Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Act to protect Yellowstone

In the Gilded Age corruption and reform section there is brief coverage of the act to protect Yellowstone signed by Grant, but the statement doesn't give us the date, which was March 1, 1872. [Additional:The existing LOC source used for the statement mentions that date.] The signing is mentioned last in the section with no date and is out of place chronologically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That is one of the few sections of the article that is not chronology based but summative of corruption and reform. But as I have said before, the sentence can be deleted altogether per Rjensen's argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is out of place. I'd support deletion. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There should be at least one sentence on Yellowstone in the article, America's first national park. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cm'. -- This page length obsession with a couple of editors has really gone too far. Cm', I'd support moving the statement to a better location. Placing items in chronological order is SOP for virtually any narrative. There are exceptions, as references go, but that isn't the case here. The item in question was apparently just stuck in at the end of the section, without a date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not about page length. Jensen's point (above) is why I support deletion. Grant's biographers don't mention Yellowstone in their books, which are hundreds of pages long. If they don't think it's important enough to mention, I have a hard time justifying it in a much shorter work like an encyclopedia entry. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I totally agree with you, Coemgenus, but there is the issue of page length. Here's what I was writing to Gwillhickers while you were responding:

Please strike your comment, "This page length obsession with a couple of editors has really gone too far." In fact, your willful disregard for page length has gone too far. Do not blame the editors at this page; they (we) are trying to comply with the FA guidelines as interpreted by reviewers.

Please see #4 at WP:FACR: Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

You seem to think "comprehensiveness" means "inclusiveness." For further explanation of what comprehensiveness means, see Wikipedia:Featured article advice: 1b: It is comprehensive. A featured article should cover all facets of the topic in relation to their importance to the overall topic. No one sub-topic should dominate the article unless it is clearly the most important part of the topic. In accordance with summary style, excessive details beyond what carefully prioritized balancing would call for should be moved off to sub-articles and only summaries should be left in the main article. More important subtopics warrant longer and more detailed summaries, while less important ones should have shorter summaries. This is the part of being comprehensive and NPOV that is most commonly missed. It involves repeatedly prioritizing what information is most important, and leaving the rest to other articles.

You may wish to review what "summary style" means at Wikipedia; it has a lot to do with keeping articles within a certain size. YoPienso (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For the first time in U.S. History the federal government was protecting the "wanton destruction of the fish and game" on federal land...this saved the Buffalo from certain extinction...Here is the link: An Act to set apart a certain Tract of Land...] Grant's secretary of Interior Columbus Delano had complete control of the park... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cmguy, those things are true, but it doesn't address Jensen's point about summarizing standard scholarship or Yopienso's point about page length. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The pertinent policy is WP:OR. YoPienso (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of Original Research ! Here is the source: Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877) President Ulysses S. Grant’s administration was instrumental in the establishment of Yellowstone National Park

A military legend whose accomplishments in the White House are sometimes given short shrift, Ulysses S. Grant was another hero of young Theodore Roosevelt—who considered him the “father of the national parks,” per biographer Douglas Brinkley—for a reason. An expedition to Yellowstone undertaken at the insistence of Grant’s Interior Department led to legislation establishing it as the country’s first national park, which Grant himself signed into law in 1872. More obscurely, the 18th president pushed for the protection of northern fur seals on Alaska’s Pribilof Islands, an action that is considered the first time an area of federally owned land was set aside specifically for wildlife. In many ways, Grant’s administration ushered in the era of presidents who recognized the importance of public lands in their own right. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a very good source. It is an unsigned essay of the sort that summer interns get assigned to write. It misquotes Douglas Brinkley who does NOT speak of "Father of the national parks"-- Brinkley does not use it himself, and does not attributed the term to USG or TR. That is evidence of very careless research that is well below the level we consider a "reliable" source. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant according to The Wilderness Society is among America's top twelve conservationist presidents. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

True, true but what others are saying is that president (in "conservation president") is the term that places it in the president article, whereas the large bios don't generally place it in biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think USG himself would be surprised if we included his Yellowstone Park signature. I looked at the online versions of his papers And Yellowstone comes up several times-- but it's always the Yellowstone River on which along which major Indian campaigns took place hundreds of miles from the park. (the Yellowstone River begins in Yellowstone Park, and traverses all of Montana. That is, USG was very interested in the military activities underway in Montana, but he never mentioned anything regarding the park. It was his Interior Department that did all that. My conclusions is that it fits very nicely in the presidency article, but not in the biography article. All the major biographers agree, since they never mention the park. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. How can we justify including something that Grant's biographers found irrelevant? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If he was indifferent to the park, it would certainly fit into the history of its creation, as all of Washington was rather indifferent to the park - which ironically led to it being protected, as most in Washington thought at the time it had no economic value, and therefore protecting it made no difference. Then congress did nothing to actually protect the park for two decades, while several commercialization schemes were fought over, and Interior had little power or was incompetent in keeping people from literally ruining and poaching, meanwhile conservationists cried out for actual protection, until the army had to take over and try to save the park. See, Punke, Michael Last Stand (Collins, 2007). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the source I gave...there seems to be nothing fringe about the source...isn't Wikipedia suppose to use sources rather then editor opinions ? Grant is labeled a conservation president so why not put that in the biography article...Yellowstone is hardly irrelevant getting 3,513,484 visits in 2014 according to Ten Most Visited Parks making the park the fourth most visited national park. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wilderness Society article is not a major biography of Grant, it's not even a biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy--no intention to offend; my apologies if my comment about original research come across that way. You posted a primary document as a source from which you seemed to draw a conclusion. The page from the Wilderness Society you later posted is a reliable secondary source, but it's about parks in general, not about Grant.

I agree with ASW, Dr. Jensen, and Coemgenus. YoPienso (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Yopensio...I accept your apologies...I am just giving a reliable source and not presenting any arguements...I don't speak for McFeely, Smith, or Brands...I don't know why they did not cover Yellowstone

I never second-guessed any biographers...I supplied a reliable source...no original research was involved...there is no wikipedia policy that states biographers are the sole source for every biography...The Wilderness Society stated Grant has sometimes been given the "short shrift" in terms of accomplishments...that Grant is in the top 12 conservationist Presidents...and that Grant sponsored the first federal legislation that stopped the slaughter of fur seals in Alaska territory...Neither Brands, Mcfeely, nor Smith disputes these statements...This information can be put in the Presidential article as Rjensen has suggested... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We were talking about simply adding a date, using the existing ref, and moving the statement. Brief mention of Yellowstone in this biography goes back to at least 2011, maybe further, I stopped there. As coverage by modern scholarship goes, the LOC covered this, as did a another source used in this biography, Joan Waugh, 2009, p. 132. Al Kaltman, 2000 mentions Yellowstone. Havelin, 2003 gives mention to the establishment of the park. We should give some sort of coverage to this precedent setting act. It was hardly "irrelevant". A fair compromise would be just mentioning the signing and putting a little more thought into where statements are placed chronologically this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Cmguy I was too hasty in accepting that website you quoted from. I accept Rjensen's comment about the site, and now remember it is John Muir who's called the "Father of the national park system."

