Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant

Welcome to mediation

Well intended but premature statement.

I guess I'll get started. There are two issues about General Order 11 here: briefly they are how much we should say, and what kind of thing we should say. They're best addressed separately: 1. Size. How much we should say is basically an argument over size limits. From my first involvement with this article years ago, keeping it down to a reasonable size has been a constant struggle. There are loads of books, articles, and websites that deal with Ulysses S. Grant. sorting through that information for a scholarly consensus and boiling down to the size of an encyclopedia article as been difficult, and even our early efforts were criticized at the article's FA candidacy, which led us to make further cuts and to push lengthier explanations of some topics into the family of sub-articles. The result, as pertains to the section in dispute here, was a compact 99-word description with links to longer articles for those who wished to know more: Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his military district and, on December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized Grant over his order Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided. Biographer Jean Edward Smith wrote that Grant's order was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." In the two months since then, there has been a long-running effort to add more (and to change the meaning what's written there, but I'll cover that separately below). The result has been this 156-word-long version: Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw trade in his department. The Treasury allowed Northern traders permits to trade, but banned them from trading with Confederates. Bribing federal officers, speculators attached themselves to Grant's army creating transportation and discipline problems. Grant believed Jewish merchants were trading with the enemy, breaking the trade regulations. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews as a class from the area. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized the order, Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Twenty-one days later, Grant rescinded the order, and the controversy subsided. Realizing his blunder, Grant apologized. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." Another biographer, Brooks D. Simpson, maintains that it was Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and were more successful than others, rather than his anti-Semitic views, that induced him to act. This new version is already the result of many compromises. I (and Alan, if I characterize his views correctly) would prefer the cleaner version that emerged from the FA process. We'd be willing even to let this current version stand, though, if it would mean an end to the talk page conflict. But the additional language Gwillhickers wants to add is a step too far. His 192-word proposal from the talk page is here: Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw trade in his department. The Treasury allowed Northern traders permits to trade, but banned them from trading with Confederates. Bribing federal officers, speculators attached themselves to Grant's army creating transportation and discipline problems. Grant believed Jewish merchants were trading with the enemy, breaking the trade regulations. After being warned by the War Dept that large shipments of gold were being brought in by Jewish speculators<Simpson> and when Grant's own father showed up with his Jewish partners seeking permits to trade in cotton,<Sarna> Grant issued General Orders No. 11 on December 17, 1862, expelling Jews as a class from the area. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized the order, Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Twenty-one days later, Grant rescinded the order, and the controversy subsided. Realizing his blunder, Grant apologized. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." Another biographer, Brooks D. Simpson, maintains that it was Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and were more successful than others, rather than his anti-Semitic views, that induced him to act. We've worked long and hard to keep this within the bare limits of what's considered an acceptable length for an article, and even got it to pass FA despite those length concerns. And that's not even including all he wants to add on the role of the cotton economy in Grant's campaigns, the role of escaped slaves in the army, etc. etc. I am very reluctant to see those gains chiseled away day by day until we return to the same bloated article that failed FA the first time. 2. Content. This is the thornier of the two points, I think.The difference between the two versions above is not just one of size, but of content. The FA-approved version from March is a brief recitation of the facts. The issue was a controversial one, even in 1862, and Grant's biographers since then have struggled to understand his motivations for such an out-of-character action. Grant left his biographers few clues, to this or any other facet of his life. Even William T. Sherman, who had known him since West Point, said of Grant "to me he is a mystery, and I believe he is a mystery to himself." For a man inscrutable to even his friends and biographers, I thought it best to stick to a simple narrative and not try to figure out what made the man tick. That's the job of the scholars, not of Wikipedia editors. Instead, we described the action itself, not the thoughts behind them. That's why the Smith quote that Grant's order was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history" sums up the situation perfectly. It describes the effect of the action, not the actor's motivations, and none of the other scholars cited in the article contest the point. Expelling the Jews was, by definition, anti-Semitic. Gwillhickers wants more, more even than the sources can give us. As best I can tell, he wants to find a way to discuss the incident without labelling Grant as an anti-Semite. To do so, he goes to extraordinary lengths to find a way to say that what Grant did may have adversly affected the Jews, but that it wasn't caused by anti-Semitism. The whole conversation is uncomfortable, to say the least. He makes points like the idea that Grant's concern "disproportionate numbers of Jewish merchants collaborating with the enemy so they can line their pockets", or "Grant's anti-semitic remarks were in reference to the speculators and not aimed at the Jewish people and religion." It's also worth noting that he's stretched the sources to the breaking point to make his point. Anyone reading his proposed paragraph would think that Brooks Simpson sought to excuse Grant's actions and downplay them. That is not the case. Simpson writes that while Grant protested that he was not an anti-Semite, "there was a significant difference between assailing people for what they did and attacking them because of their religious faith, and Grant crossed this line." A fair reading of those pages in Simpson make Grant look more anti-Semitic, not less. (I'd be happy to scan and e-mail them to anyone who doesn't have access to the book.) As to Jonathan Sarna's book, When General Grant Expelled the Jews, Gwillickers uses it in two ways. That there is an entire book about the incident means, to him, that it must be important, and we must expand the section in the article about it. When it comes to the content of that book, though, he generally rejects the author's conclusions. He denies that "Sarna, a Jewish historian," adequately explains Grant's actions and motivations, and instead pushing a tale of Jews smuggling gold to the rebels as the main issues here. Simpson does mention that the War Department received a complaint about that, but does not show or even claim that this was Grant's entire motivation, nor does that author attempt, as Gwillhickers does, to use this telegram to excuse Grant's anti-Semitism. Long story short: there's a lot to be said about Grant and General Order #11, but the best place to do that is in the article about it and the best way to explain it is a straoghtforward statement of the scholarly consensus of what happened, not pushing one theory or another as to why it happened. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see everyone has signed in and is ready to go. Thank you for your prompt responses. Please follow along and give me only what I ask for. This is a structured format and its not like the article talk page but it's also not like Arbcom so please don't make long winded posts or opening statements. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Expectations

