Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower

Military–industrial complex has an RfC for choosing between two alternative versions of a sentence. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Uhoj (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Eisenhower was the last President not born in the 20th Century" Tryyyant (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're suggesting we add that to the article, then it's not worth doing so when such detail is trivial. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add that Fort Eisenhower was later renamed back to Fort Gordon ~2026-13453-51 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 09:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It's unusual to see such an overhaul of the opening paragraph of an important article. But I like some of the changes proposed by UltraCobson.

The word "Earlier" should be retained, because we're going against chronological order, so we should say we are doing so. As for placing "World War II" earlier rather than later, I am neutral.

I definitely prefer "... were pivotal in the Allied victory" to "two of the most consequential military campaigns of the war" -- much more concise and to the point; moreover, the use of a superlative such as "most consequential" implies that we are making a comparison between these campaigns and others that are "less consequential", which we are not.

However, we should retain the clarification that the campaigns were in North Africa and Normandy. (In fact, I wonder if it would be helpful to drop the "Operation Torch" and "Operation Overlord", and just stick with "North Africa" and "Normandy".)

I also suggest that in this lead paragraph, "led" is preferable to "planned and supervised". Bruce leverett (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the primary use for the short description is with the Wikipedia search box. If you start typing in that box, a list of article titles that begin with, or at least contain, the letters you have typed will appear. After each article title, there will be the short description of that article.

The short description must be short, i.e. if it is too long, it will get truncated in that list. On my own screen, "World War II general, president of the United States from 1953 to 1961" was short enough, but maybe just barely. For a reader using a mobile device, short descriptions get truncated somewhat sooner.

Appearing where it does, the short description serves mainly to disambiguate -- "which of these articles about guys named Johnson is the one that I have in mind?" Perhaps disambiguation is less important for uncommon names, such as Eisenhower, but that's the main idea.

It appears that for most of our articles about U.S. Presidents, the short description says "United States", but for some of them, particularly those that also say "Founding Father" or mention the military career, the abbreviation "U.S." has been used.

If we arrive at a short description that is too long, we can fix the problem one of several ways, and probably most of them are adequate. This is not a critically important part of the article. However, in Grant's case, his military career is quantitatively more notable than his political career -- far more books have been written about the former. So if I had to shorten the short description of that article, I would not do it by removing the mention of the military career. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

US doesn't require writing out in full, per MOS:ABBR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)