Sorry, Gwillhickers, Waugh is a good source but in context her mention of Yellowstone shows Grant was more an exploiter of natural resources than a conservationist. Al Kaltman is a banker, and the Havelin book is for children. YoPienso (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant could have been the land exploiter from hell, (which no doubt is the flat-earth view in much of modern academia -- we all "exploit" resources one way or the other) but he still signed an act that set a precedent and protected a vast region of natural beauty. LOC also covers this. All the sources used in this biography are not always those of 'Grant biographers' so insisting on this is typically a paper argument (academic at best). Kaltman may be a banker, but you can't dismiss his work on that idea alone. Was there anything else? Havelin may write for "children" but I suspect for highschool -- Grant is not usually taught to grade schoolers and this is hardly an indictment on the integrity of this work. The act had far reaching implications. We have at least two RS's that mention this, so we can let the statement stand. It was included when the article passed GA and A-class reviews. Or do you prefer to believe all those reviewers didn't have a clue? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

editbreak

Gwillhickers Wonders whether the GA "reviewers didn't have a clue?". Yes indeed my experience is that they know very little history, and very rarely check with any history books; instead they concentrate very heavily on issues of formatting. Congress and the Interior Department did all the work and giving USG credit for Yellowstone is false history. The Brinkley biography of Roosevelt, for example, said the TR Was 14 years old when he gave Grant the credit, based on TR's reading of some outdoors magazines for teenagers. There's no evidence USG read the bill or discussed with anybody before automatically signing it--I say this because the thousands of pages of USG letters have zero reference to it. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is "no evidence" (a two way street) USG read the bill, then how can you say he "automatically" signed it? This is speculation, assumes the worst of Grant, and isn't anything that factors into whether we should mention this event. No president can take "all the credit" for anything, and no one is trying to say so here. All we should do is state the facts and let the readers decide what's what for themselves. One of the achievements of Grant and his administration was that they established the national park system along with the idea that land needed to be protected. I wouldn't assume that Grant slept through the whole affair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Now there you go dismissing Rjensen's informed speculations, while you make uninformed speculations about the reliability of writers and books you turned up with Google. Except Rjensen isn't actually speculating; he's pointing out the lack of evidence that Grant was involved in creating Yellowstone beyond signing his name on a piece of paper.

What 2 RSs do we have? Waugh says the opposite of what you wish she said. Kaltman is not very reliable, or at least not scholarly. The full title of his book is Cigars, Whiskey and Winning: Leadership Lessons from General Ulysses S. Grant. Grant is just a springboard for Kaltman's advice about getting ahead in business. Havelin's book is aimed at a 6th-8th-grade interest level and written at a 6th-grade level Of course she's gonna mention Yellowstone!

Meanwhile, please respond to my request above that you strike an unhelpful comment. YoPienso (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

USG was an excellent writer and quite prolific. We know he was keenly interested in the Yellowstone River -- it's just he never mentioned the Park in his letters, and no other person at the time said he had an interest in the park. That's good reason to simply leave it out. (the article does Not say 'USG had no interest in the park.') (did he read the bill? maybe--I suspect he glanced at all the bills he signed to be sure there were no surprises in it for him.) As for letting the readers' decide for themselves, no. I think editors are the ones who read the biographies and RS and it our job to tell what they say. Rjensen (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We all agree he signed the bill and gets credit for signing the bill (no doubt in multiple sources -- the book I mentioned is hundreds of pages on the founding of Yellowstone, it mentions Grant once - he signed the bill), but because discussion of it in the major biographies is lacking (where they have hundreds of pages to discuss biographical things, representing 1000's of hours of serious study on everything Grant' biographical), the majority of editors here don't think it wise mentioning in the Wiki biography, either -- in wikispeak that is 'due weight' analysis. (If someone thinks there is enough sourcing to write the "Grant and conservation" article, please do) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is one that plagues many Wikipedia articles. There are editors who read the mainstream sources and try to write a concise summary of what those scholars say. And then there are editors who form an opinion, then look through the sources for a way to back it up. The latter group has the process exactly backwards: research and knowledge must precede opinion, not serve it. The problem is often compounded by such editors relying on whatever article, blog, or self-published book comes up in a Google search, instead of putting in the hard work of reading and analyzing the scholarly literature, which is, admittedly, often harder to lay one's hands on. It's that effort that separates a high-quality articles from most of the dross you see around here. So, to speak more specifically of this article: I don't care what poorly sourced essay is on an interest group's website; I care what actual Grant scholars write. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

edit break 01

John Muir never created a National Park...Grant created Yellowstone in March 1872...Muir wanted Yosemite to be a National Park...a state park during Grant's presidency...What Grant did was ahead of his times...Sequoia (September) and Yosemite (October) became National Parks in 1890 18 years later...Wikipedia is about reliable sources...are we as editors only to promote biographers who are paid by publishers to write books that make money for the publishers...we have had this discussion before...I respect Rjensen and Coemgenus opinions...I own copies of McFeely, Smith, and Brands biographies on Grant and have read them...please don't question my intentions...buffalo are mentioned in the article as causing a war on the plains...Yellowstone protected the buffalo...Yellowstone was a refuge for fish and game in addition to being a recreational area. Is the article being neutral by leaving out Yellowstone ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea of recreation was given in the Yosemite Land Grant in June 1864...Grant's March 1872 Yellowstone federal park included federal protection of fish and game... Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No one said that Grant was involved, and stress has only been made that we mention the signing. No one started out with an opinion and then tried to back it up. Speaking for my self, I merely noted an item, with no date, and placed out of order in the section, perhaps even in the wrong section, and brought it to our collective attention in an effort to help. We could have simply added the date, used the existing ref and have been done with this item -- which again has been in the article for quite some time. Now look at the this mess. To assume that Grant was 'not involved', at all, based on "no evidence" is ridiculous. We are not saying anything about Grant's involvement or lack thereof. All we are doing is mentioning the signing of this precedent setting act which occurred at the hands of the Grant administration and under Grant's watch. As such we should at least mention it. We have the RS's.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not been in the article of quite some time. I cannot even remember a time when it was in this article (other than for the past few days). And I rather doubt discussing it more is going to change anything (signing - not in major bios) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mention of the signing started in 2006. -- Now is all this your way of saying that any source that is not a "Grant biography" be removed from the article? Mention of Yellowstone has occurred before, one way or the other, including your edit: What were you thinking when you added the statement and used the LOC as a source? (LOC link used then is now defunct.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And it was gone a long-time in the interim, as I said I did not remember the last time it was in the bio. What was I thinking? If I remember correctly, I thought it would be a minor thing to do for Cmguy -- no one has ever argued Grant and signing things has no relation to Grant, just upon reflection of the major bios not wise to have it here. (the lOC cite was not about Grant as its focus, and was just borrowed from the park article) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So are you now saying that we must use a Grant biography in every instance? In any case, mention of the signing was in the article for at least 6 years. ( 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 ), and the LOC, a RS, was used for the cite. "Borrowed"? This can be said of any reference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So, are you now saying you do not know what upon reflection means? As you do appear to decidedly misunderstand, and follow up with utter irrelevancies, we need not discuss this further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I know you're dodging an important question: Are you asserting that we are required to used a Grant biography in every instance? -- Btw, in 2013 this is what the biography said: President Grant sponsored two federally funded scientific discovery projects; the Polaris Expedition, America's first large scale attempt to reach the North Pole, and the Hayden Geological Survey into the Yellowstone, that led to the establishment of Yellowstone National Park. The two sources used are not 'Grant biographies'. If Grant sponsored these things it certainly means he was more involved than you apparently care to admit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am asserting that I don't support this in this article. I cannot make it simpler for you. Your pulling things out of old Wikipedia articles, however, is most unimpressive scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Making reference to older versions of articles is a common practice, and in this case, demonstrates that there was more to Grant's involvement than some of the scholarship around here will admit. I approached the item in a scholastic capacity at first, noting no date, and a chronological misplacement and suggested we use the existing source to remedy the item. Somehow this started an avalanche of paper arguments and assertions that simply didn't hold water. There are several RS's that cover this -- at least one of them a Grant biography. Was that not the crux of the argument -- using Grant biographies? As for the idea of "no evidence" that Grant was involved, that's simply a fallacy in light of his sponsorship, and assumes Grant was a sleep at the wheel, had no cabinet or advisers around him, woke up and just signed a bill. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended commentary on buffalo and Yellowstone

