Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 35
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ulysses S. Grant. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Stability
Since the FA approval the article has gone through numerous improvements. This is not to say it wasn't FA material to begin with. However, it seems we've reached a point where the article can't get much more comprehensive without pushing the page length limit to uncomfortable proportions. We've already moved a major section, but the article, little by little, is growing to its former size. It seems we should at long last limit our editing here to any needed corrections of spelling, dates, redundant/erroneous cites, etc. When Chernow comes out with his Grant biography in October we can always consider adding any new facts or other perspectives perhaps overlooked by the others. At this point we might want to make any last, and truly needed, proposals and let the article rest. We've been at it here for a number of years now, and we can't go on forever adding, trimming, adding, trimming... Until page length guidelines assumes more practical and larger proportions, we should allow the article to settle into a stable presentation. We certainly can't post a 'No-new-content' sign, but it seems we should let the article finally settle into a stable reference for students and history buffs. Something to think about at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. We should add nothing unless there is some groundbreaking new scholarship (which Chernow probably won't have). I'd like to trim down to 100kb again (we're at 104!) but I'm not in any hurry and I don't plan to make large edits without consensus. To keep editing here, especially when it means having the same old arguments year after year, doesn't improve the encyclopedia. There are so many more articles that could use an editor's attention! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have been working on other articles John C. Frémont and most recently Alphonso Taft. I respectfully disagree about letting "the article rest." Not because I want to balloon it out of proportion. I think activity on an article makes it better and brings in other editor's opinions. I am not against trimming down the article as long as content is kept. Grant is going through a revival in research, especially in light of the Chernow Grant biography to come out in October 2017. I agree that all sections in the Grant article could use some tightening up. Major changes should have editor concensus. Any new biography on Grant will give better understanding into Grant that can't be ignored. Let's say Chernow gives a better understanding into Grant corruption. Maybe that new information could be used to tighten up the Gilded Age section, not expand it. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm hoping Chernow will help the article, but no one can say either way until they read the book. Let's remember, there is, or never has been, any urgent need to trim the article down, so let's keep that in mind. After all these years, other than ourselves, no one has ever made an issue of the article's length, even when it was much longer than it is now. Though it was mentioned, page length as a guideline was never held over our head as a condition for FA approval, so there's no reason why we should make deletions for page length alone. We have made hundreds of trims and deletions. There's only so much "tightening up" we can do to the grammar. If we continue we will be removing context and comprehensiveness and the account will become dry and stale, not engaging and well written, per FA requirements. I am comfortable with the content and length as it is, but again, feel we should not increase it much further, if at all. Again, any additions should include new facts or new perspectives.
As for editing for the sake of bringing in other opinions, that's rarely ever happened, and that is not why we edit -- we edit for the readers. 99% of our edits have not produced any comments from other editors. Even when we ping them they rarely respond. Besides our selves and an occasional editor, the only ones reading this article are the readers, so let's keep them at the top on our list of priorities. Imo, our biography of Grant is the best single account of Grant available on the internet, by far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm hoping Chernow will help the article, but no one can say either way until they read the book. Let's remember, there is, or never has been, any urgent need to trim the article down, so let's keep that in mind. After all these years, other than ourselves, no one has ever made an issue of the article's length, even when it was much longer than it is now. Though it was mentioned, page length as a guideline was never held over our head as a condition for FA approval, so there's no reason why we should make deletions for page length alone. We have made hundreds of trims and deletions. There's only so much "tightening up" we can do to the grammar. If we continue we will be removing context and comprehensiveness and the account will become dry and stale, not engaging and well written, per FA requirements. I am comfortable with the content and length as it is, but again, feel we should not increase it much further, if at all. Again, any additions should include new facts or new perspectives.
- This article, that was edited into existance, generated 33 talk archives. I would say this article has produced comments from other editors. There was a dispute over General Orders #11 that was resolved. Grant's life on the Pacific Coast generated discussion, especially about his drinking. Edits keep the article active and with Chernow 2017 book coming out in October, I don't think it is time to stop the editing. I think the Gilded age section needs work, maybe other sections. If we stop editing how can the Grant article be kept up to date and current. What makes Wikipedia great is its open editing format. Nobody is to control the article. It uses reliable sourcing. It's instant publication. It adapts to the times. It is commercial free, so far. Hopefully it can remain so. This article is written for information purposes only, not to sell books, and it is free to the reader, no subscription demands, donation only. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't expect anyone to "stop editing", just, at this late date, be very selective of what they add, and trim so we can have an article that is more stable. One of the many criticisms that is often made about Wikipedia is that its articles are not reliable as a reference because too often their sections morph from one form to another with little regard for the narrative. I've seen the same phenomena occur during GA and FA reviews, which is why I don't nominate articles, except for DYK. Makes no difference to the readers anyway. Most don't even know what a FA is. I'm sorry that's the way I see it, and feel WP needs a fair number of reforms in the way things are allowed to occur during the editing process.
Anyway, if there were no guideline limits on page length, which are flexible, but not too flexible, I would say add context to your heart's content, just as long as it's not tangential or redundant. And trimming for the sake of page length alone is also against guidelines and frankly is an affront to comprehensive and good writing. My comments about editing for the sake of discussion were in regards to your original statement, i.e."brings in other editor's opinions", which rarely happens. Again, I've no problem with adding new material, or improving a section if it really needs it. However, imo, the article, and the talk page, need to be more stable. I look forward to Chernow's book, but I fear as we add material from it on the one hand, information is just going to disappear on the other. We need to be aware that sometimes we tend to play musical chairs with the content. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)- I trimmed the Gilded Age section. I used Simon (2002) as a guideline to help article stability. Information on Civil Service Commission was covered in Election of 1872 section. That was removed. I removed unspecific and unsourced information. Tightened up narration. If I remember correctly Grant achieved FA prior to White (2016) and now Chernow (2017). The addition of biographers in the Grant revival makes it more difficult just to let the Article remain as it was when it first became Featured. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't expect anyone to "stop editing", just, at this late date, be very selective of what they add, and trim so we can have an article that is more stable. One of the many criticisms that is often made about Wikipedia is that its articles are not reliable as a reference because too often their sections morph from one form to another with little regard for the narrative. I've seen the same phenomena occur during GA and FA reviews, which is why I don't nominate articles, except for DYK. Makes no difference to the readers anyway. Most don't even know what a FA is. I'm sorry that's the way I see it, and feel WP needs a fair number of reforms in the way things are allowed to occur during the editing process.
