 6th grade teacher that gave me endless crap because I "wrote my '8's backwards" -- yeesh)

This argument is ridiculous. It should be "S", not "S.", and the opponents of that don't have a valid argumentative leg to stand on.


 * However you folks decide to resolve this (I don't care), please note that there is a discrepancy between the title of the article (which has the period) and the name above the picture (which doesn't). Please make them conform. Bill Jefferys (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out- it was changed on July 21 and we missed it. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed at this arguement. It's a matter of convention which appears to have been established at the Harry S. Truman Libraty. Why all of this "original research"?Starrymessenger (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So what's on his birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.41.21 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, chill out, everyone! I’d like to say... I vote for “S” because I always thought it was a cool bit of Presidential trivia, that the reason there’s no period is because “S” doesn’t stand for anything. (You wouldn’t say “Malcom X.,” would you?) I know that Truman himself and his Presidential library used (and use) the period, but I’d imagine that’s because it’s expected, not because it’s correct.

I know this has been discussed at length already, but maybe we should make a separate talk page for this because it’s the sort of minute detail that leads easily to an edit war. I agree about consistent styles and that’s why I don’t think we should make any changes too hastily. I think it would be good, though, to hash out all the arguments on a separate page. (Perhaps we could start by putting all the archived discussions that relate to this subject in an archive there.)

Also, please be nice! I’m firmly in the no-period camp, but I don’t want to be associated with tearing down people who disagree with me on this. I’m a stickler for details and I hold everything to lofty, abstract grammatical principles. But, I’d rather finish a discussion knowing that I put my best arguments forward than pursue a scorched-earth strategy of vicious needling and winning at any cost (which doesn’t even work on Wikipedia!). Cherry Cotton (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As you might notice, I have been the biggest defender, not of the period, but of not changing the article. Personally, I could care less— I have no vested interest in the use of the period. The problem is that no one has made a logical and compelling case for changing it. If you want to change it properly, then the real issue is in changing the title of the article.


 * There are only five instances of "Harry S. Truman" that could be changed:
 * article title, infobox, lead, cabinet infobox, photo caption


 * These instances of "Harry S. Truman" cannot be changed, they are proper names or quotes:
 * quote from Time, Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Year of Decisions, Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Years of Trial and Hope, President Harry S. Truman Fellowship in National Security Science and Engineering, USS Harry S. Truman, Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs, Harry S. Truman National Historic Site, Harry S. Truman Birthplace State Historic Site, Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, Harry S. Truman Little White House, quote from McCullough, 23 uses in the references


 * These instances of "Harry S Truman" cannot be changed as they are proper names:
 * Harry S Truman College, Harry S Truman Building


 * So— come up with a good argument for changing the article title and lets see what happens. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well here's an argument for keeping it as it is: Wikipedia's naming convention is that we should "use the most easily recognized name [...] article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize [...] The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." (empahsis added) In short, keep it simple, and don't depend on specialized knowledge: leave the dot. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And the New York Times appears to always use the period. The Washington Post goes both ways, but it appears to use the period more often than not except when referring to the City Colleges of Chicago-Harry S Truman College.  One could check other major papers. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This again? He used the dot. We have his freaking signature with the dot. So what possible argument could there be for leaving it out? Because it would be "a cool bit of Presidential trivia" if it weren't there? That sounds like the kid who was heard praying "Please, God, make Toronto the capital of Canada, because that's what I put on my test". It might be "cool" for Toronto to be the capital of Canada, but it's not. If you want cool-but-not-strictly-true, Uncyclopedia is that way. As for claiming that Truman used the dot "because it’s expected, not because it’s correct", who's to say what was correct beside him? It was his name. If he had spelled it with a silent 'P', then so would we. He spelled it with a dot, and that should be the end of the matter. -- Zsero (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so can't we just keep the dot as a middle initial when deemed appropriate as per other wiki pages, while using the S sans dot (as in his full middle name) where his full name should be listed. The article title, infobox, lead, cabinet infobox, photo caption should be changed because it's his FULL name. -- Keenjane (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. His middle name was "S.".   And don't change other people's comments.  It's not cool.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Style guides
Please list style guides that show the usage of Truman's middle initial:


 * As "S."
 * The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual 2000


 * As "S"


 * Need to check:
 * The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage
 * The Washington Post Deskbook on Style

Bias
Specifically under the Soviet espionage and McCarthyism section It mentions the "fall of China" Techinically the rise of the PRC, biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.69.18 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you anonymous editor
The most recent change to the article was by an unregistered user at address 149.171.241.136. The edit summary was:


 * Replacing the photograph of someone other than Truman at the same meeting in Sedalia, with one that really is Truman.

For all the work that people (including me) have put in on this article, all the vandalism policing, everything, it seems that none of the regular edtiors of this article noticed that the picture, which was captioned "Senator Truman seeks re-election during this July 1940 speech", did not in fact depict Truman at all, but someone else entirely.

Whoops. We had our butts saved by an anonymous editor.

Most of the anonymous editing that goes on in this article is vandalism. We spend a lot of time fixing that. It's easy to forget sometimes that anonymous editors do a lot of valuable work on Wikipedia.

I'm going to try to remember this time.

-- Dominus (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sequence
Hello. Thanks for providing a nice article. I may be overlooking something, but it seems as if the article, in the right frame area, shows Truman being the 34th President before he was the 33rd President. I'll leave the edit decision to someone who is regularly involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.229.147.208 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 34th vice president then 33rd president. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Material added by 160.150.65.51 (Fort Jackson Department of Information Management)
"In the 1990's, with the declassification of the 'Venona Project' it was discovered that there had, in fact, been hundreds of soviet agents working within our government, who were actively engaged in passing information to thier Soviet handlers and influencuing national policy. It is also worth noting that during the McCarthy inqueries President Truman saw fit to have all security and personel files of those accused by McCarthy sequestered in the White House itself and refused to release them to Congress. This fact sheds some light on the historic view that Sen. McCarthy made spurious accusations, with little real substance, when the fact was the Truman administration thwarted every attempt by Senate to view these documents. The various congressional commisssions of the era, that were launched in response to Sen. McCarthy's allegations, were all chaired by members of Truman's own party and who's 'investigation' consisted the accused coming before the commission, denying all allegations, and being cleared by Tydings. Throughout this era very few communists were exposed, and this 'fact' would be repeated by rote for the next 50 years, but stands in stark contrast to the revelations of the Venona Project decrypts. There is enormous anecdotal evidence to support the claim that the progressives of the era were enamered with the notions of communism and socialism, Sen. McCarthy challenged that affection, as did Nixon; both were subsequently destroyed politically (although decades apart) for the"

There are a number of issues with this: at least eight spelling errors, grammatical errors and scare quotes, but the most egregious is the lack of sources. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All of that, not to mention the reference to "our country"; and yet at bottom the claim is true, and a suitably pared-down and grammatically correct version does belong in the article, with a source attached. -- Zsero (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With solid attribution to a good source, yes. Also, a link to Venona wouldn't be amiss. Trekphiler (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The above does jibe with information contained in Ann Coulter's "Treason" (I don't recall her specifically mentioning the information being sequestered, but that may be in some of the well-referenced source material). The impression one gets from Treason is not that Truman was a part of it but that he was naive enough to believe in and trust some people who were inarguably spies, per information released in Venona. You can pooh-pooh Coulter's manner all you like, but she does cover the subject with legal-grade referencing. It would seem that, if her contentions were truly inaccurate, that the media would have been all over it. I have no doubt that people have gone over her sources with a fine-toothed comb, and if she had lied about anything contained therein, it would have been exposed. As a result, there is little to no question that there was a lot of Soviet spying going on during Truman's admin, and the main reason the USSR got the bomb as early as they did was by getting access to top-secret materials through poor security work under Truman. I believe Coulter makes it clear that Truman himself apparently had nothing to do with it, it was much more his essential decency and loyalty to perceived friends which allowed him to egregiously underestimate the extent of the Soviet spy network. Several people very close to him, whom he vehemently, openly, and personally defended, were revealed by Venona to be Soviet spies. -- Obloodyhell.