edit break 02 No editor has yet to show a wikipedia rule that states all information in biography articles must come from biographers...why is Yellowstone controversial...there was no scandals associated with the act...buffalo and game were saved from extinction...This article does mention buffalo and war but not buffalo/game and conservation...In my opinion that is not neutral...This information can be put in the Presidency section...Why is there so much reliance on main biographers ? 74.42.179.192 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC) We are supposed to reflect what modern scholarships holds. However, modern scholarship for Grant, or any individual, is not limited to biographies. Biographers themselves often look beyond existing biographies for their works. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC) I think a good majority of the editors here are happy with this Yellowstone business being left out of the article. No one seems to object to including it in the Presidency sub-article. Is anyone's mind going to be changed by tedious argument? I don't think so. Let's move on. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC) What about the issue of neutrality? Buffalo are mentioned in the Great Plains wars but Yellowstone is left out. Grant looks as if he is slaughtering buffalo, when in actuality he gave buffalo a safe haven in Yellowstone. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) ??? Grant vetoed the buffalo protection bill.[1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC) He signed the Yellowstone bill that protected the Buffalo...technically Grant pocket vetoed the Buffalo Bill...If Buffalo are mentioned then Yellowstone should be mentioned to be neutral... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Well, no. The buffalo in the park remained unprotected for years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC) And a pocket veto is, if anything, worse that a regular veto, because it cannot be overridden. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I would state the issue before us as follows: Grant signed the Yellowstone Park law that was drafted by Congress & designed & pushed by the Interior Department. We all agree that is important enough to include in the separate article on Grant's presidency. The issue is whether it is important enough to include in this biographical article. This is the sort of question on which the biographers are the world's leading experts-- they've all thought long and hard over the years on the question of what to include and what to exclude in their biographical coverage of USG. Each one independently decided to exclude the Yellowstone Park signature story. I think we should follow their lead. Other writers, who know far less about Grant and are not trying to tell us USG’s story, do mention Grants signature on the law. They mention Grant to increase the visibility and legitimacy of their POV cause, as exemplified by the Wilderness Society unsigned article. No published sources that I have seen claim that Grant was in the least bit interested in Yellowstone National Park. He never talked or wrote about it and made no policy decisions whatsoever regarding the park, beyond signing a law-- one of thousands of laws-- that Congress passed and he signed. Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC) [edit conflict, replying to Cmguy] That's an interesting one, but I think you're confusing balance with neutrality. We don't do balance, at least not in the sense of one "bad" fact balanced by one "good" fact. We do neutrality, presenting things in a non-opinionated manner, summarizing the scholarship accurately, etc. Do you understand the difference? And beyond this, we don't search for facts outside the mainstream of scholarship in order to justify our own opinions. As I (and others) have said many times before, our opinions (POV) as Wikipedia editors are irrelevant; only the opinions of legitimate, peer-reviewed scholars matter. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC) The Buffalo were protected eventually because Congress eventually gave funding for the Interior to enforce the law that Grant signed...Was there funding to protect the buffalo in the Buffalo bill? ...Grant also signed into law that protected the Alaskan fur seal...Yellowstone was more then just a recreation area such as the California State park Yosemite...I understand we are going around in circles on this...I would like to think McFeely, Smith, and Brands are ivory tower historians who are free from the influence of publishers who are paying them to write for profit books and/or win the Pulitzer prize...I am just being realistic...Grant's presidency has been extremely understudied...If Yellowstone is left out then I believe we should remove information on the buffalo during the Plains War... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Disagree. The buffalo were killed throughout the west, its not an issue limited to Yellowstone, and Interior did not protect buffalo -- when Grant was president, his administration's policy was not to protect the buffalo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC) This is not about buffalo, and all the speculation (POV) about Grant and the buffalo is just that. Signing of the act should at least be mentioned, as it was for years, simply because it was Grant and his administration who sponsored Yellowstone's exploration and signed an act establishing the country's first national park. I would like to see more coverage, but to completely strike this topic, also, from the narrative is hardly a compromise. The stand by argument that presidential topics belong in the Grant presidency article is becoming a little rife, esp since the Presidency topic takes up a major portion of the text in this article. If someone were so inclined they could easily come up with a dozen items under the Presidency section that 'belong' in the dedicated article. Signing of the act set a major precedent. It would be nice if we could just add the date, with no pov, and end all of this arm wrestling and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "The country's last remaining herd of wild buffalo, estimated at only a few hundred animals, was in Yellowstone." It was illegal to hunt or poach buffalo in Yellowstone. Source: The Last Refuge 04:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC) You missed the dates that article is discussing (1890-1915) and when protection occurred: "On May 7, 1894, President Grover Cleveland signed a bill into law authorizing regulations that would finally protect the park, its geysers, and its wildlife." Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC) It was illegal to poach buffalo in the original 1872 law, but true enforced protection of the buffalo did not occur until Cleveland on May 7 1894. The fact does remain that last buffalo were found in Yellowstone National Park. Was enforcement built into the original Buffalo bill that Grant pocket vetoed ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Yes. The Buffalo Protection Act, vetoed by Grant, included additions to the federal criminal code, defined the crime of buffalo destruction, set out specific fines that courts were to impose, and the feds to collect, and prison terms. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I believe the Act allowed Indians to continue to hunt buffalo. It is true the Buffalo were sacrificed for cattlemen and to keep Indians on their respected reservations. The Act may have gone against keeping Indians on their respected reservations if allowed to hunt buffalo. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Indian hunting, done for thousands of years, never destroyed the buffalo. No one needed to protect buffalo from Indians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC) We didn't decide the issue was too minor to include, Grant's biographers did. Hesseltine, McFeely, Smith, and Brands all agree: Grant's involvement in Yellowstone was not significant enough to mention in the hundreds of pages of scholarly work they each independently wrote about him. Against that scholarly consensus is stacked the opinion of two anonymous Wikipedia editors who rather like the idea. If you can't understand why that's a problem, I don't think you understand the rules of this encyclopedia. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yellowstone exclusion vote