- Restored everything. We were discussing stability, etc and you go off and make major changes, deletions and revisions to a feature article without a discussion, with a number of points of comprehensiveness scattered to the wind. As usual, talking with you is mostly a waste of time. If there is redundant info' please point it out. Much of the info you trashed was with us when the article passed FA. If there is consensus for all the changes you made, fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers. Those were good faith edits. The current text is very confusing to the reader and has duplicate unsubstantiated information. You readded unsourced information. How can that be FA ? I don't need concensus to make edits in the article. The edits were not major at all. Just streamlining the section. McDonald being released from prison is unsourced. Grant's other "reforms" are unsourced. Kohn makes an unsubstantiated claim that Grant pardoned many ring members in a short time. Very unstable and unreliable. Does not name names. Who were these people that Grant pardoned ? You mentioned stability, you just remade the article unstable. I stabilized the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Proposed, not demanded, was the idea of stability and letting the article settle, limiting our edits to new facts, perspectives and truly needed improvements -- and this is the time you chose to make more changes at one time then you ever have in some time. Any unsourced items should have been sourced -- not outright removed. My proposal was also an offer of compromise. i.e.While no one would be adding major context, no major trimming of context, etc would be occurring either, again, unless errors, etc are involved. If there is something truly redundant, would you please cite both passages? You were also removing much of the context, e.g. • Grant freeing Ring members after a few months in prison.. (which explains many of the notions of Grant defending corruption -- comprehensive. There was no call to outright remove it.) , • advancing public -schools for all children... • Blaine Amendment, stopping federal funding to religious schools, etc. There was more. These were all landmark items credited to Grant -- items that have been with the article since before it was promoted to FA. Poof! -- gone without discussion. This is your approach to stability? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have been working on other articles John C. Frémont and most recently Alphonso Taft. I respectfully disagree about letting "the article rest." Not because I want to balloon it out of proportion. I think activity on an article makes it better and brings in other editor's opinions. I am not against trimming down the article as long as content is kept. Grant is going through a revival in research, especially in light of the Chernow Grant biography to come out in October 2017. I agree that all sections in the Grant article could use some tightening up. Major changes should have editor concensus. Any new biography on Grant will give better understanding into Grant that can't be ignored. Let's say Chernow gives a better understanding into Grant corruption. Maybe that new information could be used to tighten up the Gilded Age section, not expand it. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Without much difficulty I sourced the Blaine Amendment statement. Also, Grant freeing ring members like McDonald is sourced, Kohn, 2000, p.417, but the book is not searchable on line, which doesn't automatically mean the source is in error. However, I found a better source, Cooper, 2016. If we can not find a source for an item it should be removed, of course, but we should at least make the attempt, esp for items that were FA approved. Imo, you rushed into matters, and apparently only because the idea of 'stability' was mentioned, which you interpreted as to mean "stop editing". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Kohn 2000 says Grant pardoned members of the Whiskey Ring without names it is an unsubstantiated statement made to make Grant look like a crook. Also Kohn 2000 is not accurate or misleading since McDonald was released 17 months later. That is not a few months.That makes the article unstable as do unsourced sentences. Civil Service was covered in the Election of 1872 section but is repeated in the Gilded Age section. Why repeat Civil Service ? What urked me is that I felt none of my edits mattered and there was cencorship. I have no issue mentioning Grant pardoned McDonald. I appreciate you Gwillhickers finding the Cooper 2016 source. Biographers focus primarily on Grant and Babcock since Babcock was actually in the White House. Wikipedia wants editors to be bold. This is not a book. No editor or editors have a right to control the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Without much difficulty I sourced the Blaine Amendment statement. Also, Grant freeing ring members like McDonald is sourced, Kohn, 2000, p.417, but the book is not searchable on line, which doesn't automatically mean the source is in error. However, I found a better source, Cooper, 2016. If we can not find a source for an item it should be removed, of course, but we should at least make the attempt, esp for items that were FA approved. Imo, you rushed into matters, and apparently only because the idea of 'stability' was mentioned, which you interpreted as to mean "stop editing". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I said, I have no issues with the removal of redundant statements, or statements that can't be sourced after attempts to do so have been made. An error here or there doesn't make the article unstable. Besides, my reference to 'stability' wasn't meant to be anything of an alarm, it was just some advice I was hoping would be considered. Also, sometimes a fact is repeated more than once when it relates to different matters and is worded so. So let's be careful we don't delete an item so incorporated into the narrative more than once. And please stop with this "editor control". I have not done anything you haven't done before on several occasions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Article Ownership Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently you didn't read this passage -- Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
editbreak3
Cm' for whatever it's worth, one of your edits was fine, and I restored it, as it's better worded and links to an informative article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Gwillhickers. My only intent was to tighten up the language and remove unsourced information. Kohn 2000 says Grant pardoned persons after their conviction and imprisonment, not naming who. McDonald the ring leader was in prison 17 months, not a few months, so I thought Kohn's reliablity regarding pardoning maybe in question. I appreciate you readding one of my edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- While I am at it, McDonald in his book was angry at Grant for not releasing him sooner, and he believed Grant would. That would go against that Grant was eager to pardon convicted criminals regarding the Whiskey Ring. Maybe Chernow (2017) can clean that section up. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- If there are two significant points of view we should say so, giving weight of course to any majority of sources that maintain a particular view. That is one of the assets of Wikipedia articles, they are not from one source, written by one editor. I suppose there is no end to improvement, but I remain weary of new info appearing while other info disappears. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Here is the dilemna. Grant prosecutes his own party, I take that McDonald was a Republican and most of persons involved were Republicans. Grant gets no credit for that. The Kohn (2000), a somewhat dated source, only says Grant pardoned the culprits in a few months. The prison system back then was not the same as today, wearing prison garb and hard labor. I doubt if those men had a cushioned cell or any privileges. Kohn makes Grant sound like a crook. Maybe it is best just to use biographers concerning corruption, or possibly any author who has written exclusively on presidential corruption charges. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Presently I am involved in other readings. Corruption as it concerns Grant is largely a subjective subject as we know Grant, though not a saint, was inherently an honest man as most common folks tend to be, and died struggling to provide for his wife right up to the end. Not a rich man, ever. In such cases, it's best to simply relate the facts and let reader's opinions fall where they may. Evidently this is going to involve a bit of comparison reading. After you sift through the conjecture and any ad'hom, just present the facts, and stay away from what 'Simon says' aside from those facts. I like to think that the section already covers most of the bases, and that it will not morph into another presentation, but that will be your call. If there is anything added that is off the mark, or over emphasized, I'm sure between the lot of us someone will say so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Here is the dilemna. Grant prosecutes his own party, I take that McDonald was a Republican and most of persons involved were Republicans. Grant gets no credit for that. The Kohn (2000), a somewhat dated source, only says Grant pardoned the culprits in a few months. The prison system back then was not the same as today, wearing prison garb and hard labor. I doubt if those men had a cushioned cell or any privileges. Kohn makes Grant sound like a crook. Maybe it is best just to use biographers concerning corruption, or possibly any author who has written exclusively on presidential corruption charges. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- If there are two significant points of view we should say so, giving weight of course to any majority of sources that maintain a particular view. That is one of the assets of Wikipedia articles, they are not from one source, written by one editor. I suppose there is no end to improvement, but I remain weary of new info appearing while other info disappears. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- The main issue with Grant is that the Lost Cause and Dunning School have done much to destroy his reputation. The revival of Grant's biography is attempting to correct that. I believe it is essential to be as accurte at possible concerning corruption. Who did Grant pardon ? We know for sure one was McDonald, but that was after 17 months in prison. McDonald was apparently sick or exhausted from forced labor. The article is written as if Grant is the only President to have pardoned anyone. I think it is obvious the crooks took advantage of Grant's trusting nature. It does not explain why Grant so readily accepted their feeble defenses. I think historians view Grant's trusting nature as some sort of a character flaw and that is ultimately why they don't rank him high as President. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- This may explain why Grant was so trusting. Why are some people more trusting than others? Blame their brains. Rebecca Slack (October 15, 2014) Washington Post Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- The Corruption' section seems inclusive of the important facts. You seem to be more involved with reputation here, which is fine, but lets remember to keep these ideas covered in their respective sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- This may explain why Grant was so trusting. Why are some people more trusting than others? Blame their brains. Rebecca Slack (October 15, 2014) Washington Post Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- With Grant, corruption charges have historically been linked with his reputation. Chernow (2017) might address this link and answer why Grant was so trusting. It is not just trust, but why was Grant so protective of his subordinates such as Babcock, Belknap, and Robeson. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Grant's reputation is more rooted in his military life. This is where he became world famous. His presidency, for better or worse, was just a continuation of his already established legacy and reputation. Nine out of ten people will know Grant defeated Lee and won the Civil War. Mention Reconstruction or Credit Mobilier, and no doubt most will say, 'whaaat'? Also, Grant's trusting nature isn't anything of a mystery yet uncovered. He was trusting for the usual reasons as anyone else might be. e.g.Good upbringing, good natured, etc. Nothing unusual or mysterious. Regardless, we simply say what the sources say. Let's stay focused and get back to the Corruption' section, where we already mention Grant's trusting nature. Do you feel all the important facts have been covered? I would like to improve the article in any area that may need it. If Chernow offers us anything new, on any topic, we'll certainly consider including it here.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Chernow (2017) might give a long overdue assessment of Grant and corruption during his administration. But remember Grant was duped in California, Oregon and Washington territories. Why did he trust the likes of Babcock and Ward ? Grant was president for eight years. He is ranked for his presidency not his military career and as far as I know Grant gets no points for being a general. All I want for the corruption section is that is be accurate and neutral. To say that Grant pardoned person's in the Whiskey Ring is really saying Grant was part of the Ring and he got the crooks out of jail. That is not neutral. I am hoping Chernow (2017) gives more insight into the Whiskey Ring. Gwillhickers, I made edit changes that I believe made the section stronger. These were deleted except one. I think the corruption section needs more clarification and maybe Chernow (2017) can provide this. Grant was in charge of Washington D.C. for awhile when it was changed into a territory. That could possibly be added. Shephard, a Grant appointment, may have been involved in graft. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- If we're simply relating the facts, while not ignoring other facts, then there's no neutrality issue here. Our wording is straight forward enough it seems, so there's no neutrality issue there either. Grant no doubt trusted Babcock and the others because they gave him no reason not to, until it was too late. Yes, we can see what Chernow will offer, but don't expect that he has reinvented the wheel on that note. -- We'll see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- While I am at it, McDonald in his book was angry at Grant for not releasing him sooner, and he believed Grant would. That would go against that Grant was eager to pardon convicted criminals regarding the Whiskey Ring. Maybe Chernow (2017) can clean that section up. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Simpson, 2000 or 2014?
