Talk:Grover Cleveland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

error with either date of record or age listed on primary portrait caption

The image shown for Grover Cleveland has a caption saying it was made in 1905, when he was age 66. He was born in 1837, so in 1905 he would be 68 years of age. Either he was not 66 in this picture, or this picture was not made in 1905. Which is it?

207.30.211.110 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

President on Vacation

I have written short sections on other Presidential vacations and visits and they have been accepted and well received by the other editors. The vacations opens up a whole new perspective of the President and the era in which they held their office. With Cleveland it was the Gilded (Progressive) Age and much was accomplished by his visits including the healing between the North and South with industry and the goodwill of the populace at the time. Ourhistory153 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)ourhistory153Ourhistory153 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the biography of Cleveland's entire life: should we spend as much space discussing a vacation he took once as we spend on his entire childhood? Let's keep some perspective about what balance is necessary to keep this Featured Article at the standard of quality it was when it achieved that distinction. Coemgenus 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain a few more things about my intentions when adding this Vacation narrative, since Coemgenus keeps editing it out. I am a big user of links to other Wikipedia articles. It was my intention if this narrative survived to link the Grover page to the history of Jacksonville,St. Augustine,Savannah, Winter Park and other pages which would result in more people taking an interest in this President. To me history will survive if we can popularize it with accurate information. I would like other editors to comment on this before Coemgenus lays waste to all my time and effort into this topic on Wikipedia. Ourhistory153 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)ourhistory153Ourhistory153 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being trivial, the section you are pushing is unsourced. Your arguments for including the material are interesting, but appear to have little to do with the purposes of an encyclopedia. I have reverted the material, pending consensus to include plus reliable sourcing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually they are sourced. I wrote a story based on sources from the archives at the Library of Congress and historic newspapers such as The New York Times 2-23-1888, Washington Post, Jacksonville Times and Florida Star on 3-1-1888. I could go more into more details of the benefits from this visit to trade,commerce and tourism but that would increase the word count. Speaking of word count, what would you agree to?

Ourhistory153 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ourhistoryOurhistory153 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom: You've explained the reasons for deleting this information better than I did (I was on my way to catch my morning train when I dashed off the comment above, and my explanation was a bit rushed). There is certainly more we could write about Cleveland -- Allan Nevins, for example, wrote an 800-page biography of the man -- but in an encyclopedia, brevity (along with sourcing) is as important as thoroughness. Coemgenus 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevins wrote, "He had no endowments that thousands of men do not have." What exactly does this mean? You complain that we need brevity but your own archaic quote means nothing to the reader. Ourhistory153 (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Ourhistory153Ourhistory153 (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the entire quotation? It's pretty plain on its face what it means. Nevins was a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, for what it's worth; he could write better than either of us. And insulting great authors does nothing to show why the Clevelands' vacation to the South should be described in such detail as you wish it to be (the topic we're supposed to be discussing). Coemgenus 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I will remove that item from this discussion then. Do you have an objection to the brief Florida visit I rewrote now? Ourhistory153 (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ourhistory153Ourhistory153 (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be clear that Cleveland vacationed in Florida for three days -- I get that much from Jeffers' biography of Cleveland. What I can't find is support for the portion of your sentence, "...and this trip contributed to his effort in winning the popular vote in the South later that year." Obviously the sources you added, newspaper articles from early 1888, would have little to say about the election results that would not occur until seven months later. The fact that in 1888 the South voted solidly for a Democratic presidential candidate was probably related to a trend starting after Reconstruction and continuing until well into the 20th Century -- not a three day trip well before the election. Without a reliable source that relates the vacation to the election results, there is no reason to make any mention of it. I have restored the previous version of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Large physically?