Yellowstone exclusion vote Let's vote on the proposition "exclude Yellowstone Park from this article." Rjensen (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Insert : -- @Rjensen: In all fairness, you should also contact reviewers at FAC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC) It was not in when the FAC reviewers passed it, as far as I can tell. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)What about the removal of an entire section, for openers, that occurred before most cast their vote at FAC. The section was included during GA and A-class reviews. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) That was requested by the reviewer and then praised by the reviewer (and another reveiwer has also approved that very section removal). If you review the FAC criteria, it explicitly sanctions such edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: It still was a radical move, recommended by a couple of reviews who apparently don't know much about Grant and president's articles, and not par with other President's articles and occurred after many cast their votes. I went along just to keep things stable, but major topics/details continue to be removed by the same 2 or 3 editors. Please think about this, and if you like, I will not object if your strike (remove) this dialog. It doesn't seem to be doing any good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC) BOLD, sure; radical, no. Having lived with this article, and its editors, for awhile, and hearing similar comments from reviewers, it seemed a very likely consensus edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC) There's obviously a fine line between bold and radical. In any case I certainly hope you're right here. Just so you know, I still support the article (Civil War section is beautiful) but fear that the deletions and other issues have just become too many. If you want to remove or put all this dialog under a hat, it probably would be best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I think that's right, Alan. Gwillhickers, please do not try to start trouble for us at FAC. You've made it clear that you don't care about "the bronze star", but the rest of us are committed to improving the article according to those standards, and were well on the way to doing so until you dropped in. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "Well under way"?? Please do not attempt to make me the scapegoat. There have been many major details and topics being removed, and not by me, since many cast their votes. I have no intention of running and 'telling the teacher' but you need to step back and perhaps evaluate some of your own (and other's) actions at this point. All I've done is attempt to discuss issues. I'm not poking at and contesting minor changes, only the removal or blocking of entire topics and major details. There are many! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I thought you were bowing out. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I thought so too, but that was then. Many things have occurred since then. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Support Rjensen (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Support Coemgenus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Shall Yellowstone [bill signing] be excluded from this article?

Wikipedia policy is that consensus is not gained by voting. Also see WP:WIKINOTVOTE.

• Support. I'll repeat what I said above: We didn't decide the issue was too minor to include, Grant's biographers did. Hesseltine, McFeely, Smith, and Brands all agree: Grant's involvement in Yellowstone was not significant enough to mention in the hundreds of pages of scholarly work they each independently wrote about him. Against that scholarly consensus is stacked the opinion of two anonymous Wikipedia editors who rather like the idea. None of the secondary sources include it. That should be the end of the discussion on a figure as well-covered as Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Against Yellowstone was the first national park and Grant should get recognition in the main biographical article. Grant's Department of Interior was responsible for getting the park into fruition by creating the Hayden expedition. Although not enforced, the Yellowstone law did protect fish and game federally for the first time in history. Additionally Grant protected the Alaskan fur seal...Interesting how editors are suppose to abide by for profit biographers and yet editors have to second guess why Yellowstone was excluded from their writings. That seems to be a double standard. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Against I vote for comprehensive coverage where we also mention the Hayden Expedition, sponsored by Grant, but will settle for a compromise and just mention and link to the topic. If this vote is decided marginally then we should compromise. How many supporters of this FAC are aware of all the frantic changes, the resultant lengthy debates and double standards going on around here? If this article is deemed unstable please don't come crying to me. Removal of an entire section hasn't helped stability either -- esp with a table of appointments (for just four names?) still stuck in the wrong subsection. All the appointments occurred -before- the Election of 1876. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Rjensen has the best grasp on the biographical significance As Rjensen has now mentioned it in the article there is no reason to discuss this further - neither the facts (or sources) above or below, make a strong biographical connection with Grant and the park (the wily conservationists may well have met in a love match with the Cooke cabal, in the dark corridors of Washington but n-degrees of separation from Grant, are still n-degrees of separation) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Support [per Rjensen and others' arguments above (nor was the Yellowstone bill signing in this article when it was named 'good', nor when it passed A-class review, nor when (all?) FAC reviewers passed it - so it is not like this is an unstable thing). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support The leading experts of all decided to give it zero attention in their biographies-- The Citations that mention USG are very weakly researched and are not actually about USG himself--indeed no one actually says that Grant played any role beyond having his signature. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no opinion on this subject; I respect the arguments on both sides but don't know the sources nearly as well as anyone who has so far commented. I am, however, taking the liberty of inviting User:MONGO to offer comment; his considerable interest in the subject of Yellowstone's history and his lengthy familiarity with the sources surrounding the park cannot help but benefit this reasonable and civil discussion. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Rjensen's, Coemgenus's, and Alanscottwalker's sound arguments: We have no reliable secondary source that gives sufficient weight to Grant's signature on the bill to merit inclusion in this article. YoPienso (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I was invited via by BusterD via MONGO to comment here. Without forming an opinion at this point, I must note that legislation involves two branches of government, starting with Congress and ending with the President. Grant undoubtedly signed the bill, but the bill originated in Congress, where it had sponsors and where Hayden presumably lobbied for its passage. Presidents sign bills as matters of expediency, as part of a horse-trade, because they don't find it useful to oppose them, or because they genuinely support them. What do the sources say about the bill's origin in Congress, its sponsors, about Grant's attitude toward the bill, and whether it was a matter of expediency to sign it or whether he was a direct supporter of the idea? Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Acroterion: Thanks for your input. The Yellowstone issue didn't actually start with Congress, it began with the Hayden Expedition, which Grant sponsored. Apparently Grant did more than just sign a bill to expedite matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Yopienso: Take a second look at what you put under a hat. I did not strike Coemgenus' and Rjensen's vote, yet you have them under a hat along with what was striken. Also, there are at least two RS's that cover Grant's signing, i.e.the LOC and Grant biographer, Joan Waugh, p. 132. If they chose to mention this topic, it has weight. You can deliberate about 'how much' weight of course, but that's it. Grant's biographers are not the only yardstick, and once again, there are many items in this biography that are not sourced with a Grant biography. i.e.Why wasn't a Grant biography used for all of those items? Not enough weight? If we omit the Yellowstone topic on the grounds that Grant biographers didn't cover the topic then we must so examine all items not sourced with a Grant biography and apply the same yardstick. Or we can use our own brains, evaluate the topic under its own merit, and if it's covered by a RS make our own decision. As editors we are not simply copy-reword-paste bots who write auto-generated narratives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I explained I was collapsing the vote so they could comment instead, which they have now done. Coemgenus removed my explanation, per my request. It's all in the history if you want to look.

The LOC is a primary source. It's a good source, but should only be supplementary.

Waugh is a RS, but not for what you're saying. All she says is that he signed it. That note is sandwiched between attestations of his lack of interest in conservation. If we added the fact that he signed the bill without all the caveats Waugh gives, the reader would get the wrong impression.

What you describe as using our own brains, etc., is known here as WP:OR and is strictly verboten. We must stick with the secondary sources. YoPienso (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I did a google book search on publisher = University Press on Grant & Yellowstone. I looked at the first 40 hits. All of them gave n=one sentence to Grant's signature. none of them gave a second sentence to Grant. The signature was an act of the presidential office and belongs in the presidency article. having it also in This article gives excessive praise for Grant which he does not deserve. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that anything mentioned in Grant's biography is supposed to amount to praise? In accord with your findings, simple mention of the topic in this article was all that was suggested, even though it wouldn't hurt to mention the fact that Grant sponsored the Hayden Expedition that led to the establishment of the country's first national park, which is worthy of praise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the chief reason some editors want to include the signature is to enhance USG's stature. I do not think his routine presidential action merits praise. Take a look at Myth and History in the Creation of Yellowstone National Park By Paul Schullery, Lee Whittlesey (2003) in Questia. in 140 pages &it gives one sentence on Grant (p 65: "March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Act establishing Yellowstone as the world's first national park.") Likewise Yellowstone: The Creation and Selling of an American Landscape 1870-1903 (1999) by Chris J. Magoc; one sentence on p 19. As for the Waugh bio, yes he does have one sentence on p 132 on the signing. But he goes on at length how Grant deliberately opened the western lands to settlers& speculators with no regard for the environment. I will include both points in this article & hope that will end this LONG debate. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen's saying the same thing I was--including one brief mention of Grant's signature implies he was more interested in conservation than he really was.