Needs elaboration or deletion
Quote from article: "At the Potsdam Conference, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was aware of the U.S. government's possession of the atomic bomb" -- Well no shit I think the whole world was aware at that point... Not sure what the original contributer thought when he added this. We need to either add to this or just get rid of it.--129.1.34.101 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly, Potsdam Conf was BEFORE the A-bombs were dropped, so the whole world did NOT know about them. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Potsdam Conference was from 17 July 1945 to 2 August 1945; from Potsdam Conference: "It was here where Truman first alluded to Stalin that the Americans had developed the atomic bomb and may use it against Japan, which they later did on August 6th and August 9th." --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With the collapse of Germany, one of the arguments used for why Truman dropped the bomb is because Russia was now freed to turn its eye on Japan (remember, Japan's defeat of the old Russian Imperial Navy ca. 1905 was one of the early signs of Japan's rising power) -- had Russia been a part of the conquest of Japan, they would have had a hand in its post-war reconstruction, and possibly Japan would have been partitioned into a Soviet zone and an American zone. Hence, there was a strong desire to end Japan's resistance quickly, before the Soviets could get involved. Sorry, don't have a source for that, but it seemed worthy to note, on the chance that someone would decide to research it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.218.18 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change
Hello. I'm not sure if I'm following the proper protocol, but I would like to suggest that the last sentence of the third paragraph under "Personal Life" be changed from:

"He was a page at the 1900 Democratic National Convention at Convention Hall in Kansas City."

to something like:

"He served as a page at the 1900 Democratic National Convention at Convention Hall in Kansas City."

to suggest more strongly what "page" means in this context.