William Howard Taft was undoubtedly the largest president, but was Grover Cleveland second? That might justify counting him twice, which has always seemed to me to be improper, but it is the accepted practice now. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights

I inserted information on Cleveland's "civil rights". It was deleted. What was the purpose of the deletion? Cleveland was a segregationist and supported racist "Jim Crow" laws that kept African Americans from voting. He also did not want the Chinese to be citizens of the United States because he believed their culture was alien. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a blog. Keeping people from knowing Cleveland's segregation and anti Chinese policies is misleading to the public. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}

The reason for the deletion was given in the edit summary. Such statements need to be supported by reliable sources. The citation link you provided has no content, but rather an "error" message. If you can provide a citation with reliable content that supports the statements, feel free to re-insert the section.--JayJasper (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That makes sense. I can re-insert with the link working. {66.81.169.241 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}

The Civil Rights section looks good. I appreciate the edits! {66.249.174.127 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)}

Legacy

Excellent article, congratulations to those who brought it to FA status. Can I suggest that a section be created about his legacy as per Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon? yorkshiresky (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Beast of Buffalo?

No mention at all of the wife-beating allegations? Even if it's not provable, it is something he is widely known for. 87.224.74.143 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point. If there's no significant mention of it in a third-party reliable source, then we don't mention it in the Wikipedia article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of third party sources. Check Washington Post 30 October 1988 for a summary of the allegations. This isn't to say he was guilty of course, but it was an extremely common allegation against him at the time that deserves mentioning simply because it unquestionably did color peoples' opinions of him. 87.224.74.143 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

his Moralism is essential to understand Cleveland

I think it's fair to say that every biographer emphasizes Cleveland's moralism and that has to be--and is--a centerpiece of the article. Kelley in his famous scholarly article (and his book on the Transatlantic Persuasion) has a highly influential interpretation that has been widely accepted by scholars, and therefore needs coverage in Wiki. Kelley has been widely cited: (1) The Political Culture of the American Whigs (1984) - Page 350 by Pulitzer Prize winning historian Daniel Walker Howe); (2): Beyond the Civil War synthesis (1975) by Robert P. Swierenga -says "Robert Kelley, The Transatlantic Persuasion (New York, 1969), is especially interesting on Cleveland"; also recommended in (3) The tariff question in the Gilded Age: the great debate of 1888 (1994) by Joanne R. Reitano; (4) Democrats and the American idea: a bicentennial appraisal (1992) by Peter B. Kovler; (5) The presidencies of Grover Cleveland (1988) by Richard E. Welch; (6) Capital City: New York City and the Men Behind America's Rise to Power (2004) by Thomas Kessner; Religion and American politics: from the colonial period to ... (2007) by Mark A. Noll; (7) "This pioneering work is the basic and largely unmatched study" says Thomas Molnar, in The emerging Atlantic culture(1989). That's an impressive group of supporters who say it's important. So let's keep the brief summary, which meets all Wiki standards. Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

His moralism is definitely one of the more noteworthy things about Cleveland, but the discussion of the Kelley article sticks out like a sore thumb in the rest of the article. It's a summary-style encyclopedia article and the paragraph in question reads more like something out of a dissertation. It's not that it's wrong or untrue, I just don't think it's what a general audience wants to read or will be able to understand. I'm certainly open to compromise: do you think we can cut it down to a sentence or two and fit it into the flow of the narrative? Coemgenus 02:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's written in a scholarly style that reflects the tone of the article, I think; people who take, for example, a high school or AP or college history course can handle this. Wiki is written for many audiences, and people uninterested in serious scholarship can easily skip over the material and go right to the paternity scandal (which historians have always used to emphasize the contradiction in GC's moral standards.). People interested in morality and politics will find Cleveland a very important president. Indeed, the 1884 debate set the norm for how we handle sex scandals (and we have sex scandals aplenty in politics today: look at recent scandals like Spitzer in New York, or allegations against Haley in SC.) Rjensen (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The style is most certainly different. Most of the article is a simpler narrative history of the man -- a conventional biography, as you'd find in an encyclopedia. Then the reader comes to this paragraph citing an obscure article analyzing Cleveland's psychological motivations. It's the difference between trade publishing and scholarly publishing. On almost any other article, I wouldn't object. This article, though, is a featured article. That means it is supposed to be the best Wikipedia has to offer. That doesn't mean nothing about it can ever change, but I believe it does mean that each addition should make it better, or at least no worse. Again, I'd be glad to compromise on a smaller version or a footnote, and I'd be glad to hear other editors' opinions on the matter if any are reading this discussion, but I think re-adding the paragraph as it was, in the middle of unrelated material, is a mistake. Coemgenus 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How about adding this to the childhood section:

Biographers would later point to Cleveland's upbringing by a Presbyterian minister as contributing to his stern moralism.<ref>See Kelley, __</ref>

Problem with Grover Cleveland's link to his "precedents"

To anyone who can address this, really.

Since Grover Cleveland was president twice, the link for his "preceded by" continues to loop you around to his predecessor (sp) and then again to Grover Cleveland's 2nd term, but never the first term. Hope this makes sense.

Thanks, Stephanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.163.110 (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The two terms are listed separately, one beneath the other, in the infobox. Coemgenus 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

In his first term in office, Cleveland sought a summer house (spelling error) should be bought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's "sought". It's the past tense of "seek". --Coemgenus 21:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland Alexander could be added to the memorial section

Baseball player Grover Cleveland Alexander, born 1887, appears to be named after Pres. Cleveland. Although there are no actual references to confirm that it seems unlikely that an uncommon name like Grover Cleveland would occur randomly just after Cleveland's election. It may also be the ball player was named Pete until he signed his contract and needed a more impressive name. See his article for details.Geo8rge (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayor, Governor, President

A small query but I notice Mr. Cleveland served as a Mayor, Governor and President thus leading Government at all three levels and was even a County Sheriff which would mean major involvement at that level too. I thought perhaps this could be mentioned in his main article briefly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.118.178 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article in that way. Just please be sure to cite your sources, as this and other such articles are very sensitive to lack of cites. - Denimadept (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

vetoes

i want to add in the vetoes section that cleveland used te veto right 584 times (second only to FDR), 414 in his first term ad 170 in the second. the information is from - "amrican government: power and purpes", 2009. pp. 162-163. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liorgol1 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pro Business" is a Biased Description

This article describes Grover Cleaveland as a "pro business Burboun democrat." The wikipedia article on the Bourbon democrats, however, describes them more accurately as laissez faire. The implication that "pro business" distinguishes Cleaveland from other presidents requires evidence not provided here. Lincoln and both Roosevelts were also pro-business. It's probably impossible to find an "anti business" president anywhere in U.S. history, but the term here makes it seem that Cleaveland was unique in some way just because he was a classical liberal. Without getting into a debate, I would point out that being "pro-individual" is the starting point of classical liberal rhetoric. Moreover, the pro-business policies (tariffs, free silver, inflation) that Cleaveland objected to follow immediately on this inaccurate description.

I don't presently have the time to make 10 changes in 4 days, but I'd like to recommend that the bias be removed from this article by replacing "pro business" with the Boubon Democrat article's more accurate "laissez faire capitalist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.3.11 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleveland was closely associated with the New York business community and brought in top people for his cabinet. Especially bankers, financiers, railroad people and large-scale merchants (he opposed the factory owners because they wanted high tariff). It was more than an intellectual idea, it was his political base. The point is not original--most of the RS make it, as did his opponents at the time like Bryan. Evidence: 1) "this conspicuously pro- business President" Alyn Brodsky, Grover Cleveland: a study in character (2000) - Page 166; 2) he was "for a tariff reduction, but on other issues Cleveland was pro-business." Quentin R. Skrabec,Henry Clay Frick: the life of the perfect capitalist (2010) p 137; 3) "Cleveland and the Democratic Party embraced a clear pro-business platform." Sven Beckert, The Monied Metropolis: New York City... (2003) Page 313. Rjensen (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Succession