I haven't been able to find a source that says Grant sponsored Hayden's expedition. I can't find he had anything to do with it except he happened to be POTUS when Congress funded it. Compare that to Jefferson's interest in sending out Lewis & Clark. YoPienso (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Rjensen, I guess. First you don't want to mention Yellowstone at all, and then you add all sorts of things about the environment, including Yellowstone. In any event, a good edit. We should simply mention this rather notable advent in a neutral fashion. Anyone who wants to "praise" or condemn Grant for his efforts can do so. As an aside, if Grant was not a Civil War General and a hero (to many) I suspect his biographers would have paid more attention to the other things he did during his life. Appomattox is sort of a hard act to follow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think I'm the "talk page cop," though I really don't think this discussion belongs in the RfC, either. But since you want it here, OK--just please remove the duplicate stuff I put above, and move my unduplicated comments from there to here. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps best to at least mention that Grant signed the bill in brief without elaboration as to why, be it political or whether he actually supported it, much as the sources Rjensen has posted above...keeping it to a sentence. An important thing about U.S. national parks is that they can only be created by an act of congress whereby national monuments can be created by a presidential proclamation without involvement from congress. Without supporting references, it may be SYNTH to say because Grant sponsored the expeditions to the upper Yellowstone, he sponsored the creation of the national park. Expeditions during Grant's presidency were not the first federally sponsored expeditions to the upper Yellowstone because that distinction actually belongs to William F. Raynolds, a classmate of Grant's at West Point, who led the Raynolds Expedition in 1859-60.--MONGO 06:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• There is still no source for Grant sponsoring Hayden - or any personal involvement by Grant, but as Rjensen has now added (other sourced) context to the article with a mention of Yellowstone signing, this is over and closed, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Jensen's latest addition is well-sourced, so it doesn't have the problems of some of the other proposals mentioned above. I'd prefer the article without it, but I'll be happy to accept the compromise if it will end this discussion and keep the article stable and free of edit wars. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Buffalo article

This article might give more insight on the Buffalo bill The Last Buffalo Cmguy777 (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"McCormick overplayed his hand when he read a letter pointing out the devastating effect the loss of the buffalo had on the Plains Indians. It reminded congressmen who favored a hard-line Indian policy that allowing the destruction of the buffalo would expedite the goal of undermining the Indian population. Yet widespread newspaper reporting of the continued decimation of the buffalo finally prompted Congress to pass protective legislation in the spring of 1874. But President Ulysses S. Grant pocket-vetoed the measure. Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano had recently reported to the president that "the total disappearance of the buffalo" was an effective way to encourage the Indians to adopt an agricultural lifestyle, which (white) reformers desired. Grant's chief military advisors on Indian policy, Generals William Sherman and Philip Sheridan, argued that the Indians would be forced to capitulate to the army once the buffalo was gone." There were no more major Indian wars in 1894 when Cleveland signed the Buffalo protection bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit break 03

Comment: I was asked to comment here by several editors involved in this discussion based on my edit history related to Yellowstone topics. Upfront, my knowledge of Grant biographies is limited but here’s what I can support.

Fact: Grant signed the Yellowstone Act of Dedication on March 2, 1872.

Connections:

• Banker Jay Cooke and Grant were friends with political connections through Jay’s lobbyist brother Henry. In 1871, Grant appointed Henry Cooke as the District of Columbia’s first governor.
• Grant considered Jay Cooke a candidate for his first Secretary of the Treasury in 1869.
• In 1869, Jay Cooke began financing and planning the Northern Pacific Railroad.
• In 1870-71 “As president, Grant closely followed the Northern Pacific’s progress and the military efforts in support of the surveying expeditions. Grant made numerous behind-the-scenes decisions that helped Cooke and the Northern Pacific in 1870-71”.
• In 1870, the Washburn–Langford–Doane Expedition explored the upper Yellowstone and the regions that would become Yellowstone National Park. Nathaniel P. Langford was a business associate of Jay Cooke and met with Cooke in June 1870 in Philadelphia to discuss the proposed expedition. Langford received financial support from Cooke for the expedition. Brevet Major General Henry D. Washburn was a civil war veteran who fought under Grant and Sheridan. In 1869, Grant appointed Washburn Surveyor General of Montana Territory.
• After the 1870 expedition, Langford and Cooke conspired to promote the establishment of the park as a potential destination for his railroad. Cooke financed a series of lectures including one attended by influential political friends in Philadelphia in May 1871.
• In early 1871, Cooke’s lobbying secured a $40,000 appropriation from Congress to finance the 1871 Hayden Geological Survey of the upper Yellowstone. Cooke personally financed the inclusion of artist Thomas Moran in Hayden’s expedition. During the winter of 1871, the results of Hayden’s expedition—through lectures, Moran’s art and photographer William Henry Jackson’s photographs of the upper Yellowstone region, some displayed in the Capitol rotunda—were used to lobby congress to create the National Park. Henry Cooke, a member of Grant’s inner circle was instrumental in this lobbying effort.
• After the creation of the park, Grant appointed Langford on May 8, 1872 as the first park superintendent.
• General Philip Sheridan and Grant were close military associates from the civil war. In 1870, Sheridan was the senior US Army officer in the west and commander of the Division of the Missouri which included Montana and Wyoming territory. Sheridan at the behest of Washburn and Doane provided a military escort for the 1870 expedition. In 1871 he approved four independent military expeditions into the region.
• In 1871-72, Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano, a Grant appointee, and several prominent republican senators and congressmen were instrumental in supporting the Hayden expedition and pushing the “Act of Dedication” through congress.
• Grant never visited Yellowstone, but did travel on the Northern Pacific’s Villard’s Excursion to Gold Creek, Montana in 1883 to participate in the completion of the NPR. The closest he got was Livingston, Montana where he was joined by President Chester A. Arthur who just completed the first presidential trip into the park.
  • After a visit to Yellowstone National Park, they returned at last to Philadelphia on December 16, 1879. is incorrect. The McFeely source states "On November 1, 1879 they [the Grants] were taken out to see the natural wonders of Yosemite Valley, in the national park which had been created during the Grant presidency..." Even that statement is in error as Yosemite wasn't designated a national park until 1890 well after Grant's death. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Yellowstone Wildlife

Other than signing the Act of Dedication bill, Grant had little to do with the ultimate protection of Yellowstone’s wildlife. The original act provided no funding or other resources to the Department of Interior to protect park resources and it wasn’t until 1883 that any real efforts—physically or legally were made to protect park resources. See Expeditions and the protection of Yellowstone (1869–1890). The first regulations to protect wildlife weren’t issued until 1883. The The Lacey Act of 1894 was the first legal authority to protect wildlife and real protection didn’t start until the U.S. Army took administrative control of the park in 1886. See Fort Yellowstone. The Yellowstone Bison were not subject to any recovery efforts until the early 20th century Yellowstone Park bison herd#History.