In the Bibliography the listing for Simpon's work links to a 2014 printing, and the book I own is also dated as such. Are we using a convention where we always use the original date of publication? If so then our source listing should link to this publication. However, when you click on 'View Book' in the red box it will go back to the 2014 work. Maybe it's best we list it as 2014 and include an '|orig-year=2000' parameter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- In my view it is best to put in the original date 2000. We have no idea if there were any edit changes, unless specifically said so by the author. If there are no mention of changes by the author then the original date is best. Copyright renewal has more to do with protecting the work and selling books. If there are no changes to the book, but just the copyright year, then the original year is more honest. The reader could think the book is 2014 and modern research, when in fact nothing has changed since 2000 publication. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wiki standard is to put the actual publication date. It's the only thing that makes the links work. Origdate gives an error message. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I meant to say orig-year, which exists in the source listing, with no errors occurring. Yes, 'orig-date' would cause an error because it's not part of the markup for the cite book template. Anyway, if we are getting our info from the 2014 publication we should use that as I should have in my recent edit. Most reprints are just that. If there are any changes made it usually says so up front, and I don't see that in my 2014 book. If the reader want's to inquire further into our source listing, it provides the original year (orig-year). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. It's usually identical, anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- The original date should be included regardless of Google link. It's misleading to the reader who thinks the book is originally printed in 2014. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the google link, it's the internal wikilink. And the 2014 edition was printed in 2014. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- ...while the original date of publication, which can be significant, is in the source listing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the google link, it's the internal wikilink. And the 2014 edition was printed in 2014. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- The original date should be included regardless of Google link. It's misleading to the reader who thinks the book is originally printed in 2014. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. It's usually identical, anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- On the harv source if 2000 is put in at the publication year and that same year is put in the reference it will link. Reprinting does not change the date of the original publication research. 2014 sounds more modern than 2000. The reader will think it was originally published in 2014 rather then 2000. If the reader understands 2014 is only a reprint, I don't have a problem with that. Putting in the original date would solve that. When I have boughten a book the first thing I look at is the publication date. When was it published. If there is a book How to build a house published originally in 1890, but is was reprinted in 2017 certainly things in that book would be outdated. I don't want to make a big deal of the date though. These are just my opinions. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I meant to say orig-year, which exists in the source listing, with no errors occurring. Yes, 'orig-date' would cause an error because it's not part of the markup for the cite book template. Anyway, if we are getting our info from the 2014 publication we should use that as I should have in my recent edit. Most reprints are just that. If there are any changes made it usually says so up front, and I don't see that in my 2014 book. If the reader want's to inquire further into our source listing, it provides the original year (orig-year). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wiki standard is to put the actual publication date. It's the only thing that makes the links work. Origdate gives an error message. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
If we can get both dates into a 'sfn' citation with no errors that would be nice. Bear in mind that all the existing cites for Simpson read 2014. As for what sounds 'modern' also bear in mind that history after Martin Luther and the Reformation (1517 AD) is considered modern history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Very true but if it is said the Reformation took place in 2017 AD that would be a lie. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Let's keep our line straight. We're talking about dates of publication for a source, not an event. Again, if you go to the google page for the 2000 publication and click on 'View book' it will go to the 2014 publication. Both publications are the same. The span of 14 years is rather insignificant in terms of history. i.e. Grant's original Memoirs are dated 1885. Recent publications of Memoirs do not change anything in terms of content. If there was a difference in the content there would be an issue. My issue was only with a citation convention used here. Are you up to the task of getting both dates into the Simpson cites, per 'sfn'? If not, 2014 is quite adequate, with orig-year in the source listing, which links to the 2014 publication. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- We are talking about an event of publication. I don't want to make a big deal of this. Now if the book has the original publication date, then I don't have any issues, and if the reader has access to this original publication date, again, no issues there. It is my impression that the "average" reader will believe the book is originally published in 2014 when in fact the book was originally published in 2000. Maybe there is no way around this under current Wikipedia editing. 14 years is a long time in this digital age of technology and research. I have no issue with putting both dates original and current in the listing if the book is a reprint. Between 2001 and 2017 Grant's reputation has gone through a positive revival. 2000 was before this revival. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- The current sourcing has the original publication date. I don't have an issue with the way it is dated in the article. Putting in the current/original publication dates format is fine and I think makes a good compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- You referred to the Reformation, a landmark historical event, and the idea of claiming it occurred at a different date. Big difference. However, if the contents of a publication hasn't changed in a mere 14 years then the consideration is only academic. Article content here remains the same, regardless of which publication we refer to. Both dates are and have been included in the source listing which the cites link to. The only real issue here is the citation convention we use in a Featured Article. Again, if you can get both dates into a sfn citation for the any reprint publications, I've no objections, as it would satisfy all concerns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- The current sourcing has the original publication date. I don't have an issue with the way it is dated in the article. Putting in the current/original publication dates format is fine and I think makes a good compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to do that getting both dates in an sfn reference citation. I don't think it is necessary. You initially referred to the Reformation Gwillhickers. Publication is an event either in book form or on the Internet. We are waiting for Chernow (2017) publication. That is an event. Things have changed a lot for Grant between 2001 and 2017. Biographers are much more appreciative of Grant and possibly more sympathetic, unlike McFeely (1981), who said there was nothing special about Grant. Putting in the original date of publication in the source is good. It lets the reader know it is a reprinted book. That is all that matters. Again. I think it is fine as long as the original publication date is in the source. It does not have to be in the reference. I don't mind if 2014 is in the reference. I think things are good the way it is now. It really is not that big of a deal. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- It is ironic was are talking about the Reformation, a revolution of the printing press and book or doctrine printing. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Covering the Reformation with the claim it occurred in 2017 would be a flat out falsehood. Comparing that error to citing a book that was printed in 2014, with its orgi-year linked to, is hardly an analogy. e.g. If you are going to make an analogy between two people, they have to have more in common than parting their hair on the left. Grant Scholarship has not changed much since Brands, with no new facts to speak of, if any at all. McFeely only criticizes Grant on a few points, not overall, and hasn't presented any new facts either. The only thing that changes are opinions and they have remained generally the same since the late 20th century, which is a moot point for purposes of this discussion. Both the 2000 and 2014 books are identical, page per page, with the same number of pages of text.
The only other cite that uses the current printing date is for Hesseline, with its orig year of 1935, while our cites read 1957. If there is more than a marginal consensus, we can use citations with orig and reprint dates using the standard citation format :
<ref>[[#simpson|Simpson, 2000 / 2014]], p. 123</ref>, -- which would read like so: [1]
- Very true but if it is said the Reformation took place in 2017 AD that would be a lie. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Simpson, 2000 / 2014, p. 123
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hesseline should have the original date in the source, but not the reference. Otherwise people will think Hesseline wrote his book in 1957. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Of course. Is there a consensus to list both dates using the standard citation format? Bear in mind, 99% of the readers don't investigate the sources. At least that is my speculation. When was the last time you saw a reader chime in about a cite/source listing? Ever? However, it wouldn't hurt to list both dates just in case 'Grant's' great, great nephew drops in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think only one person wants to change it. That doesn't look like a consensus to alter this article, especially in a way that would make it different from most other articles on here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Of course. Is there a consensus to list both dates using the standard citation format? Bear in mind, 99% of the readers don't investigate the sources. At least that is my speculation. When was the last time you saw a reader chime in about a cite/source listing? Ever? However, it wouldn't hurt to list both dates just in case 'Grant's' great, great nephew drops in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hesseline should have the original date in the source, but not the reference. Otherwise people will think Hesseline wrote his book in 1957. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- The reader should know the original date of publication or at least have access to the original publication date. I did not start this discussion. When I buy a book I always look at the publication date(s) to see if it is a reprint or actual modern research. I don't mind if the reference date is the later date, but the source should have the original date of publication. How can editor concensus be taken when only three editors have made comments ? My view is that reader reads 1957 and thinks that is when it was originally published, rather than 1935. Putting in the orginal date of publication would prevent this misunderstanding. Making fun of my opinions Gwillhickers does not help. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Cm', my intention was not to make fun of anyone's opinions, only to illustrate the unlikely event of investigating a given source with a touch of mild humor, and I don't appreciate the accusation, which only compounds the already long talk we've had on the issue. In any event, the sources in question do note the orig-year. I was willing to go along if there was a clear consensus. So far it doesn't look that way. Again, the source listing notes the orig-year as well as the current printing date, for any inquisitive reader, with any problems for them assumed. e.g.Hesseline has been cited with the reprinting date since before FA promotion, years, and not one reader or editor has chimed in with a complaint of being 'confused' or 'misled'. Since there are only two sources that are so listed, this is really not a pressing issue. Let's move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers, I understand you were being humorous, but felt the humor was directed at me. I don't need any concensus to have my opinion on the matter. I am for the original date in the sourcing to avoid confusion of reprinting versus original date. I was not part of the FA article discussion or promotion. We can go on to other subjects. Since McFeely renewed his copyright it might be good to use renewed date and original printing if it feasible to make changes in the references. Most of those McFeely dates could be 1981, not the renewed copyright date. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
No one said you had to have consensus to have an opinion. Let's not confuse a reprinting, a duplication of the original work, with a new version, a work that includes new or changed content. Again, so long as we note orig and reprinting dates in the source listing there shouldn't be any issue to speak of here. I'm sorry I brought this up. On retrospect, after I thanked Coemgenus for restoring the changed date I should have just kept my mouth shut -- we've given the issue as much 'talk' as might be due a controversial content dispute. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ulysses S. Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207022013/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=211&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=211&ResourceType=Building
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218061916/http://www.siupress.com/%28S%28wuqusq55fmqvar2krndv353s%29%29/Catalog/ProductSearch.aspx?ExtendedSearch=false&SearchOnLoad=true&rhl=U%20S%20Grant%20Papers&sj=1009&rhdcid=1009&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 to http://www.siupress.com/Catalog/ProductSearch.aspx?ExtendedSearch=false&SearchOnLoad=true&rhl=U%20S%20Grant%20Papers&sj=1009&rhdcid=1009&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Chernow book review
Chernow has been getting good reviews for his upcoming book in October. Though I haven't seen anything that suggests Chernow has unveiled anything new, he's getting good points for his indepth coverage. This review mentions :
- "Chernow emphasizes that Grant was disastrously lacking in cynicism. Loyal to friends and susceptible to shady characters, he was an easy mark, and he was fleeced regularly throughout his life. In this sympathetic biography, the author continues the revival of Grant’s reputation."