128.174.130.67 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference styles
Somehow, it had escaped me that the article uses both author-date referencing (Harvard) and footnotes with citation templates. Per WP:CITE, there should be one consistent method. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thought: Should we look at the other presidential bio's and try to make them all the same? ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I know when I ref a book, lately I have been doing the "author (year). title. city: house. ISBN", but when I do a periodical I like the "author-[w/link if ap|title]-pub-date" format. So, for me it depends on the type of pub. ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stick with policy, use one form; cite is overall best; user Rp to append the page refs. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, could you clarify your comments please. I need some hand holding. ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Terry Sanford for a sample of RP template in use. You'll see the page numbers in the text of the article, not in the one footnote. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It looks odd. I'll have to roll that around for a few days. Thanks. ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Truman & the Bible
Truman doted on the Bible, reading it through seven times during his presidency. In reference to Israel, he said, "I am Cyrus," according to "Americanism: the Fourth Great Western Religion", by David Gelernter. 12.184.100.66 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mokusatsu
While it's common in the U.S. to say Japan "rejected" the Potsdam Declaration (in part due to the propaganda defending the use of the Bomb), it's as accurate (maybe more) to say Japan offered no comment. Alperovitz (among others) comments, in examining this issue, leave open at least the prospect Japan didn't know just how to respond, & so said nothing (mokusatsu, if I've got my Japanese right), while rabid media in Japan (not the government) said "Go to hell.", & that was all Truman needed to do what Byrnes (or he & Byrnes; I suspect Truman played a small role) wanted. In any case, it's far from clear "rejected" fits the facts. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  09:01 & 12:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a ref for this and added it- it says 'rejected'. Is there one that says they offered no comment? Even if there is, that's certainly not accepting it and tantamount to rejection. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alperovitz (Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, I think it's called) suggests they're not the same thing, & "tantamout" is not "rejection". It's a common belief, even among historiographers. Alperovitz suggests confusion & dissent in the Japanese government, since the Potsdam Declaration conflicted with the Atlantic Charter, which clearly said nations would be allowed to choose their own government, Japan wanted to retain an Emperor, & Truman & Co were unwilling to say she could (if not that one); the mokosatsu was something of a "wait & see", to find out if USG would allow it, or if the militarists would screw things up so badly for Japan the "rain of destruction" Truman promised would be necessary. Hasegawa in Racing the Enemy attributes use to a desire for revenge by Truman, & (with better reason & evidence, I think) to beat the Soviets to the conquest of Japan, but offers better insight into just how conflicted Japan was on the issue. And ultimately, "rejected" implies action by the Japanese government. There was none.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  12:01 & 12:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They most certainly didn't accept it. I'll change to "did not accept". — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that does it. To clarify, tho, I added a fn for Alperovitz & Hasegawa; "didn't accept" isn't the half of it. Nice doin' business with you.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  12:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Going nuclear
"only instance of nuclear warfare"? I'd say that's a bit strong, since to most people (I think) that implies a full-fledged exchange between powers which both have nukes. "Fist use of nuclear weapons", yes.... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  12:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK with me. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absent howls of protest, I'm changing it.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  06:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm changing it back. See the term defined in first sentence of nuclear warfare: "Nuclear warfare, or atomic warfare, is battle in which nuclear weapons are used. This has only happened once - the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America against the Empire of Japan very shortly before the end of the Pacific War in World War II."  Nuclear warfare is a more useful link, and avoiding the use of that term could be seen as whitewashing. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just no big deal but I agree that most people tend to think of it as all out nuke warfare. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Material deleted by User:64.230.83.54
Recently, anonymous user 64.230.83.54 deleted some well-cited material from the article, saying in the edit summary " references have NO evidence of this. the references just take this as fact with no citations (no documents, first hand accounts, etc)".

I have restored this material, as per the official policy on verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

-- Dominus (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Truman and Bush approval ratings
An editor recently changed this:


 * Truman's public opinion ratings reached the lowest point yet recorded for any United States president. (George W. Bush eventually recorded lower approval marks.)

To this:


 * Truman's public opinion ratings reached the lowest point recorded for any United States president.

saying, in the edit summary, "Statement is false. President Bush's approval rating (Gallup) has never been below 27; Truman's was 22.".

Another editor then reverted the change, saying "you have bad information".

I checked into this a bit when the original change was made, and found that the statement, as it stands, is ambiguous. The first editor was correct that Bush's Gallup approval rating has not fallen as low as Truman's did; see for example Bush’s Approval Rating Drops to New Low of 27%. (That's fresh today.) On the other hand, Wikipedia's United States Presidential approval rating article cites a 19% approval rating from an American Research Group poll.

It seems to me that a case could be made either way, but that it would be preferable to use Gallup throughout, or perhaps some pre-defined list of well-known and widely cited polling organizations. Otherwise it becomes too easy to cherry-pick poll results "proving" anything at all.

I had never heard of American Research Group, and neither their Wikipedia article nor their web site gives any information about their methods, longevity, neutrality, sample size, etc. For all I know, they are wholly funded by the Communist Party, or they are a branch of the John Birch Society.

In any event, the statement in the article should be clarified to explain exactly what is meant, and whatever statement remains requires citation.

I would be interested to hear other editors' opinions on this matter.