I support the mention of Grant’s signing of the Act of Dedication to create Yellowstone is his article because I think any involvement in the creation of the first national park ought to be recognized as it is in most biographical articles on individual involvement in the exploration, creation and protection of the park. I do not believe the lack of coverage in his biographies is a valid reason to exclude it. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Rjensen has mentioned it in the article. So, done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Jensen's treatment is a well-sourced, NPOV solution to this problem. I'm satisfied. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Waugh is not completely accurate...Every 19th Century President wanted to exploit the West somehow...and I would state exploitation of natural resources continues...Theodore Roosevelt was a 20th Century President...Also Grant was the first President to sign legislation that specifically preserved the Alaska Fur Seal in Alaska...True Grant caved in on the buffalo issue and does deserve criticism but that was done in part due to his Indian peace policy...not mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Source: Charles C. Chester (2006) Conservation Across Borders: Biodiversity in an Interdependent World, page 19

You state that every president wanted to exploit the west, so then Waugh would be accurate, as to Grant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's accurate. It's not our place to second-guess the sources, anyway. And look, Cmguy777, Jensen's edit is 90% of what you wanted. It's balanced, right? We share the goal, I thought, of getting this to FA and on the Main Page. Can't we compromise? Do we have to fight about everything? I've given up my objections, as has Alan. Can we meet in the middle and call a truce? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. Had we all been a little more willing to compromise much of this calamity could have been avoided long ago. Cm', Rjensen has given more than I bargained for, with mention of Yellowstone, and then some. I don't think Waugh's words have been misrepresented here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Mike Cline, Coemgenus, and Cmguy777: After the FA review we also might want to consider mentioning the Hayden Expedition and Grant's sponsorship and involvement, which as Mike Cline and myself have pointed out, was not incidental. It would be sort of naive to assume that Grant had no idea what his appointments would do regarding Yellowstone, et al.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

While I'm perfectly fine with not touching it till after FA, I object to Rjensen's addition of the Yellowstone bill signing. The willingness on all sides to compromise on this controversy is admirable, but I believe the issue is now given too much weight. I find the length too great and the editorializing inappropriate. I respectfully disagree with Mike Cline that, regardless of what the best secondary sources say, it should be added because present-day amateur Wikipedians find the topic significant.

The only way I would support even mentioning the signing would be in a treatment similar to History.com's:

In addition to focusing on Reconstruction, Grant signed legislation establishing the Department of Justice, the Weather Bureau (now known as the National Weather Service) and Yellowstone National Park, America’s first national park.

Note that I'm not using History.com as a source, but as an example of an appropriate style in a popular reference work, which is what WP is, too. Also please note I don't dispute the facts or sources Rjensen used; just the weight and tone. YoPienso (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've trimed it - as for whether it should be mentioned, it will be apparently the case that editors now and in the future will come here and say 'but Yellowstone?!' - making peace with that (and giving it context) is probably the better course. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Still don't know why it needs to take up so much space and draw attention to itself with an indented quote. Why not:

Besides civil rights, issues of environmental protection have also attracted historiographical attention. Although Grant was more interested in development than conservation, in 1872 he signed the law establishing the country’s first national park at Yellowstone.

Still more detailed than the example I pasted in above, but it's less than half as long as the present version while still providing context. YoPienso (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I've not really looked at the fur seal question, but that could maybe be included in the same proposed paragraph. YoPienso (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso - the statement that "Although Grant [and his cronies] was more interested in development than conservation ..." is correct. And Yellowstone in a round about way was considered development not conservation by Jay Cooke and his connections within the Grant administration. Jay Cooke had a plan--develop destinations in the west for railroads. The upper Yellowstone was under attack by local (Montana and Wyoming) developers who hoped to commercialize the region ultimately limiting its utility to the NPR. Although the NPR didn't get within reach of the park until 1883, the NPR eventually controlled all the hotels and concessions in the park for over 40 years (not a coincidence). --Mike Cline (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being shortened, although I think, to be true to the source it would be: Besides civil rights, issues of environmental protection have also attracted historiographical attention. Although he signed the law establishing the country’s first national park at Yellowstone, Grant was more interested in development than protecting the environment and opened wide swaths of the west for use. I would ask User:Rjensen to comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a shortened version of Alan's second sentence would be adequate, if anything on the subject must be said at all (which I'm not personally convinced of).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the way it stands :) Note that it now makes the Yellowstone signing a sidelight of the broader issue of how USG dealt with the West from an environmental perspective. Environmentalism is a major theme of historians in the last few decades and Grant played a major role in the opening up of the West in terms of railroads (the transcontinental railway opened on his watch in 1869) and dealing with the Indians. Waugh clearly explains what his position regarding the West actually was, and this appears nowhere else in the article. As Mike Cline points out, USG worked hand in glove with the developers esp Jay Cooke. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fur Seals protection

(per below - I make this a new section -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

I am not second guessing Waughs statements or objecting to criticism of Grant from Waugh...my concern was neutrality...The Pribolif Island reserves for the protection of the Northern Fur Seal was created by Grant and is the oldest component of the United States Wildlife Refuge system...I believe that should be added if criticism of Grant has been introduced...I appreciate Rjensens edit...Waugh does not mention this...I supplied the source that mentions Grant and the protection of the Northern Fur Seal...this can be a seperate discussion...I accept Rjensens edit but just wanted to add information on Grant's protection of the Northern Fur Seal for neutrality...Regardless of Yellowstone Grant allowed the decimation of the Buffalo and he deserves criticism on that matter...in that sense Waugh is 100% correct... Cmguy777 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to start an argument when one has just (hopefully?) ended, but according to this source (at p. 286), Grant only barred foreign hunters from the Pribilofs, not American hunters, who continued to take seals there for years. This is why it's best to stick to reliable secondary sources, because a scholar writing about this would have better access to sources and better training to analyze them than we do. Until we have a better grasp of the facts, we should probably leave this out rather than introduce flawed information. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Limitations were put on American fur traders as to how many seals could be killed and the time of year seals could be killed...Foriegners were prevented from killing seals on the island being forbid to live there...Americans were not exempt from the law...The act was specifically designed to keep fur seals from extinction...a first in American history and Grant deserves credit for creating the reserve... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the law in full: An act to prevent the Extermination of Fur-bearing Animals in Alaska Pages 180-182 Statutes At Large Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Treasury officials were sent to enforce the law. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This article gives a good history of sealing on the Pribilofs. It mentions that Grant signed the bill into law, but says nothing about his involvement in its passage. It does mention how the concession did not go to the low bidder as a result of the usual shady lobbying practices. There was a congressional investigation in 1876. Perhaps this should go under "Scandals"? I joke. But it does illustrate that we should hold off adding anything until a thorough study of the scholarship on the matter. Let's at least wait until the FA review is over, eh?--Coemgenus (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The link was an article preview...there was a supplementary bill : An Act Supplementary the Act Entitled "An act to prevent the Extermination of Fur-bearing Animals in Alaska" There may have been a concession scandal but that is seperate from creating a reserve which the above link states Grant created a Pribolif Islands. Sealing was allowed but limited to keep the seals from being exterminated...I thought the FA review was over...To me this is a question of neautrality since Grant has been critized by Waugh in the article...Treasury department agents were sent to the islands to ensure the law was enforced...obviously the Northern Fur Seals are still here today thanks to Grant...The law was ahead of his times probably over 40 years until Theodore Roosevelt was President...Continuing discussion is important in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this particular topic tends to get involved and requires the review of several sources, putting this topic off for later, along with the issue of neutrality, makes good sense. Cm', if its any consolation, some of the coverage as it is does tend to slight Grant, imo, but let's hack this out later. A plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The FA review is decidedly not over. You can add it to your watchlist if you want to keep a closer eye on things. It's here. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion since Grant is being critisized by Waugh on his 19th century environmental status, then I believe adding a sentence on the Pribolif Islands seal reserve is essential to keep the article neutral...a book source has already been provided...the act specifically covered fur seals, not too shabby for 1870...I understand the FA review is still in progress...all I am requesting is one sentence that follows the Waugh discussion... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: That seems fair, but if it's contested by more than one editor, just roll with the punches for now, as we're approaching April 9th and you know how some of these debates can get. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition

"In 1870 to prevent the extinction of fur-bearing animals Grant created a reservation for the Northern Fur Seal on the Pribolif Islands barring foreign sealers and limiting the number of seals killed." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is another link for further information: Catalogue Raisonné of the Alaska Commercial Company Collection, Phoebe Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In 1870 to prevent the extinction of fur-bearing animals Grant created a reservation for the Northern Fur Seal on the Pribolif Islands barring foreign sealers, granting a single consession to the Alaska Commercial Company, limiting young male seals killed each year to 100,000."

@Cmguy777, Coemgenus, and Mike Cline: -- If it's not going to involve a lot of debate this seems like an excellent statement to balance out Waugh's comments. As we are, little by little, adding more words to the article, perhaps we should find something to trim at the same time. Several of the subsections are quite large, esp the Foreign affairs, Gilded Age corruption and reform and Indian peace policy subsections. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Yes...I think that is a neutral statement to balance Waugh's assessment supported by a reliable source...No one is saying Grant was a 21 Century environmentalist, but the preventing the extermination of the Northern Fur Seal was a good start... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Like the Yellowstone bit, this is nowhere mentioned by any of the Grant scholars on whose work the article is largely based. Editors justified going beyond the standard sources on the Yellowstone thing because of the park's fame and importance, something that can't be said of Pribilof Island seal hunting. I can't see any way to justify adding this obscure fact to an already over-long article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen has introduced criticism of Grant's "environmental policy", although the modern environmentalist movement did not begin until 1970 Earth Day...this offers balance and neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're saying we should both leave the Pribilofs out and delete the Yellowstone/environmental section in pursuit of "balance," I could be on board with that. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not against criticism of Grant and his "environmental policy"...Grant's could have signed a bill that would have helped saved the Buffalo...he did not...I think a brief discussion of Yellowstone, environmentalism, and the Pribilofs Islands is important...Grant's law specifically protected the Northern Fur seal and violators would be prosecuted and fined...This again was a first in U.S. history just like Yellowstone... Cmguy777 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Many things are "firsts". None of the Grant scholars I've ever read thought this was an important first. We must let the sources, not our own opinions, be our guide. I've already relented on the Yellowstone thing, against my better judgement, because I hoped that you would accept the compromise and let us put an end to this. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, I gave two reliable sources for the Northern Fur Seals reserve Grant started...Presidencial firsts are signifigant...main biographers do not include every detail of Grant's presidency...what information biographers put in their biographies is beyond the scope of this article in my opinion...Wikipedia asks for reliable sources...I gave two...Rjensen put in Waugh's edit with the criticism...No one is discounting the priority of main biographers such as McFeely, Smith, and Brands...but their discussion of Grant's presidency is not complete...and his presidency is extremely understudied...Eight years in office and all you get is Babcock and Belknap in the History books...I appreciate Comgenus allowing the edit on Yellowstone... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think environmental policies past and present are signifigant for presidential articles... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone of those biographies is (and must be) more complete than an encyclopedia entry. Do you actually intend to make this article more comprehensive than all of Grant's biographies? McFeely wrote 522 pages (and won a Pulitzer Prize for it) not including notes and index. Smith wrote 628. Brands wrote 637. Simpson wrote 466 in his first volume alone. Making this more comprehensive than those would make it hundreds and hundreds of pages long. The idea that Grant is understudied is absurd, and the idea that these scholars all missed something that we humble Wikipedians are going to correct is hubristic, not to mention against Wiki policy. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Give an inch, take a mile. All Grant did wrt "conserving" the fur seal was tie up a monopoly for the U.S. in newly-acquired territory.

William Howard Taft was the president who signed a treaty on actually conserving the Pribilof fur seals, but no mention is made of it in his bio. By that time the herd had been nearly exterminated.

A comprehensive 26-page article on Pribilof seal management in The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, Jul., 1965, gives 1911 as the watershed point in conservation, but mentions neither Grant nor Taft. I accessed the full article, but the abstract is sufficient to show Grant was no big player in seal conservation. YoPienso (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of "give an inch . . ."--It was in response to Coemgenus saying he hoped relenting on Yellowstone would stop the flood of trivia into the article. (Not his wording.) I've basically quit on this article because of the amateur nonsense. YoPienso (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso, dealing with all of the POV-pushing, rules-ignoring talk page nonsense here has made me want to quit the whole project a time or two, myself. I hope you'll stick around. The encyclopedia needs good editors. Thanks for your hard work here. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect please don't infer false intentions in the discussion Coemgenus with leading questions...there is no wikipedia policy that states all presidential articles' information must be supplied by biographers...It would be POV to promote certain authors in an article which I do not...I am following wikipedia policies...Here are the reliable sources given: Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, Cmguy, you're not. Read the policies on summary style, article size, and the whole NPOV section, but most especially the section on false equivalency. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy, nobody's disputing the fact that Grant signed that bill; we're disputing its inclusion in this article. Please take a break. YoPienso (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Grant article, as the top level article, should include this information. It might be more important to, say, the article on the negotiation. In view of the breadth the article has to cover, this seems minor.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This same reservation could have been directed at Rjensen's inclusion of Grant's of Waugh's comments.

"the idea of preserving the region’s environment and concerns about industrial pollution were of much less importance to Grant".

This is 21st century speak, usually the product of a narrow/naive perspective, typical of so many so called "modern thinkers". I seriously don't think Grant thought he was promoting "industrial pollution". In any case, mention of the fur seals protection would put this sort of thing in perspective, since this topic (i.e.the environment) is now in the article. Since Waugh's comments are in, we should allow one more sentence to put it into perspective. Waugh tends to slight Grant with her modern day conjecture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I am not supporting a minority view...Neither McFeely, Smith, nor Brands discuss the fur seal trade...Second, Waugh's interpretation statement in the article only includes Yellowstone and does not specifically mention the Fur Seal Trade...I gave three reliable sources following NVOP wikipedia standards...This is no theory...as Gwillhickers mentions...but in fact a fact...Third, Grant signed the Act to prevent the extinction of the Northern Fur Seal Law...Interesting how none of the sources I mentioned are attacked, only the messenger...my edit adds to neutrality of the article...I am stating the facts not the arguments...I hope we can restore some decorum in the talk page...respectfully... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

