Talk:Harry S. Truman

About the image caption

Im sorry, but I don't get the point of removing the caption. It gives info about what type of image the image is, and it gives an approximate date. I read about captioning in the style of writing, and this caption seemed okay. Could we possibly revert this? P.S., the manual of style page you linked is a broken link. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant MOS:CAPTION. The lack of specificity of the caption, circa 1947, annoyed me for a modern president. But your comments caused me to look at the image closely. What evidence do we have that this is in the public domain? We don't know when it was taken. The Commons image page has a tag that it was taken by a member of the military, but that's not backed up by the page from the National Archives, which in fact provides no information about who took it or why. The caption called it an official portrait, but that is not supported by anything I can see, archives calls it a "formal portrait". While it is a nice picture of Truman, all the archives seems to have is a slightly faded photographic print, and the description on that page mentions the blue background is one common to photographic studios, meaning that it may not be free of copyright as a federal work. So the caption seems a bit dodgy, as does the copyright status, and we may want to consider another image. Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So I looked through the Metadata which is available at the NARA link sourced, and it did say it was taken circa 1947, but the usage of the image is marked as "Undetermined". The Military copyright tag seems to be completely unsourced, making it possible for the image to not be free, making it not suitable for Wikipedia commons. What now? MrNoobNub2 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We find the best image with a defensible copyright tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. Should the current image be nominated for deletion then? MrNoobNub2 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I would think so, and I've nommed it here. Maybe if Commons looks through it they'll find info or a keep rationale I don't see. I was looking at the image here that led the article when it passed FAC, but the source is now a dead link. Do you have some thoughts on a good image?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Presidency - comma

The first sentence of the Presidency section - “At the White House” should have a subsequent comma for clarity Sweetsaucey (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, done. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 07:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC).

Why is there a period after his middle name?

S (just the letter) was Truman's middle name. His grandparents couldn't agree on which of their last names (both began with the letter "S") would be used, so he was simply given the middle name S. Bill S. (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This exact question has been asked many times which is why we answered it at the top of this page in the FAQ. Binksternet (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

This sentence needs a citation: "It was long thought that his retirement years were financially difficult for Truman, resulting in Congress establishing a pension for former presidents, but evidence eventually emerged that he amassed considerable wealth, some of it while still president."

I suggest three:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/the-truman-show.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/04/23/its-good-to-be-the-ex-president-but-it-wasnt-always/?sh=7d08e2a10afd

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/28/opinion/harry-truman-conned-us-all/ Booch221 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

While those are useful citations, and thank you, the sentence is cited to the next citation. If several sentences in a row are cited to the same source, we don't have to add citations to every sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction to source

The information about Harry Truman practicing the piano two hours a day beginning at 5:00 in the morning was on page 61 of the David McCullough book about him. Mattbeat1981 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2024

---

His Decisive Contribution to the Vote Victory on November 29

The document signed by President Truman recognizing the State of Israel, minutes after the Declaration of Independence

President Truman in the Oval Office, receiving a Hanukkah menorah from the Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, with Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Abba Eban

Truman expressed interest in the Middle East and supported the Jewish struggle in the Land of Israel. As a senator, Truman promised Jewish leaders his support for Zionism, and at a rally in Chicago in 1943 called for the establishment of a national home for Holocaust survivors and the remaining Jews.

Ahead of the vote at the UN General Assembly on November 29, Truman decided that the United States would vote in favor of the Partition Plan. Truman did everything in his power to ensure that the majority proposal of UNSCOP would be accepted at the UN. Due to the fact that Secretary of State Marshall and senior officials Loy Henderson and others opposed US support, Truman took two main steps to ensure the partition plan's approval at the UN.