After his first term, was Benjamin Harrison, 23rd President. Then, after Benjamin Harrison served his term, Grover Cleveland got elected again, then after that, everything kind of falls in to order. Just thought I'd clarify that. -DLC-

There's a problem with 'preceded by' tab, because it's only pointing to 23rd US President, not 21st. You're ending in vicious circle between Clevelend and Harrison when going down the timeline. 83.19.173.202 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)mk

Foreign policy, 1885–1889 Grammar

Hay. saw this and hoped someone could fix it, its under 4.5 and

• Cleveland also withdrew from Senate consideration the Berlin Conference treaty which guaranteed an open door for U.S. interests in the Congo.[111]

It should read:

• Cleveland also withdrew from Senate consideration of the Berlin Conference treaty which guaranteed an open door for U.S. interests in the Congo.[111]

I added an 'of'

Without 'of' it means Cleveland withdrew the treaty from Senate consideration. With 'of' it means Cleveland stopped participating in Senate consideration of the treaty. The first is more likely to be accurate. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

1896 was not a Republican landslide

I'm unable to edit the article due to it being protected, but there's an error in the second paragraph. Only the 1894 election was a Republican landslide, not the 1894 and 1896 elections as stated. In 1896 Democrats gained 31 seats in the House while Republicans gained 1 seat in the Senate and won the presidency in by 3.4% in the popular vote. 164.64.74.12 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

the first US President who was filmed

Wouldn´t be interesting to mention in this article about the fact that Cleveland was the first US president to be filmed ? http://www.presidentsgraves.com/grover%20cleveland%20twenty-fourth%20president.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.194.217 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Vice President 2

The "Vice President" label for Thomas Hendricks is not showing, since this is locked, I can't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsourber (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem with the template. I left a note on that talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservative icon

• His battles for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives.
  • Merrill, 46; Brodsky, 309, 431; Tugwell, 139

I'm having trouble finding substantiation for this. Could we get quotations from the sources for verification?   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

some links of use: "He [FDR's father] was a Democrat, aligned with the conservative, sound-money wing of the party whose hero was fellow New Yorker and president, Grover Cleveland." online; "Grover Cleveland became the personification of the Northeastern conservatism" (Blum, The National experience online; Merrill says, "Cleveland turned more naturally to men whose social philosophy accorded with their own conservative, laissez-faire, "good government," urban outlook." online; Peterson (re the Bourbon Jeffersonians) says "The conservative way, identified with Cleveland, the East, and gold, emphasized the individualistic and libertarian side." online Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

While that is accurately stated and sourced, I tend to agree a bit with the ditor above you. There is much, especially in Brodsky and Nevins, to mark Cleveland as a liberal-minded president for his era. Especially Brodsky, who details Cleveland's concern about the Black, Native and Chinese communities. He was especially hopeful that the Chinese would come to be accepted. I can try to return later with citations to support the view that Cleveland was like many of his age: a moderate, quasi-conservative liberal of the era. Meanwhile, I think it is wise to re-word that sentence. He's not exactly a conservative icon today!Djathinkimacowboy 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

he was the conservative icon of the time period covered by the article, which is what readers want to know. I rephrased, expanded the reform role a bit, and added better cites. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for that. It is much better phrased and does describe succinctly what happened. It seems to me your good work has put this little detail to bed. Djathinkimacowboy 02:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks  :) Rjensen (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted reversion