Perhaps Chernow will give proportionately more coverage to Grant's presidency than the other biographers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- I hope Chernow will give more details possibly in Grant's relationship to Babcock or more details into corruption. Maybe more details on Grant pardoning McDonald, or naming prominant names of who was in the Whiskey Ring, who was prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and pardoned. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Chernow's Grant biography is 1104 pages and its ISBN is 159420487X (ISBN13: 9781594204876) published by the Penguin Press. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to see the difference between Chernow and McFeely's coverage of Grant's involvement with the various presidential affairs. McFeely is esp critical of Grant about Reconstruction, one man against half a country (the former Confederacy). Among the first things I will check into (once I purchase Chernow's book) is his account of Grant ala Reconstruction. If there's anything there to speak of, hopefully we can cover it with a sentence or two in the Historical reputation section, and ultimately further coverage in the dedicated article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- This looks like a thoroughly researched book. Chernow is a Pulitzer author too like McFeely. At over 1,000 pages that is a good thing. Maybe more on Grant's cabinet and corruption charges. I hope each of Grant's cabinet members gets read time in his book. Have to wait and find out until the release date in October. I can't find any excerpts from the book. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Let's be careful not to expect too much, and not look for ways to say 'Chernow says' in the article. Believe me, I'm inclined to do so as much as the next editor. Any truly new perspectives, and of course facts, are welcomed. Also, we can use the source to corroborate other sources, or to upgrade any sources that may need it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- White's (2016) American Ulysses book is 826 pages. Chernow's (2017) Grant book is 1,104 pages. That is 278 pages of extra material. I think it is a good bet something useful or new is in the material, but until the book comes out, have to wait and see. Don't worry. I am realistic. I won't count chickens unitl they hatch. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to see the difference between Chernow and McFeely's coverage of Grant's involvement with the various presidential affairs. McFeely is esp critical of Grant about Reconstruction, one man against half a country (the former Confederacy). Among the first things I will check into (once I purchase Chernow's book) is his account of Grant ala Reconstruction. If there's anything there to speak of, hopefully we can cover it with a sentence or two in the Historical reputation section, and ultimately further coverage in the dedicated article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- McFeely's (1981) Grant book is 592 pages. Smith's (2001) Grant book is 781 pages. Brands' (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union book is 718 pages. McFeely's (1981) Grant book is a little over half (54% rounded up) the page numbers as Chernow's (2017) Grant book. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, with more than 1000 pages it looks like Chernow knew he had some tough acts to follow and went the extra distance. Hopefully this will materialize into new and at least added perspectives. Since Grant's reputation took on less than favorable proportions mainly due to his presidency, and since some reviews note that Chernow lends us a "sympathetic biography", it would seem there will be more than average coverage of Grant's presidency. Chernow's bibliography may also be revealing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I added the Chernow Grant biography to the article bibliography. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers, there is no wikipedia rule that says you can't put in a source, Chernow (2017), before its publication date. It has an ISBN number. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Chernow's Grant biography is 1104 pages and its ISBN is 159420487X (ISBN13: 9781594204876) published by the Penguin Press. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The New Yorker book review
I found a book review of Chernow's book Grant from The New Yorker (October 2, 2017 issue) by Adam Gopnik Pour One Out for Ulysses S. Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Gopnik actually read Chernow's Grant book before its October 10, 2017 publication date. Chernow presents Grant as an alchoholic whose overbearing father Jesse, stifled Grant's ambition to succeed, forcing Grant to be outwardly quiet and obediant, but inwardly rebellious. The Civil War turns Grant's life around. Chernow focuses more on Grant's presidency. I think that is a good thing. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm reading it now (one of my jobs is writing book reviews). I don't think that's exactly what the book says, but there is a good deal of focus on alcoholism. As to this article: let's wait until the book is published and editors have a chance to read it! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- All I had to go by was the Gopnik article. I won't be able to have access to the book until the publishing date. I appreciate Coemgenus, letting editors know you do book reviews. I am hoping the book expands on his presidency. Are you allowed to use the book for editing or do you have to wait until the publishing date ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be inappropriate. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's fine. I understand. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Most accounts portray Grant's father, Jesse, as industrious and well disciplined, having come from a poor family, and that he passed these qualities, (e.g.strong-willed, determined, unpretentious, etc) on to Ulysses. Though Ulysses was not successful at business, this doesn't necessarily mean his ambition was "stifled". Ulysses demonstrated ambition and ability from his youth, with horses, driving supply wagons and passengers many miles when he was still a boy, and during the Mexican War, where he several times demonstrated heroism and determination. While Jesse was outspoken in his political and social views, esp slavery, and was sometimes meddlesome, I don't recall him being "overbearing" toward Ulysses. When Ulysses told his father he hated working in the tannery, his father got him other work. This rather definitive fact, among others, doesn't fit any notion of "overbearing" or dominant. If this is the premise Chernow has taken in regards to Jesse it will be interesting to see on what facts he bases such an opinion. Also, if Chernow holds some unusual opinions we will of course have to give proportionate weight to coverage of his opinion in the Reputation' section. That his book is simply the latest only gives it so much weight by itself, so again, let's not presume Chernow has reinvented the wheel on any given topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have the book. It's not suppose to be published until the 10 October 2017. It seems certain persons are given books for making book reviews such as Coemgenus, before the book is published. I think it is obvious Grant's main issue was being trusting. The crooks knew he was trusting and took advantage of him. Chernow should give us a better understanding of Grant's relationship with his father. I am a little more familar how books are published. I think not posting the book on the Penguin website builds anticipation for the book. Unlike movies there are no trailers or previews for books. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, have you looked into Chernow's Bibliography yet? I'm hoping there's sources there that have not been considered by the others and that this will lend itself to an account, at least somewhat, unlike the others -- esp where the Presidential and otherwise controversial issues are concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- No new sources, as far as I can tell. His interpretation is simialr to White's so far, though he does focus more on the alcohol issue. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose upon reading the book I'll see for myself, but anticipation being what it is, can you tell us if Chernow is reading into the notion of 'alcoholism' significantly more than the others? Does he present the idea as some overwhelming force that Grant 'got away with'? Any hint of Lost Cause sentiments, ala Grant the "drunk" and "butcher"? One review says Chernow helps to revive Grant's reputation, so perhaps not. Is Chernow's account objective on that note, without lengthy conjecture about what "alcoholism" is supposed to amount to? Anticipation of the visit to the dentist is always worse than the actual event, the likes of which seems to have 'inspired' some of the accounts of Grant the "alcoholic". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- No new sources, as far as I can tell. His interpretation is simialr to White's so far, though he does focus more on the alcohol issue. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, have you looked into Chernow's Bibliography yet? I'm hoping there's sources there that have not been considered by the others and that this will lend itself to an account, at least somewhat, unlike the others -- esp where the Presidential and otherwise controversial issues are concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- This goes back to my hypothesis that publications are an actual event, such as creating anticipation, and not just a date in time. I don't think Coemgenus can give detailed information, which is understandable. It looks like we have to wait for October 10. Anticipation creates sales. Even if Grant was an alchoholic, it does not take from his reputation or defeat of the Confederacy while he was Commanding General. It does not take away that he prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan or started the first Civil Service Commission or signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. I hope there is more detail on his presidency and his cabinet. I am beginning to know how the publishing business works. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose I unloaded a lot of questions. As for any impact on Grant's reputation I'm not really worried, as the facts have always managed to prevail over the exaggerations and outright distortions sooner or later. At this late date Grant's life has been thoroughly examined so it would seem Chernow will publish accordingly, and apparently has gone the extra distance on topics that have already been established. I won't go so far as to say he has nothing new to offer at all, as all biographers seem to present us with at least some new details that, while not changing the overall picture, offer us added insights. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is little coverage of his administration from 1876 to 1877. The Great Souix War is almost ignored. No coverage of the Centennial. No coverage of Grant's life at the White House. No mention of Korea in 1871. No mention of stopping a war between Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Spain in 1871 by Fish. I usually look at the index of books to see what is covered in the books. No mention of creating Yellowstone National Park. I honestly think that there needs to be a 1000 page book on his presidency alone. Just have to wait to find out what Chernow has to say. Seems like we are going in circles. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, over the years, there has been ample coverage (+ -) of Grant's life at the White House, esp where his meddlesome father was concerned. His wife, the down to earth Julia, though she declined the pomp and ceremony of Grant's Presidential inauguration, had grown accustomed to life at the Capitol and hoped Grant would have won a third term, but I get the gist of your sentiment, of which I agree. Much more could be said along these lines. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Enough has been written on the Civil War and Reconstruction, when Grant was a subordinate to a President. Just a book on Grant's presidency would be helpful. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Chances are the reason there aren't any(?) books wholly dedicated to Grant's presidency is because they wouldn't sell near as much as those that included the Civil War. Grant is remembered, by far, as the General who won the Civil War. Relatively few remember him for his presidency, unfortunately.
