This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
While the two houses are several miles apart and reflect vastly different aspects of the Truman history, they are still in the same current management, so I would be agreeable. Americasroof19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago39 comments10 people in discussion
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 18 May 2013. The result of the move review was No consensus, decision endorsed by default.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment - Yeah, for whatever reason, Congress wrote the law creating the park ~30 years ago with the "no period" style, and that's fixed in the U.S. Code. I have no opinion on whether or not the period is appropriate in other uses, but the name of the park doesn't have one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Just because a name is "official" doesn't mean we have to use it, per WP:OFFICIAL. If LoC and all those other sources use the period, then so should we, per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, this was also listed under "Technical move requests"; not sure why it's in both places, but I contested the technical request. PowersT21:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Those sources do not use the period for the name of the park - they are in reference to his name. The name of the park and the name of the person are two different things. There is no "common use" of the period in reference to the name of the park. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I apologize for not understanding what Neil meant. Regardless, I should think that the same reasoning that led us to include the period on Truman's article should likewise apply for the site; moreover, simple concordance and consistency indicates that we should try to keep the two in sync. I probably erred in referencing COMMONNAME above; this is more of a house style issue than a sourcing issue. PowersT22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, most people talking about Truman himself seem to use the period, but most people talking about the park specifically seem to leave it out. It's an odd situation, and I see the merit of both options. Since it's pretty nearly a tie, I'd just as soon break it in favor of the official use. —Neil00:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Policy doesn't mandate we use the official name, and it makes sense to include the period here if we do it on Truman's article. Hot Stop02:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - in the English language periods are used after initials. See Interactive Learning: Daily Sentence Editing Grade 5 Michael H. Levin, Teacher Created Resources (COR), Eric Migliaccio p8 "Also capitalize and put a period after initials, which are letters used instead of a full name. (Units 1–30) • The shop is owned by Mr. Payne. • My dentist is Dr. Anna Lee. • The author is J.P.Wilson." or Steps to Writing Well With Additional Readings Jean Wyrick - 2011 p574 "Use a period after initials and many abbreviations. Examples W. B. Yeats, 12 a.m., Dr., etc., Ms."In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Like I said, I can see the logic behind matching this article up with Harry S. Truman, where we do use the period. But I don't think general style proclamations make a very strong argument for that position: if a majority of sources did write Truman's name without the period, like a minority actually does, we'd be using that in his article no matter how unusual it was. Besides, not every bit of style dogma is a universal law; many Brits would write "Mr Payne" and "Dr Anna Lee", and a doctor using AMA or Vancouver style would have to cite "WB Yates" if he fancied a bit of poetry. —Neil04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention that most Indian publications leaveout the periods from initials. I'm not arguing that these examples bolster the case for moving the page, just pointing out that many of the writing rules you find in schoolbooks, like the rules against split infinitives and the passive voice, should be taken with a grain of salt. —Neil14:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose – there is no reason not to use normal, correct, standard puctuation on Truman's middle initial; see MOS:TM for a relevant rationale if you doubt this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment - There is a reason - the primary source legislation establishing the park left it off, and it was a clearly intentional omission that is honored by the park's managers as well as the vast majority of reliable sources discussing the park. Wikipedia shouldn't rename things just because some people don't like the punctuation used by the primary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
We are titling the article, not renaming the site. And we use the same standard orthography as many other reliable sources, as you can verify here. And it is our expressed style to do so. That adds up to no reason not to do as we say we usually do. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Your search link goes to a Google results page full of websites that omit the period from the park name - with the only two exceptions being Wikipedia and an HowStuffWorks.com site.