There is no justification for my grammatical correction at line 150 [1]to have been completely reverted just because a reference was put in for Rose Cleveland. While I appreciate the added ref., it's no excuse to revert back to bad grammar structure. Djathinkimacowboy 06:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ... I actually don't see a ref. for the Rose Cleveland line. Also I see the grammar is fine. I think a page out of Brodsky's biography would do nicely, I know he wrote about that in fine detail. I don't have time to do that now. Will try to get back to it ASAP. Djathinkimacowboy 06:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The citations are in, ref: Rose. And by the way, the citations tell us what we should already know: only a president's wife is called "The First Lady". Rose, per citations, was "hostess". In fact, in the exact same citations, both authors indicate that Frances was the first wife ever to be called "First Lady"; Pres. Cleveland did not like that and insisted she be called either "the president's wife" or "the president's lady." I won't add the latter details to the article, unless there's consensus that it can be in there. I think it a valid historical detail. Djathinkimacowboy 07:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The detail about Rose is enough, I think. Anything else pertains more to her than to him, and so ought to be on her article, not this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course - but I was referring to the details about Mrs. Cleveland, not Rose. As to "First Lady", Rose should not be called that. Djathinkimacowboy 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Coemgenus I disagree about the parenthetical information you removed. I can't understand your objection ... and clearly it is necessary, since I am the 1st to note that Rose had been identified incorrectly here as "the First Lady". Even though it is now gone, I see that it needs to be mentioned. However, I will not argue it. Perhaps you think it belongs on Rose's page? I do not check on that article at all usually. Djathinkimacowboy 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To Rose, I suppose, this fairly minor distinction is relevant, but it has little to do with Grover. I can see mentioning this distinction (between "hostess" and "first lady") on her page if a reliable source can be found (and I'm not sure one can -- isn't the "title" of First Lady fairly informal?) but on his? The etiquette of addressing the President's maiden sister doesn't have much bearing on the history of his presidency. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your point is a bit conservative, though perhaps it's a detail unfit for this article. The references are found clearly stated in both Jeffers and Brodsky, but it is Brodsky who best explains there was no term for the First Lady until it was conferred on Frances. I find it significant enough to warrant a mention - there may be some disagreement about this - because it was the Rose/Frances situation that brought about the coining of the term and the instigation of the tradition. Brodsky is very clear and concise about all this. There was at the time no trouble appreciating Rose's position because there was no concept of "First Lady" until Frances was nicknamed with that term. Djathinkimacowboy 03:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? Our own article on the subject says the title was used as early as 1849. Be careful with Jeffers. I've found that book to be more opinionated and less researched than some of the others. Nevins and Welsh are better. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems Brodsky says it also ... but I can't be certain without it in front of me. I do not follow Jeffers too closely but Jeffers is reliable in the information he's gleaned from his sources. I don't find him opinionated at all, at least not about Cleveland the man. If anything he's too reticent about Cleveland's life. I do read a lot of critiques that accuse Jeffers and Brodsky of having some weird agenda. Can't fathom what agenda that might be .... Djathinkimacowboy 18:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read it, but I think Jeffers's goal was to contrast Cleveland with Clinton, with one being a paragon of virtue, the other a feckless liar. I thought he mentioned this in the preface or afterword. I'll see if I can find my copy tonight. It made for a book that was part-history, part-polemic, all disappointing (in my opinion). --Coemgenus (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you know I commonly confuse Brodsky and Jeffers. I thought it was Brodsky who hit Cleveland pretty hard, and constantly raising the subject of not only Clinton but also Bush Sr., Reagan, and Nixon as our "worst" presidents. I wonder if it is I who confuses the authors or if something was going on, both books being published the same year and both seemingly contrasting with each other. One thing I know: Brodsky, who claims Cleveland is his hero, is very critical of him, obsessing about Cleveland's weight and apparent stupidity. At least I know Jeffers didn't go quite so far, but he also cites Cleveland's less-than-average intellectual performance. I think Cleveland was a genius. Djathinkimacowboy 08:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to $20 bill page

Hi can someone link to the $20 bill page in currency section as it relates to the money he appears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_twenty-dollar_bill

 Done - I linked to the page in the "Honors and memorials" section, which mentions that his image briefly appeared on an early 20th Century version of the $20 bill.--JayJasper (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)