- For those who may not know, Amazon has what looks like a good book deal, with day after publication shipping/delivery for a few bucks extra.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- All I had to go by was the Gopnik article. I won't be able to have access to the book until the publishing date. I appreciate Coemgenus, letting editors know you do book reviews. I am hoping the book expands on his presidency. Are you allowed to use the book for editing or do you have to wait until the publishing date ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm reading it now (one of my jobs is writing book reviews). I don't think that's exactly what the book says, but there is a good deal of focus on alcoholism. As to this article: let's wait until the book is published and editors have a chance to read it! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Chernow interview
- How do you top ‘Hamilton’? Author Ron Chernow is about to find out. Karen Heller (September 28) Washington Post'
- Heller in her review speaks of Grant's drinking "problem" as a given fact, ala her claim that Rawlings had to 'baby sit' Grant in regards to his alleged "excessive" drinking. Drinking to speak of. Hopefully she is reading into matters as a peer goaded novice to Grant scholarship, a publisher employee(?), with the typical cursory familiarity of the actual person, Grant. That's my estimation. If there was some real "problem" Grant wouldn't have gone the distance, in the great capacity he did. The straight facts are usually found outside the academic box. It will be especially interesting to read Chernow's account on the overall issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am getting the idea Chernow will focus on Grant's drinking. I think Grant's main problem wasn't his drinking or his father Jesse. I think it was simply his brain was wired to trust people he believed were his friends. He could not help it. It was that trust that the Confederates would not attack at Shiloh, that almost cost a Union defeat. Trust in persons who did not have his best interest, such as Babcock, Belknap, and Ward. There is a difference between an "alchoholic" and a "drunk". I think Chernow will discuss this in his book. That is what I got out of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Grant trusted too much, but that had nothing to do with Shiloh. Most generals didn't entrench at that point in the war--Lee was a notable exception. They were still realizing the value entrenchments had given the improvements in weaponry, and most (including Grant) believe drilling green troops would do more to make them battle-ready than digging trenches would. Shiloh was the battle that went the farthest in changing those views. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, it was expected that Union Generals Wallace and Buell with their divisions would be on hand when the fighting broke out, but Wallace, who had taken the wrong road was temporarily lost, while Buell was still on the march miles away. Confederate Gen. Johnston must have been informed by his cavalry and/or scouts that these divisions had not yet arrived at Pittsburg Landing, and decided that the time to attack was 'now', before these reinforcements arrived. Sherman discounted several reports of approaching Confederates and Grant was on the same page -- at least he didn't doubt Sherman's estimation. The Union was caught almost completely off guard while the Confederates didn't fully realize the quagmire {thick woods, ravines, few open fields, etc.) they were about to step into. Hence the battle was largely an unorganized calamity. Errors were made on both sides -- but a trusting nature per Cm's suggestion had nothing to do with Grant's decision to drill green troops instead of entrenching.
- Cm', you make it sound like Grant had some sort of medical condition when you say his brain was "wired to trust people", that he "could not help it". Grant's "condition" is in fact part of the human condition. Nothing unusual. Also, Grant's trusting nature had little to do with his drinking, such that it was. The line between "alcoholic" and a "drunk", is largely subjective, esp since the subject in question died well over a century ago. In my book, an alcoholic is somewhere in the neighborhood of a drunk. Many people drink wine, spirits or beer on a daily basis with no unhealthy or troublesome issues. But in the estimation of some, this would earn them the "alcoholic" label. Grant drank occasionally, and only when it didn't interfere with his duties. Even while paymaster at Fort Henry, he was reported, not by friends, as being intoxicated. However, he wasn't taken to task for failing to perform his duty, a duty in this case that required attention to many names, numbers, figuring of math, organization, etc. -- So how "drunk" was Grant really? We can only guess how Chernow will cover these topics. Not that you have, but let's not permit speculations from afar, occurring in a different century, lead us away from the facts. They are always the most telling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I thought that Grant did not believe the Confederates were going to attack at Shiloh. Neither did Sherman. The Confederates were suppose to stay at Corinth. They did not. Alchoholic could mean that Grant just could not break down alchohol in his blood stream. It did not take much to get Grant intoxicated. In that sense I don't think that reflects badly on Grant. At Shiloh, Grant had an injury. Modern pain killing drugs did not exist then. Did he drink brandy to relieve the pain ? The article I posted shows that some people are "wired" to trust people. I was only speculating. Don't worry. My opinion won't go into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, both Grant and Sherman assumed they would have to go to Corinth to attack the Confederates, hence their assumption that reports of Confederates in the area were of little consequence. -- "Alcoholism" can be interpreted many different ways by different people, as it continues to in modern times. That's why it's always best to get as many facts into the picture as possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Halleck never ordered Grant to entrench at Pittsburg Landing. Knowing that there was a substantial Confederate force in Corinth one would think there would be a possibility of attack. That is why I mentioned trust. Believing the Confederates would just wait and be attacked. Again. I am speculating. Since I don't have Chernow's book, I don't know how he defined alcholism. Have to wait for October 10. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, both Grant and Sherman assumed they would have to go to Corinth to attack the Confederates, hence their assumption that reports of Confederates in the area were of little consequence. -- "Alcoholism" can be interpreted many different ways by different people, as it continues to in modern times. That's why it's always best to get as many facts into the picture as possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Arguably, the over cautious Halleck could share much of the blame for the high loses and the resultant controversy that hangs over the battle of Shiloh. Grant was ready to move on Cornith early on -- the Confederates were still assembling and organizing also. All the waiting, per Halleck, it seems, allowed the Confederates time to assess matters of Union strength and position(s) and again, when the Union forces didn't expect it, the Confederates attacked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I thought that Grant did not believe the Confederates were going to attack at Shiloh. Neither did Sherman. The Confederates were suppose to stay at Corinth. They did not. Alchoholic could mean that Grant just could not break down alchohol in his blood stream. It did not take much to get Grant intoxicated. In that sense I don't think that reflects badly on Grant. At Shiloh, Grant had an injury. Modern pain killing drugs did not exist then. Did he drink brandy to relieve the pain ? The article I posted shows that some people are "wired" to trust people. I was only speculating. Don't worry. My opinion won't go into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am getting the idea Chernow will focus on Grant's drinking. I think Grant's main problem wasn't his drinking or his father Jesse. I think it was simply his brain was wired to trust people he believed were his friends. He could not help it. It was that trust that the Confederates would not attack at Shiloh, that almost cost a Union defeat. Trust in persons who did not have his best interest, such as Babcock, Belknap, and Ward. There is a difference between an "alchoholic" and a "drunk". I think Chernow will discuss this in his book. That is what I got out of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Heller in her review speaks of Grant's drinking "problem" as a given fact, ala her claim that Rawlings had to 'baby sit' Grant in regards to his alleged "excessive" drinking. Drinking to speak of. Hopefully she is reading into matters as a peer goaded novice to Grant scholarship, a publisher employee(?), with the typical cursory familiarity of the actual person, Grant. That's my estimation. If there was some real "problem" Grant wouldn't have gone the distance, in the great capacity he did. The straight facts are usually found outside the academic box. It will be especially interesting to read Chernow's account on the overall issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Lengthy external link notifications, instructions, etc
|
|---|
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Ulysses S. Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC) |
Section title changes not necessary
Imo, the recent section title changes were not necessary. In the newly named Chattanooga and promotion, and popularity section, "popularity" is only mentioned once in that section and it's understood that Grant's popularity increased at that point. Adding the detail of "popularity" to the section title, mentioned in the text, is a bit inappropriate, giving as much weight to this one detail as is given to Chattanooga itself.