-- Dominus (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I see that RafaelRGarcia has added a citation to ARG's web site. My concerns about ARG remain. Are they a reliable source? This is not a rhetorical question; I really don't know anything about them. -- Dominus (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the insistence on comparing Truman and Bush in this one area. I'm also not convinced that the ratings can be truly compared unless they were done by the same groups using the same mathematical models and that the models intended that ratings over 40 years apart should be compared. It is very much like comparing the price of bread over a time period without allowing for inflation and other economic factors. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gadget850. Different polls will give differing results.  Why not something along the lines of "By the time he left office, Truman's approval rating had fallen to an historically low level" or simething similar.THD3 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think Gadget850 has a good point. But I don't think your suggestion is consistent.  If it isn't meaningful to compare the historical ratings between Bush and Truman, why is it meaningful to compare the historical ratings between Truman and earlier presidents?  -- Dominus (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Another option is to simply say that in 1952, Trumans' approval rating was 27%, with no comment as to how this compares with other presidents.THD3 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gallup's no gold standard. Three other recent polls from reliable sources from September 08 put Bush's approval rating lower than what Gallup claims. And yes, ARG did peg Bush's approval rating at 19% this year, but that isn't so questionable because Research 2000 found a 22% approval rating this year too, which is very close. Maybe these firms haven't been around as long as Gallup, but Gallup's been criticized for oversampling Republicans for at least the past decade, and they've changed their methodologies. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it rather disingenuous to make this one statement without any further comparison of the two presidencies. This article delves into the reasons for Truman's low approval, but we are given no material to support the Bush rating; such content is probably beyond the scope of this article. I just found United States Presidential approval rating: this would be the place to make such in-depth comparisons. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is no more reason to compare Truman's approval rating with George W. Bush than there is to compare it with Jimmy Carter's.  That is for other articles.  This article is a biography, not a statistical analysis/comparison.  I vote we just list Truman's approval rating and avoid comparing with other presidents.THD3 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I updated the lead to be more general. Truman had the highest high and lowest low in his time; now GWB does. I think we need to state both, or it raises the question of who's reached those extremes. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Add a details link to United States Presidential approval rating. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  08:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous information

 * ARG has been in business since 1985.


 * Gallup polls only started in 1935. Truman's record-low rating was in 1952.


 * The Gallup Organization itself frequently compares their poll results between different historical periods. However, their methodology must have changed since 1935, because current polls are based on telephone interviews, while early polls took place before telephones were common.

-- Dominus (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolution
So: are we leaving this in or reformatting it? If we leave it, the cite needs to be formatted in a template like all the others. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the current wording. -- Dominus (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it so important that it is summarized in the lead; wait— it is not summarized, it is only in the lead. This seems to suffer from recentism. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  19:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not important enough to put in the lead.  I didn't see it there before.  The wording I liked was at the end of the "Korean War" section: "In February 1952, Truman's approval mark stood at 22 percent according to Gallup polls, the all-time lowest approval mark for an active American president."   I don't know what "recentism" means. -- Dominus (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. By recentism, we need to take the long view and not bias our writing on the most recent events; See Recentism. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Middle name
Harry S Truman's middle name is S. As such, there is technically no period after the S since the S does not stand for anything. While this mistake is made fairly commonly, it is nonetheless a mistake. I do know that there are some sources that support the use of a period, but, on grammar alone, those are technically incorrect. This is not a huge deal, admittedly, but getting it right would show some sophistication on the article and site generally. LambdaChi (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Actually the main source is his own signature, that includes the period. A copy of the signature can be seen on the article page info box.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

These formal style guides have been consulted:
 * The Associated Press Stylebook: use "S."
 * The Chicago Manual of Style: use "S."
 * The MHRA Style Guide: no guidance
 * The MLA Style Manual: no guidance
 * The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual 2000: use "S."

Please list any style guides that differ. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that every other page starts out with the persons full name. His full name (including middle name) is Harry S Truman. It's fine to title the page the same as the others, but if his middle name were anything else, it would be written out, which is why this is stupid. The issue is not how to write it with the middle name abbreviated. If we are so adamant about putting the period in the beginning of the article, why isn't George Walker Bush written as George W. Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.43.117 (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "every other page starts out with the persons full name": Sorry, but this is not true: John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, just off the top of my head. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  00:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)