By this reasoning, how can any true fact about Grant be excluded from the article? Your argument justifies putting any fact about Grant into the article as long as it's attested in any reliable source. Do you understand how this could be a problem? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose by editor concensus...I have not put the edit into the article...Editor concensus leaned in favor of putting information about Yellowstone...I accept Waugh's interpretation...even considering the Grant act prevented the extinction of Fur Bearing Animals...100,000 seals killed a year was considered a low amount...The act did prevent inhumane actions against the seals...This is an obscure law for 1870 standards...I can put this information into the Presidency article...I believe its worth mentioning in the main article...so far editor concensus is divided...I appreciate the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources cited

An act to prevent the Extermination of Fur-bearing Animals in Alaska Pages 180-182 Statutes At Large Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Catalogue Raisonné of the Alaska Commercial Company Collection, Phoebe Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles C. Chester (2006) Conservation Across Borders: Biodiversity in an Interdependent World, page 19 Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Judicial appointments coverage

The four judicial appointments should be mentioned after the cabinet appointments in the Presidency 1869–77 sectoin and not in the Election of 1876 section, as they were all appointed during Grant's first term, some early on. They should also be mentioned/linked in the course of one sentence in the same fashion the other appointments are mentioned. We really don't need a table, used to sort large numbers of names, to present four names. We can use the existing source, Smith, 2001, pp. 507-508, as was originally used. The existing table presents no sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind moving it, if it doesn't squeeze the text. With all the images we have, that makes it tough. I could see moving it to "Gilded Age corruption and reform" near the bottom, or "Foreign affairs" (though that makes even less sense) or maybe "Later Reconstruction and civil rights" if I shift the image there upward a bit. I like the last option best, but I don't care too much either way. I'll be glad to add a citation, too, if you think it needs one, but the facts aren't in dispute, are they? I'm normally a "cite everything" guy, but no one's disputing that Grant nominated those men to the court, right? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gwillhickers: no need for a table, and the appointees should be noted in one sentence farther up in the article. YoPienso (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus here is to make this a sentence instead of a table, I'll be glad to take care of that today. I have the sources sitting here on my desk, so it's no trouble. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind, with a comment about perhaps the most notable events concerning two of the judges, to be placed under the existing paragraph covering cabinet appointments.

Grant appointed four Justices to the Supreme Court during his first term: William Strong, Joseph P. Bradley, Ward Hunt and Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite. Hunt voted to uphold Reconstruction laws while Waite did much to undermine them.

Also, do you think we should add (restore) a subsection heading for all the appointments. i.e.Presidential appointments. This would make coverage par (+ -) with other presidential articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the above sentence is good for the article giving information that the Waite Court undermined Reconstruction laws... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus, Yopienso, and Cmguy777: -- Okay, I'll go ahead and add the above as proposed. I don't think this will crowd the text, as we're just adding this below the existing paragraph covering cabinet appointments. I'll use Smith, pp.507-508, and McFeely pp.387-389 for the cites. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed "in his first term", because Waite was appointed in the second term. I'll double-check the sources tonight. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the Smith cite so it's accurate. I think we could lose the second sentence. Without a longer discussion (which we don't have room for) it just feels incomplete and cursory. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus:The sentence touching on reconstruction is probably among the most definitive statements in terms of what these Judicial appointees did, and leads right into the following section: Later Reconstruction and civil rights. I would at least give the readers that, per what one would expect from a FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• The Presidency 1869–77 doesn't have much of an opening statement (i.e.doesn't even mention Chief Justice Chase who swore Grant in) and begins with a detail mentioning Johnson. The following seems like a better opening, which includes a couple of missing definitive details, followed by the Johnson statement, all covered by the existing ref, McFeely.:

On March 4, 1869, following a 22-gun salute, Grant, with his hand over the bible, was sworn in as the eighteenth President of the United States by Chief Justice Salmon Chase. Indifferent to public attention Grant's mother chose not to attend the swearing in ceremony. In a break from tradition, Johnson also did not attend the inauguration at the Capitol or ride with him as he departed the White House for the last time. <McFeely, pp.287-288>

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I could see something like this being a reasonable addition. Let's try some different drafts here on talk over the next couple days. Maybe "On March 4, 1869, Grant was sworn in as president by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. Indifferent to public attention, Grant's mother chose not to attend the ceremony. In a break from tradition, Johnson also did not attend the inauguration, nor did Grant ride with him as he departed the White House for the last time." --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Johnson did not ride with Grant who stopped by the White House...Johnson refused to go to the Inauguration... Cmguy777 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Johnson wouldn't go to the inauguration because Grant refused to ride in the same carriage as him, as was customary, because he hated Johnson and it was reciprocated. The proposed language would be good if we had the luxury of room to use it, but as it (except for the bit about Johnson and Grant's enmity) doesn't tell any major point about Grant, I think it has to be dispensed with. I think there should be a straightforward, one sentence account of the difficulty between Grant and Johnson, and that should be enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is already content covering differences between Grant and Johnson. All we are saying (and need to say) here however is that Johnson did not ride with Grant. And why not mention the 22 gun salute and Grant's hand over the bible? This was the swearing in ceremony -- and this is supposed to be the opening statement to the entire Presidency section. We're not writing an inventory report, we're writing a biography. Good writing and coverage seems to be taking a back seat to page length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant rode up to the White House to pick up Johnson who refused to ride with Grant...Johnson hated Grant more then Grant hated Johnson... Cmguy777 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Naming of Ulysses

As this is Grant's biography it seems mention of the following would be appropriate in the Early life section:

Ulysses' was not given a name until he was almost a month old. Parents and relatives all had their own ideas for his name. Not wanting to offend anyone, Ulysses' father Jesse decided that all the suggestions for his name be placed in a hat and at a family gathering 'Hiram' and 'Ulysses' were selected by chance. <Simpson, 2000, pp.2-3>

Imo, this topic seems more appropriate for inclusion than the dozens of minor details in many of the sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel like you know what I'm going to say already: because of space concerns, it's best to keep minor details like this in the subarticle, etc., etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This conflicts with the view the Grant's grandmother was a fan of the Greek classics and called him Ulysses...If there is contradiction then the information is best left out...i.e. Grant's baptism... Cmguy777 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the views of both Coemgenus and Cmguy777. Set the wrong tone if we began by asserting fact a disputed point, and if we can expand the article by that number of characters, it should be on military or presidential affairs, not on his infancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention of baptism here. In any case, this is a basic biographical topic, not just some minor detail. As this is the main Grant article, it's supposed to cover well not only his military career and terms as president but Grant the person, esp in relation to his family. For indepth and detailed coverage we have the dedicated articles. This main article however is supposed to appreciably overlap with them all. If someone manages to trim some of the many minor details in some of the larger sections it would be nice if we could then include this basic topic. It's unfortunate that many of these minor details are what's preventing us from including several basic topics and details to this biography. e.g. Shouldn't most of what's in the Foreign affairs section be in the Grant presidency article? Why is it so very long while we can't even mention basic topics like this? In any case, if we can do some trimming I'd recommend getting this topic into the article. It's not some minor detail -- it's how Grant got his name. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the reader is really more interested in Grant's middle initial than his first name. Do we care how Rutherford Hayes got his first name? Millard Fillmore? Warren G. Harding? I wonder if this matter could be the subject of a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant's name is important and not a minor detail...I agree with that...but just as baptism was in dispute and taken out of the article then if Grant's name origin is in dispute then that should be left out of the article too...which is true? Grant was named by drawing names or was he named by his grandmother...If the facts are in dispute I think best to leave out of the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the main article, Grant's biography. Even if Grant was simply named after his father it should be included/mentioned (after the review). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)