In the newly named Overland Campaign and Petersburg siege section, adding "Petersburg siege", which was part of the Overland campaign, is also inappropriate -- esp since it was only one episode among several. Also, we should keep section titles as short as possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Grant's popularity is in the section. I had initially made it a seperate section emphasising Grant's promotion, his master plan, and his popularity. The Petersburg siege was not part of the Overland Campaign. The last battle in the Overland campaign was Cold Harbor. The title sections need to reflect what is in the sections. The current format does not. Non of my edits were inappropriate. It was inappropriate to establish editor control. We may disagree on format, but please don't call my edits inappropriate. That is a hostile editing environment. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Gwillhickers on the substantive issues here, the changes are unnecessary. I also doubt he meant to give offence. His words didn't seem hostile to me.--Coemgenus (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Siege of Petersburg is not part of the Overland Campaign. It was unnecessary to call my edits "inappropriate". That is editor control. Grant's popularity and potential bid for the Presidency came after Chattanooga. I should not have to defend myself or have permission to make edits in this article. These were just minor tweaks. I appreciate your input Coemgenus. I don't mind my edits reverted by Gwillhickers but to call them inappropriate is out of line in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Only one of your edits was reverted, and not by me. You have read edit history wrong, assuming you looked at it, and have read my expressions to you entirely wrong. It is you who are being hostile with your compound and misdirected accusations and the typical inventing of side issues, even after I took the time to explain why. Please lighten up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Overland Campaign culminated in the Siege of Petersburg which directly followed, but yes, it was not considered an actual part of the Overland Campaign. The way the section is written with the two episodes covered in the same section I wrongfully assumed the siege was part of the overland campaign. I should have checked the dates. If there is a clear consensus, perhaps we should make a separate subsection for the Siege of Petersburg, using existing content, as the siege lasted for some nine months. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Gwillhickers. I will lighten up. It was not the reverted edits. It was saying my edits were "inappropriate". We were getting along so good and with the Chernow (2017) ready to come out I thought there could be an "era of good feelings" among editors. I would be for a seperate section on the Siege of Petersburg. It did last nine months. The Overand Campaign really ends when Grant crossed the James River. It is my editor view is that the titles should cover the content of the respected sections. Grant's presidential "bid potential", promotion, and popularity came after Chattanooga campaign. Maybe more could be mentioned of what Grant was doing between the Chattanooga campaign and the Overland campaign. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Siege of Petersburg is not part of the Overland Campaign. It was unnecessary to call my edits "inappropriate". That is editor control. Grant's popularity and potential bid for the Presidency came after Chattanooga. I should not have to defend myself or have permission to make edits in this article. These were just minor tweaks. I appreciate your input Coemgenus. I don't mind my edits reverted by Gwillhickers but to call them inappropriate is out of line in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Chernow 2017 Grant book
I read through part of the Chernow (2017) Grant book on Google books. The content is solid but I find that the chapter titles dramatic or hard to follow. His style of narration is different than previous Grant biographers. Since today is the publishing day editors can make comments. There seems to be more detail on the Whiskey Ring. Do other editors have any opinions on the book ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- I purchased the book through Amazon via their pre-publication offer a couple weeks ago and expect it in the mail by tomorrow or the next day, and will reserve opinion after I do a cursory read through the TOC, Bibliography and a few of the topics I'm most curious about. e.g.Shiloh controversy, Grant's drinking, General Order 11, Grant's association and communications with Lee in the days before and during the surrender, and how much coverage is devoted to Grant's presidency. While we're all naturally curious about the book, I will try to remember to keep the bulk of my talk directed at specific article improvements, if really needed. In the mean time, I've no objections of using Chernow's book to corroborate a few of the existing citations, just to get his book 'on the map', and to demonstrate to the inquisitive reader that Chernow is on the same page as some of the other major biographers. I'm sure any difference in their accounts will make themselves evident as we go along. However, I have no intention of 'looking for ways' to use Chernow without due cause. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just from reading on the Whiskey Ring, I think Chernow will help in the Gilded Age section. He also says Grant did not issue a proclamation in Mississippi in 1876 for political reasons, that Grant later regretted. That could be used in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just bought Chernow (2017) Grant. Looks thoroughly researched. Even mentions J. Donald Cameron, James Noble Tyner, and Lot M. Morrill Grant cabinet members. More detail on Grant's presidency is always good. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Even mentions J. Donald Cameron ..."? You seem to be suggesting that Chernow's mention (coverage?) of Cameron, Tyner and Morrill is something unusual. e.g. Smith, pp. 598-599, 614-615, McFeely, pp. 439, 482-483 and White, pp. 578, 617-619, mention Cameron, but only in passing and in relation to other more notable people or incidental events. Bear in mind, there are a fair number of Cabinet members that are not covered in our biography because there's little to say about them in relation to Grant, per his biography. Perhaps mention of Cameron, Tyner and Morrill would be better suited in the dedicated article. Tyner, Grant's last Postmaster General, and Morrill, Grant's last Secretary of Treasury, are not mentioned in our biography either. Was there something in particular that Chernow mentions about Cameron, et al, that merits coverage in this article? Aside from corroborating a few key points in the biography, I will be reserving my usage of Chernow's account only when there's a pressing need to do so, not simply because Chernow sez, not that you intend to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those were just my initial impressions of the book. Chernow's narration seems to meander at times and is difficult to follow, the more I read the book. That is just my opinion. I was hoping more on Babcock. Chernow does note J. D. Cameron several times and more could possibly be written on him. For some reason Chernow hardly says anything on Chandler or his reforms in the Indian Department. Why Chernow skips that is unknown ? I think Chernow is more critical of Grant overall then say Smith, Brands, or White, but he is not caustic like McFeely. I am still reading the book. Was excited to buy it. The chapter titles are confusing and it is hard to know the specific chronology of the narration from the titles. I honestly think White has the best book on Grant, from what I have read in Chernow. Again these are my initial impressions and opinions of the Chernow (2017) Grant book. I may be a little disappointed in Chernow's book, but not much. Other editor opinions would be helpful. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Even mentions J. Donald Cameron ..."? You seem to be suggesting that Chernow's mention (coverage?) of Cameron, Tyner and Morrill is something unusual. e.g. Smith, pp. 598-599, 614-615, McFeely, pp. 439, 482-483 and White, pp. 578, 617-619, mention Cameron, but only in passing and in relation to other more notable people or incidental events. Bear in mind, there are a fair number of Cabinet members that are not covered in our biography because there's little to say about them in relation to Grant, per his biography. Perhaps mention of Cameron, Tyner and Morrill would be better suited in the dedicated article. Tyner, Grant's last Postmaster General, and Morrill, Grant's last Secretary of Treasury, are not mentioned in our biography either. Was there something in particular that Chernow mentions about Cameron, et al, that merits coverage in this article? Aside from corroborating a few key points in the biography, I will be reserving my usage of Chernow's account only when there's a pressing need to do so, not simply because Chernow sez, not that you intend to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just bought Chernow (2017) Grant. Looks thoroughly researched. Even mentions J. Donald Cameron, James Noble Tyner, and Lot M. Morrill Grant cabinet members. More detail on Grant's presidency is always good. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just from reading on the Whiskey Ring, I think Chernow will help in the Gilded Age section. He also says Grant did not issue a proclamation in Mississippi in 1876 for political reasons, that Grant later regretted. That could be used in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
New York Times Book Review
- In Ron Chernow’s ‘Grant,’ an American Giant’s Makeover Continues Books of The Times Janet Maslin (October 10, 2017) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
President Clinton book review on Chernow 2017 Grant
President Clinton Looks Back at President Grant Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- I thought this Chernow (2017) Grant review was interesting since Clinton was a Democratic president. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- "For all its scholarly and literary strengths, this book’s greatest service is to remind us of Grant’s significant achievements at the end of the war and after, which have too long been overlooked and are too important today to be left in the dark." Bill Clinton (October 12, 2017) Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is it worth putting in the Grant reputation section that Clinton believed Grant's achievements have long been overlooked and are important today ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Since Clinton was also a U.S. President, his view on Grant is worth a brief mention in the 'Reputation section. However his comments about a particular book, one among many, would be a bit out of place, esp since he must of known about Grant's legacy before Chernow's book was published. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is it worth putting in the Grant reputation section that Clinton believed Grant's achievements have long been overlooked and are important today ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is why I just posted the part concerning Clinton's view of Grant. Maybe something like that, "Former Democratic President Bill Clinton said that Chernow's book served "to remind us of Grant’s significant achievements at the end of the war and after, which have too long been overlooked and are too important today to be left in the dark." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's good. I'd leave out "Democratic". --Coemgenus (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- "For all its scholarly and literary strengths, this book’s greatest service is to remind us of Grant’s significant achievements at the end of the war and after, which have too long been overlooked and are too important today to be left in the dark." Bill Clinton (October 12, 2017) Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- As we are adding it because it's his opinion, this is how I would write it: 'In a 2017 book review, former U.S. President Bill Clinton offered praise for "Grant’s significant achievements at the end of the war and after, which have too long been overlooked and are too important today to be left in the dark.' I agree that democratic is uneeded, you should have US though. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. In the interest of editor consensus Democratic can be left out. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Since we will be citing/linking to the review anyway we may want to trim it down, as the latter part of the quote gets away from Grant's reputation, however I'm flexible on that.
- In a 2017 book review, former U.S. President Bill Clinton offered praise for "Grant’s significant achievements at the end of the war and after,
which have too long been overlooked and are too important today to be left in the dark." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- In a 2017 book review, former U.S. President Bill Clinton offered praise for "Grant’s significant achievements at the end of the war and after,
- Since we will be citing/linking to the review anyway we may want to trim it down, as the latter part of the quote gets away from Grant's reputation, however I'm flexible on that.
