Talk:NSC-68

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

NEW REVISION

This page went into an overhaul in 2007 to remove poor language by Lissacha, Huskybear, and other contributors. Please access as it is the first result in a google search of NSC-68. While there was controversy previously, I believe that a reading of this article stays to the facts as any encyclopedia entry should, I would like to see the status of this article upgraded. If you disagree please discuss in this section. Previous discussion entries were dated as significant revision has occurred.

re: Korea - Use Another Quote?

I would change (add?) the quote from Robert L. Beisner, Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 238: "In Acheson’s view, Truman’s parsimony endangered national security, and NSC-68 aimed to recruit (or force) him to State’s strategy of building strength. Korea did that instead." which makes Korea's place in accepting NSC-68 clearer. Ronbarak (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed this article at this time for several reasons. An infobox would be great to add plus any image if available. The main reason for failing this article is the lack of citations. There are a few footnotes, but many sections are lacking inline citations. Go through the article and make sure to add inline citations to any statements that may be questioned about their verifiability. Also, the headings should only have the first word capitalized to meet the WP:Method of Style requirements. Full dates should also be wikilinked. Consider getting a peer review to help you get some feedback on how to further improve the article. Once you have addressed these issues, please look over the rest of the criteria to see if the article is ready to be nominated again. If you disagree with this review, then you can seek an alternate opinion at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Truman Show

The article states: "Truman officially signed NSC-68 on September 30, 1950." and "Truman sent it back for further review until he finally approved it in 1951."

Was he using an Alien time machine found at Roswell or what? Hcobb (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Truman Library Scanned Original Document"

One of the external references is to the "Truman Library Scanned Original Document," but I went to the website and could not find it there. Could someone edit the reference to refer to the specific title on the Truman Library website, or shall we delete the reference? 125.243.118.66 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"unchecked bias"

The very last sentence fails any objectivity test: "The strategy outlined in NSC-68 achieved ultimate victory, according to this view, with the collapse of the Soviet power and the emergence of a "new world order" centered on American liberal-capitalist values". The external reference leads to a text on jstor which is not in the public domain. The title of the text, how "we" won the Cold War, suggests a strong bias. But more importantly, the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union are multiple and complex. To state that "the strategy outlined in NSC-68 achieved ultimate victory" is a gross shortcircuiting of historical causality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrat (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)