I'm not sure Vancouver style is relevant, this is a bibliographic convention for magazines and catalogues = Truman HS. This is actual text: "Harry S Truman was president" is a mistake. The fact that plenty of people, including the primary source legislation establishing the park can't punctuate per a Grade 5 textbook, doesn't make it a "clearly intentional omission that is honored." It's a Grade 5 mistake. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is no evidence that "Harry S Truman National Historic Site" is a mistake. Even if it was, I don't believe Wikipedia has a mission to fix alleged grammar mistakes. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the most common name for the site has no period. It also so happens that the official name for the site has no period. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Of course it is a mistake. Two schoolbooks have been presented, please present a schoolbook which teaches children to not write a period after an initial in a name. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
That is your view, but I see nowhere in Wikipedia naming policy where it says "reproduce grammatical errors" or "reproduce punctuation errors" and it has been pointed out MOS:TM does mean we "fix" all kinds of errors and anomalies where both the correct and incorrect exist as in this case. And this case is a name, not a trademark, brand or DJ-styling. All you have shown is a punctuation in a couple of official documents. Unless Missouri Assessment Program penalizes Missouri students for correct punctuation and teaches a different set of punctuation rules than the rest of the English-speaking world, this is a mistake, an error, just as "George W Bush" is an error. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment
(His parents) chose "S" as his middle initial to please both of his grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young. The "S" did not stand for anything, a common practice among the Scots-Irish. –– en:Harry S. Truman#Early life and career
{{Talk:Harry S. Truman/FAQ}}: (be sure to click [show], which is still lurking to the far right)
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
General Concerns and Questions
Q1: Should Truman's middle initial be written with a period after it? (Yes.)
A1:
Usage with or without the period can be viewed as correct. Truman did not have a middle name, only a middle initial but often signed his name with a period after the S. This is discussed within the article in the section Early life and career.
The original editor created the article as "Harry S. Truman" on August 23, 2001. The article has been stable with this title ever since. Per the Manual of Style "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so."
Surprisingly, for a man of Truman's stature and given the nature of the events that he was involved in, the use of the period is the most discussed topic. See the talk page for current discussions and see the links at the top of the talk page for archived discussions.
Simply changing the "S." within the article will be reverted, as it will no longer match the article title.
To propose that the article be renamed, follow the instructions at requesting potentially controversial moves. Create the discussions as noted and give logical and compelling reasons for changing the article title along with supporting evidence.
A4: According to biographer David McCullough, Truman paid a small membership fee in an effort to gain political support from members, but there is no reliable evidence that he was ever inducted or active. See details on this list of KKK members in US politics.
Sounds like in early official records the S. stood for Shipp rather than Solomon. Robert H. Ferrell Harry S. Truman: A Life - 1996 p178 "The chief justice began, "I, Harry Shipp Truman ..." Truman raised his right hand and responded, "I, Harry S. Truman ..." In any case S. is still an abbreviation. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
In 1945, President Harry S. Truman's bare initial caused an unusual slip when he first became president and took the oath. At a meeting in the Cabinet Room, Chief JusticeHarlan Stone, apparently mistaken about the meaning of Truman's middle initial (which is not an abbreviation but rather the whole middle name in itself), began reading the oath by saying "I, Harry Shipp Truman...", Truman responded: "I, Harry S. Truman,..." — en:Oath of office of the President of the United States#Oath mishaps
Yea, but I'm sure that if he were president today, the right-wing nutcases would be demanding to see his long-form birth certificate. Wbm1058 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
support This is a proper name and should be spelled as intended per the sources noted in the original proposal. As noted just above, there are other places with proper names that use the S without the period. --Gadget850talk10:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Since we couldn't consense on a move, I'm dotting all the Ss in the article just to be consistent. —Neil05:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, do not do that. Page names and names in use in the article do not have to agree. For the name of Harry S. Truman when referring to the person, that's fine. But the name of the national park site is Harry S Truman National Historic Site, with no period. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
North, I sympathize with you on the "official name has no period" issue—I supported the move too. But since it failed, and the title stands as "Harry S. Truman National Historic Site", I think we need to be consistent and follow that usage in the article. The debate wasn't about Truman's name—it was about the site's name, and we should stick to the result. —Neil08:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
With books being split about 50/50, this is clearly a styling choice, not in conflict with reliable sources. Let's use WP style. The idea that the styling of the text and the title should differ is absurd; it's just that we don't have this formalized process for text styling decisions, so we do it on titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Books being split about 50/50" - please cite which books which refer to the park with the period. What do reliable sources call the park? We aren't asking what they call the man because this article isn't about the man - it's about a park with an official legal name and a common name, which happen to be the same thing - Harry S Truman National Historic Site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I didn't remove any content. What I removed was a stack of refs in the opening phrase, not placed to support any facts, and not even in agreement with the styling of the name that they were attached to. Listing a bunch of sources that don't agree with our styling seems a little pointless and WP:POINTY, when there are equally many that could be cited that do agree with out styling. If you want to add refs, find refs to support the content, and stop fretting over the styling. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The fact would be that the National Park Service styles the name without the period. It might be worth mentioning that fact somewhere in the article, and citing a source or two for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm OK with the intent, but the source cited, which also styles "President Harry S Truman" in other contexts without period, makes no claim about the official name, as far as I can see. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