- Clinton, Bill (October 12, 2017). "President Clinton Looks Back at President Grant". The New York Times. New York. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Ambiguous language
Cm', could you be a little more definitive with one of your latest edits? i.e."Grant, who showed signs of a speculative bent..." -- How about.. 'Grant was often given to speculation in his choice of associates and trusted, etc, etc... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, I think he means that Grant was prone to speculative investments. Get-rich-quick schemes, that sort of thing. That was Chernow's assessment, at least. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct. Okay, we might want to be a bit more direct and use 'prone to speculative investments'. Using Chernow's exact phrase, in this case, given the rather unusual choice of words, i.e. "speculative bent", makes it appear we're just copying parts of sentences, not that I've never done so. Of course, I doubt most readers will notice. Nothing pressing. Will leave it up to Cm'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- I was trying to use the language as close to Chernow 2017 as much as possible. The term bent means he was not against speculation investments, such as in gold. But he trusted Gould and Fiske way too much, not realizing they were cornering the market, until the gold price dramatically went up. Grant probably actually believed Gould's bogus theory that stopping gold payments would help sell crops overseas, so he stopped gold release in September 1869. Boutwell was actually regulating the gold price by weekly releases. In essense Grant deregulated the gold market. Grant had also consulted Stewart, his first choice of Secretary of Treasury. Stewart was for stopping the release of gold from the Treasury. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- That reads a bit better. Thanks for the review also. Wonder what Grant would have done if he had the CIA/FBI and the internet at his disposal. Fired the lot of them? :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Fired the lot of them ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct. Okay, we might want to be a bit more direct and use 'prone to speculative investments'. Using Chernow's exact phrase, in this case, given the rather unusual choice of words, i.e. "speculative bent", makes it appear we're just copying parts of sentences, not that I've never done so. Of course, I doubt most readers will notice. Nothing pressing. Will leave it up to Cm'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it was about time. The new article at this point is mostly a cut and paste effort with a little rewording and some minor additions, and of course a lede section, bibliography, etc. However, the removal of text from this article, while taking the word count down somewhat, still doesn't resolve the issue of adding text while deleting other content/context in this article. Yes, as president's articles go, the Ulysses S. Grant biography is the 'biggest of them all' --- something we should be proud of, not weary of. Since we, hopefully, have a solid consensus for the relative size (+ -) of this article it will be very difficult for any one or two editors to come around making demands based on page length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- I had thought more discussion would be put into the new World Tour article, particularly the name. Also I had suggested cutting and pasting current article as a foundation article not a sub article. But I thought Gwillhickers had disagreed with that. Regardless, thanks Gwillhickers for creating the new article. Also these previous discussions are going all over the map. Size of the article, World Tour, Featured Article. One topic at a time please. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Size of the article was central to the current discussions. Above you mentioned you wanted the article "changed, clarified, or expanded". Now you're talking about reducing it, while also wanting to discuss the name for the new article. I added "diplomatic" to the title because you once expressed concern that this idea should be mentioned in the title. i.e.We already discussed this once. We already have a summary, and it needs to remain in comprehensive proportions, otherwise we will no longer have an article worthy of FA status. After all the efforts to include new details, while trying to preserve context, I will resist any effort to the routine removal of context under the guise of making things more of a summary. As explained, we have a comprehensive summary. If we continue to remove more context, and comprehensiveness, we will not only have a B-class article, but an unstable one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Women's suffrage
Chernow disusses women's suffrage in his Grant 2017 book. I believe it would be appropriate to put in the election of 1872 section. Maybe mention that the regular Republicans advocated discussion of suffrage for women and Grant wanted Civil Rights for all people. Chernow says that Grant was the first President to have to address the woman's suffrage movement. Any opinions ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Some of the party advocated discussion, but did any of them advocate the thing itself? I don't think Grant did. It was a non-issue in 1872 for almost all voters. I'd leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Chernow 2017 discusses Susan B. Anthony on pages 749, 750, 751, and 764. Anthony even directly talked to Grant while he was on a walk and asked him to support suffrage for women. Grant said that he "recommends equal rights for all citizens" in his 1872 acceptance speech. There was the Equal Rights Party 1872 the Working Women's Association 1868 and the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA). Some of the party advocated discussion ? It was part of the Republican Party platform. "Fourteenth. The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to wider fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration." Republican Party Platform of 1872(June 5, 1872) The American Presidency Project. A sentence or two on the subject would be appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems worth a mention, but as usual we are faced with page length concerns and are compelled to make trims elsewhere every time we add something. With Chernow's book out we are, like now, coming across all sorts of things we'd like to add. e.g.Chernow, like some other biographers, covers the drinking issue, Grant's father, and a few other topics, (very) well, but in Chernow's case he devotes many more pages on these and other topics. I believe we need to address this bigger issue before we begin adding other topics and major details. -- There are only a handful of presidents who played major roles in U.S. history in the capacity Grant had done. Like Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, and perhaps F.D. Roosevelt, Grant was one of the major players in American history, involved in major wars that directly changed the face of the nation, greatly impacting the Constitution, etc. In order to be able to cover his biography well, with prose that doesn't largely consist of obtuse and truncated sentences, we collectively need to be more tolerant of the page length guideline. In the process of adding material, and in the very unlikely event someone were to come along and say 'hey' about page length, and was faced with a clear consensus to wave this guideline, reasonably, we would be able to continue without playing musical chairs with the content of the biography. Can we arrive at a new and somewhat elevated 'ceiling' regarding page length? This is not a call to disregard article size, but one to be more tolerant of it. There are dedicated articles for in depth coverage, but we still need more room, like now, to make general comprehensive statements without depleting context elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe it could be put in one sentence. But to say women's suffrage does not deserve a mention, when Chernow talks about it is I think, is ignoring a turning point in history. Grant was at the beginning of the organized suffrage movement that was not realized until the 1920. I did not add this because I wanted editor consensus. Grant talked directly with Susan B. Anthony. She voted for him, illegally, even though she thought he was a drunk. She liked his wife. Julia supported women's rights. Grant was not a suffragist, but he passed a few laws protecting women's property and increasing their pay. Here is a sentence: "To gain support from suffragists, including Susan B. Anthony, the Republicans put in their platform that the rights of women should be treated with "respectful consideration", while Grant advocated equal rights for all citizens." Cmguy777 (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently you are addressing Coemgenus only. Again, I've no objection, so long as we're not going to remove other context in the process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I was trying to refer to both Coemgenus and Gwillhickers. I was hoping for concensus. I offered up a suggested sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently you are addressing Coemgenus only. Again, I've no objection, so long as we're not going to remove other context in the process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggested sentence
- "To placate the burgeoning suffragist movement, the Republicans' platform included that women's rights should be treated with "respectful consideration", while Grant advocated equal rights for all citizens." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- That one sentence is fine with me, if that's all there is. Any more would be excessive. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Coemgenus. I think most people associate Suffragists in the early 20th Century. I think this would make the Republicans the first or at least one of the first U.S. political parties to recognize women's rights in their platform. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Coemgenus. I think most people associate Suffragists in the early 20th Century. I think this would make the Republicans the first or at least one of the first U.S. political parties to recognize women's rights in their platform. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- That one sentence is fine with me, if that's all there is. Any more would be excessive. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Chernow
Chernow's book is looking good. He has devoted many pages to the world tour, drinking and other topics marginally covered by most of the others. With time we'll be able to fill in some of the gaps in reasonable proportions with this source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Page length
With the publication of Chernow's new book and the natural tendency to add new information from it it seems like a good time to review page length concerns. Does anyone know which Featured Article has the largest word count? If the article has no history of page length controversy after it became a FA we should use this as our word count limit. Tightening simple grammar aside, hopefully this will put an end to constant trimming of context and content. We make it difficult to present this page as a reliable reference to students and history buffs if information constantly disappears. It may not seem like much of a big deal on any given day, but in a month's time much information disappears, month after month. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have tried to limit Chernow additions keeping them as minimally worded as possible with limited interference on current narration. But Chernow does offer more information on Grant that should not be excluded from the article. I think it is the largest Grant biography ever written. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which FA is the largest. There's a list, but it goes by total bytes including citations, not readable prose. Of the top ten articles on that list, this article had more readable prose than eight. Only Hillary Clinton (104kb/16,753 words) and History of Poland (1945–1989) (111kb/17,312 words) had more words. Put another way, this article is 633 away from being the biggest featured article on Wikipedia, as far as I can ascertain.
- Either way, Grant is easily the largest of the Presidential biographies. The next largest are Obama at 76kb, and Reagan at 90kb. This article is now 103kb (16,679 words). It was 84kb when it passed FA (13,517 words) and we had some complaints about length even then. It's hard to justify continually ignoring the guidelines, though even I have gotten lax. Mostly because I've been busy and tired of having the same conversation about the rules.