On one hand, he supported the end of the mandate and the partition plan, publicly stating that the US would support the vote because it was a just and moral decision. On the other hand, to avoid accusations of bias from the Arab bloc, he claimed that he ordered government officials not to "twist arms" and to refrain from interfering with the decisions of countries that would oppose. However, in practice, Truman managed to control the happenings at the State Department, closely monitored the Zionists' chances of success, and when he realized 72 hours before the UN vote that the opponents of the partition plan were gaining the upper hand and the Zionists were about to lose, he acted very aggressively. He himself mobilized the White House staff and gave them a "license to kill" to ensure that delegations and country representatives understood that they would face consequences if they voted against the partition plan at the UN Assembly. From an article published in June 2024 analyzing the events of the month leading up to the vote among White House staff, the Secretary of State's office, and the Zionist Agency delegation in New York, the following picture emerges: Truman appointed General John H. Hilldring as the President's Coordinator for Occupied Territories Affairs, effectively gaining control over all activities in the UN corridors and the discussions preceding the vote. The President's office, in consultation with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, appointed the world-renowned economist Robert Nathan as General Hilldring's assistant. Nathan effectively served as the White House representative in the Zionist delegation to the UN and, together with his boss General Hilldring, tried his best to help the delegation members Moshe Sharett, David Horowitz, Abba Hillel Silver, and others to meet and persuade country representatives to support the partition plan. Nathan himself actively participated in the meetings of the American Section of the Zionist Agency, which discussed ways to win the vote. On "Black Wednesday" - two and a half days before the crucial vote, the members of the Jewish Agency delegation realized that the chances of winning the vote they had managed to postpone from Thanksgiving Eve were slim. During the holiday and until Saturday when the vote was held, Truman applied pressure on every delegation and leader who publicly stated that they would vote against the partition plan. Dave Niles, the President's personal assistant, forced the US ambassador to the UN and his staff to act against the State Department's policy and do everything to ensure the vote passed at the UN General Assembly. Robert Nathan and Bernard Baruch called leaders on behalf of the President and threatened that if they voted against the proposal, it would harm the US President and their country would suffer economically - they would be denied aid, or investments that could help develop the country would be postponed. Truman himself feigned ignorance and in response to several complaints received by the Secretary of State from country representatives, published a memo stating, "Someone threatened in my name, and I was not aware of it at all."

The Acquaintance with Ed Jacobson and Its Contribution to the Vote Victory on November 29

Truman's relationship with Eddie Jacobson, greatly contributed to the President's understanding of the Zionist issue in general, and representatives of American Jewry made wise use of these connections to create a direct and open line with Truman. The two were true friends from the day they met in World War I and fought together in the artillery battalion until their deaths. Jacobson and Truman were partners in a hat store, went bankrupt during the Great Depression, and their friendship remained stable both when Truman was elected as a judge, after he was elected as a senator, and throughout his political career from his appointment as Vice President to his inauguration after Roosevelt's death. About a year before the vote, attorney A.G. Granoff, who worked in the B'nai B'rith organization, connected representatives of the Jewish lobby with his close friend Ed Jacobson. Granoff himself knew Harry Truman well and helped him and his friend Jacobson throughout the legal saga after the two went bankrupt. According to Granoff's testimony, during the discussions that took place at the UN from August until the vote on November 29, the two met with President Truman eight times. In these meetings, the two arrived at the White House without scheduling an official meeting to convey messages and information to Truman about what was happening, and the latter never refused to meet with them. [[#ref_Noam N. Tepper, Exposing Truman's true contribution to the victory on November 29, 1947, Academia, Pages 1-10|^]] Truman publicly denied his intervention and contribution to the victory in the crucial UN vote. In a meeting held a few days after the vote with Jorge Garcia-Granados, Guatemala's ambassador to the UN, Truman told him privately that he personally supported the partition decision "because it was just and moral," but ordered his officials not to twist arms. The only time he allowed himself to talk about his contribution was in a meeting held in his office at the White House where he hosted his two close friends Ed Jacobson and attorney Granoff. The two arrived on December 8, 1947, from Kansas just to thank him for his assistance. In this meeting held in the Purple Room, the US President admitted to his friend and partner that "I, and only I, caused several delegations to support the partition vote at the UN." [[#ref_Noam N. Tepper, Truman and his contribution to the victory in the November 29, 1947 vote, Academia website, Pages 1-10|^]]

--- NoamNTepper (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is not a minor change to be made using the Edit Request template. Additionally, this strikes me as less encylopedic than the present text. PianoDan (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The section on the atomic bomb gives undue weight to the views of U.S. and its supporters.

Add this topic per User:Wehwalt. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 01:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you give examples of this? Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This biography is the exact place for giving context to Truman's decision to drop the bombs, or at least his decision not to call off the dropping of the bombs. A global viewpoint would be more appropriate at the article about the bombs. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If so, William Shockley's opinion and U.S. Army's document should not be included.

It is reasonable to focus on Truman's views in his own article, but the section also includes the views of his many colleagues and supporters, but very few views of his opponents. I would suggest organize this section like this: the history should appears first, followed by Truman's own views, because this is his own article, so it can have a relatively higher weight. Finally, give the views of his supporters and opponents, and this part should be in a reasonable weight. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 02:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)