"The second ref added (the law) also sets both the park and president's name without the period. It would be more compelling to cite a source that actually makes the distinction between the usual way of styling a name and the way the park's name is styled; or a source that acknowledges that the period is omitted for a reason, not just arbitrarily styled that way by the publisher or something. And if there's something "legal" about the missing period, a source to that effect would be nice, rather than just one that has it styled that way in a legal doc. Some other official government docs (like the Library of Congress topic listings) do use the period, so maybe they didn't get the memo. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, there is not an NPS Administrative History of the site yet, which might give us some insight into the legislative history. I'll try digging through the Congressional Record for the year the authorization bill was passed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's unclear what you mean by "expressly omits it". The National Register of Historic Places nomination also omits the period in the names "Harry S and Beth Truman". There is nothing there to suggest that they specifically intend the site to be specially styled, differently from the name. After lots of looking, I've found only one book that uses the period in some contexts (like the historic site) and not in others (the name): this 2013 book. Probably there are a few more, but they're certainly not easy to find. The styling choices seem to be mostly all-or-none. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Distinction without a difference. The park was named without the period by law. Regardless of the reasons or rationale, it remains so in federal law. The NPS cannot choose what to call its units - Congress makes that decision when they write the law creating the unit. They decided, for whatever reason, to omit the period. Unless Congress decides to pass a law replacing the period, it will never go back in and the site will remain, as long as the National Park System exists, the Harry S Truman National Historic Site.
But where is the evidence that the congress or the NPS decided anything about presence or absence of a period? Where is a document that makes the distinction between the president's normal name and the site's name? I see none so far; just some people cloning the style of whoever printed the law, believing that maybe the styling means something, even if there's no distinction apparent there. Changing a name is one thing; the presence or absence of a dot is quite another, as you can see by surveying sources. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
The evidence is that every single legislative enactment and virtually every official National Park Service document relating to the park omits it. That is not "cloning the style" - we are talking about enrolled laws here, where people have been hanged on a comma. If there was any evidence that the period was omitted inadvertently, and that legislative intent was to include it, it could have been corrected in any number of ways. Instead, we have the opposite evidence - laws passed as recently as 2004 that expressly omit the period when referring to the park. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
There's that "expressly" again; where's the evidence of intent? You're doing what they did: copying what you see. If you look to authorities who actually discuss this presidential middle initial, the Truman Library should carry some weight; if this historic site is an exception to their usual policy, why didn't they mention it? And the NPS says "The park service does not use a period. However many official documents and his presidential library all use a period", again, stating their style, but not a distinction between the historic site name and any other use of Truman's name. So we should be careful and not claim more than that the NPS styles it this way. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
(unindent) The law creating the park does not include a period in the name. Therefore, by law, officially, the park name does not have a period.
"Official: Derived from the proper office or officer, or from the proper authority; made or communicated by virtue of authority." The proper office, in this case, is the National Park Service. The proper authority, in this case, is Congress. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I understand your point, but I think that it would be unusual, perhaps unprecedented, to rely on the typographic style of a law as having legal weight. The "hanged on a comma" point went the opposite direction: the legal interpretation was "as if" a comma had been there, even though it clearly was not; or did I misunderstand? Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
NorthBySouthBaranof, I have to say I'm very unhappy you've essentially reopened the proposed move because you disagree with its conclusion. It's not original research to conclude that the terms "Harry S Truman National Historic Site" and "Harry S. Truman National Historic Site" refer to the exact same institution, and pick one to use consistently in the article here. The official name doesn't have a period, true—that's why I supported your proposal to consistently leave it out. But we don't always have to use the official name; in this case, the community decided not to, and no one's getting hanged for that, the law notwithstanding. I really don't find this debate productive, so I'm going to rest my case now. But I do hope you keep in mind that your contributions, valuable though they are, don't entitle you to veto decisions you don't like. —Neil08:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
But I do think noting in the lede that the official name has no period, like you've done, strikes a very good balance. So thank you for that, and I hope I didn't come off too abrasively above. —Neil08:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harry S. Truman National Historic Site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The coordinates included in the article - 37°29′43″N, 94°16′16″W - are incorrect. They point to a location a block and a half away from the actual site. The correct coordinates are: 37°29′37.49″N, 94°16′16.35″W. I'll be updating the article. Elsquared (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