- But we should reduce to 100kb through summarizing and creation of sub-articles. A while back, you two talked about creating a sub-article for the world tour. I stayed out of it because I didn't want to step on your toes, but it never got done. I'd be happy to step in there and create it so we could vastly expand the tour coverage there while reducing it here. It deserves a separate article, in my opinion, since it was a pretty noteworthy event. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Grant's tour could be reduced to a paragraph, when there is a tour main article. I suggest using what is already in the article as a seperate article and then summarizing the tour in one paragraph in Grant's main article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to see an article for Grant's world tour but am not ready for that undertaking, and neither is anyone else apparently. Cut/pasting existing text into a new article and just leaving it as a glorified stub is not something I'm inclined to do either. However, I've slowly been gearing up for the venture because it's interesting history, and covers some of the last good years of Grant's life, all of which averaged into his final reputation, in those days.
- Meanwhile there are some Featured Articles that are larger than Grant's, and they are indeed exceptions, and allowed to be so because of a consensus that is tough to challenge, esp with the Hillary article. That article is probably hawkishly watched by more than a thousand users. Ditto with the Obama article. I'm sure if an editor came along and demanded that pages of text be removed because of a page length guideline, that editor would be up against a stone wall of consensus fervently blocking the prospect.
- Grant, like Washington and Jefferson, are exceptions also. Grant commanded or fought in dozens of Civil War battles, many of them landmark battles. He knew Lincoln personally and was involved with him throughout the war. He crossed paths with Lee on numerous occasions. He went on to be a two term president, established the 15th Amendment and other legislation, wrestled with corruption and the economy, and did it during the reconstruction era. Then there's the world tour. Before all that there was his early life, West Point, Mexican War, Western assignments, family and business ventures. There is much to write about and more than average space is needed just to write about the basic stuff in a half comprehensive manner. We
don'tshouldn't write in this article like it was a B-class article, but as a featured article. Practical allowances have been made elsewhere when there is consensus. If someone came to this article and deleted several pages worth of text and gave page length as the reason, I like to think that editor would be up against a collective consensus around here also. In light of other article sizes, and with Chernow's book at hand, we need to be willing to allow for a bit more room. Not much, but some, and ideally without depleting context elsewhere. I try to make trims when I add content, but it's getting difficult to do so without cutting into the context. If you (Coemgenus) would like to propose a marginally larger practical word count limit for this article that would be a compromise I think we all could live with. I don't have any intentions of 'expanding' the article other than to add a few basic statements about a few topics. But my greatest concern is this ongoing disappearance of content, and the compromising of a well written article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)- I think the article needs to be changed, clarified, or expanded because of the renewed interest in Grant. From 2012 to 2017 there have been three major biographies on Grant. My view is that the Presidency and Civil War sections should have priority. Other sections could be under consideration for reduction. Putting the current version of Grant's world tour in a seperate article was meant to be a foundation that could be built into a larger article. It was not meant to be a stub article. Reducing the world tour section would be a start. What was the name for the Grant tour article suppose to be ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly comfortable with 'changing' the article in the capacity you seem to be suggesting. I am however always in favor of clarification, better and more comprehensive wording, where needed, and any new major details than can be introduced, and without the sacrifice of context, which is what a featured article is supposed to present, not B-class editorship. To this effort we have done a great job, imo.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think the article needs to be changed, clarified, or expanded because of the renewed interest in Grant. From 2012 to 2017 there have been three major biographies on Grant. My view is that the Presidency and Civil War sections should have priority. Other sections could be under consideration for reduction. Putting the current version of Grant's world tour in a seperate article was meant to be a foundation that could be built into a larger article. It was not meant to be a stub article. Reducing the world tour section would be a start. What was the name for the Grant tour article suppose to be ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- We have whole articles on his presidency, his war service, etc. We should conform better with WP:Summary style, and shorten, there is no reason not to. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Insert : -- There are several good reasons to curb the removal of context here, esp the FA policy that demands the context be comprehensive and well written, while the presence of other articles is not the final idea as to how we treat this Featured article. Page length is a guideline that has been waved, reasonably, in a number of exceptional cases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Separating the world tour and summarizing what's here (thanks, Gwillhickers) has gotten us down to 101 kB (16,263 words), which is a whole lot better for one day's work. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Commanding General section could be reduced. There is already a dedicated article for that. There is also too much on Andrew Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are dedicated articles for every phase of Grant's life. Why don't we just turn this article into a TOC while we're at it, and require the readers to jump to a dozen other articles just to get a good idea of what's going on in this article? Tired of a guideline dictating the overall way we edit this article. Other Featured articles are larger than this one and remain so because of a strong collective consensus. Thought that was something we could finally do around here, and be done with all the walking on egg-shells every time someone wants to add a statement or two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, there are no good reasons - the facetious argument to reduce it to the TOC is certainly no basis for consensus, and the article was already deemed by consensus to be reasonably complete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are several good reasons, as pointed out several times now. The idea of reducing the article to a TOC was an obvious gesture to demonstrate the futility of requiring readers to visit multiple articles just to get a comprehensive idea of the overall article, as a featured article, is supposed to cover, as required by FA policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- No. Because no one is proposing we reduce to the TOC, just follow the consensus guidelines. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, the TOC idea was an obvious analogy. Let's not skirt the point made. Requiring readers to jump to multiple articles does them a disservice. A recent study shows most links are seldomly clicked on. If I was reading a book, I would be a little put off if the book told me to consult dozens of other books, esp when an idea can be covered in summary and comprehensive form in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- If that was your point, it is senseless. If people don't want to read the details - they certainly do not want to read them here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Most people do want the details, which is why we should leave many of them here, per FA comprehensiveness policy for this featured article. This is why we often devote paragraphs to most topics -- regardless of other articles. In the several years since this article has passed FA no one outside this talk page has made page length an issue. More than average space is needed to cover Grant's very involved biography so it doesn't come off like a B-class article. Cm' and myself have been adding new information from Chernow's latest book, while compromising with Coemgenus' concerns by making trims elsewhere. We have just created a new article in this effort and have been coming along fine. When there is consensus, as exists in other large FA's and GA's, there is no problem with a page length guideline unless some individual insists on making it a problem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- People at the FA review made the same point, Coemgenus and I have made, repeatedly - it is just wrong that that this topic needs more space - more space is just poor writing, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Most people do want the details, which is why we should leave many of them here, per FA comprehensiveness policy for this featured article. This is why we often devote paragraphs to most topics -- regardless of other articles. In the several years since this article has passed FA no one outside this talk page has made page length an issue. More than average space is needed to cover Grant's very involved biography so it doesn't come off like a B-class article. Cm' and myself have been adding new information from Chernow's latest book, while compromising with Coemgenus' concerns by making trims elsewhere. We have just created a new article in this effort and have been coming along fine. When there is consensus, as exists in other large FA's and GA's, there is no problem with a page length guideline unless some individual insists on making it a problem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- If that was your point, it is senseless. If people don't want to read the details - they certainly do not want to read them here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are dedicated articles for every phase of Grant's life. Why don't we just turn this article into a TOC while we're at it, and require the readers to jump to a dozen other articles just to get a good idea of what's going on in this article? Tired of a guideline dictating the overall way we edit this article. Other Featured articles are larger than this one and remain so because of a strong collective consensus. Thought that was something we could finally do around here, and be done with all the walking on egg-shells every time someone wants to add a statement or two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- We've been through this. Reviewers, who are not gods, made a couple of comments about length, moved on, and never said it was "wrong" and held length over our heads as an FA requirement. Comprehensive and good writing, which are FA requirements, requires space, esp when dozens of topics must be covered with more than a B-class effort. While there is always room for improvement, there is no poor writing around here, thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- No one ever said they were god's, they are editors just like we are and that includes Coemgenus and I, and they moved on when good editing cuts were made to reduce the prolix prose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't want to reduce it to a ToC, just reduce it to 99kb where it would still be among the longest FAs in Wikipedia and still the longest Presidential FA. We've made good progress this week, let's keep it up. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- No one ever said they were god's, they are editors just like we are and that includes Coemgenus and I, and they moved on when good editing cuts were made to reduce the prolix prose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not dead set against all reductions, just where it cuts into context, esp where Grant's early life, military career and presidency are concerned. I would be more flexible with maybe reducing some of the prose in the Breach with Johnson and Johnson's impeachment sections, two separate sections for Johnson, which as Cm' mentioned, are a bit large, esp taken together given the topic. However, Johnson was the President who preceded Grant so we need to be mindful of that. Coemgenus, I appreciate your recent willingness to go along with some of the new additions over the last several months, and have compromised with even the removal of content involving some prominent topics, such as Custer. However, esp in light of Chernow's book, I'm hoping you'll be a little less rigid with maintaining your arbitrary 99k word count goal and page length. As I said, if the lot of us were on the same page (no pun) we would have a strong consensus that would be very difficult to challenge by anyone who had a mind to make whole sale reductions because of page length concerns, which, at this late date, has still never happened. With this in mind, I can only ask that you be a bit more flexible, given the many topics that should (and still are) covered comprehensively in this featured article. We just made a new article, and perhaps with some careful trimming of the Johnson sections, perhaps merging them in the process, we could all sleep better at night. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Commanding General section could be reduced. There is already a dedicated article for that. There is also too much on Andrew Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)