What I would like is for each participant to SUMMARIZE in 250 words or less what they see as the general goal of this mediation. Please do not include sources or footnotes or other technical aspects of the dispute. I just want to have a general idea of what each participant is looking for from this mediation. Please keep it brief and to the point. Thanking you in advance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Drastically increase communication - or at least have the mediator do the communication for us (since loooong page discussion has not done it). End badgering and bludgeoning and filibustering. Bring a close (since it does not appaer to be able to die by itself) the well trodden (over and over again) talking about the same stuff - it's not good for editors, nor the article. Return to the policy/consensus FAC version on General Order 11 (or very close to it) because expansion, and the GO11 expansion in particular is not improvement -- it's the opposite, a detriment - in part that is because even more context will be required if the expansions wanted are made (Wikipedia cannot do one sided expansion). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• That editors can reasonably work well together having the same goal of presenting Ulysses S. Grant article as neutrally and reliable as possible. Presenting the article with the most recent research on Grant's GO11 is best in my opinion. I am not opposed to expansion if the expansion is signifigant, increases neutrality, and allows the reader to make their own opinions on Grant and GO11. I don't believe that expansion is a detriment under those guidelines. I believe the actual GO11 article could be expanded giving more detail and perspective. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Alan—what we want most is an end to it. We should decide how long the section will be, and what should be in it. Once we decide, we should all agree to live with that consensus. I'd prefer the old version: short and descriptive of the facts of the order, not the motivations (there's no scholarly consensus on the motivations, only the effects). Sorry for the long-windedness above! I'm new to this sort of thing, thought that's what you wanted. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to see a summary, but one that includes more basic and definitive facts, a couple of which have been blocked by a marginal consensus. It's been claimed that the addition of one sentence to the existing paragraph would somehow transform the account from a summary into something that would have "too much weight", which I find sort of puzzling, as again, only one additional sentence has been proposed. It seems more attention has been given to the word count of this paragraph, than has the historical narrative. I believe we should simply include the important and basic facts and let readers sort out matters of anti-semitism as it pertains to Grant. The subject has more weight than some have admitted, involving Grant, Lincoln, the War Dept, collaboration and trading with gold with the Confederates, anti-semitism, and more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for giving a candid and to the point summary of what you'd like us to accomplish here. I've read all of your comments above and I'm going to take some time today to scan some of the prior discussions on the talk page. Then I'm going to start a discussion with what I hope to be a new approach to the issues. Hopefully it will help us take a fresh look at the dispute and sort through things without having to have the same conversations all over again. Thanks for you patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: - thanks for your time and effort. You've probably already noticed, but just in case you haven't, discussion of this topic began on the talk page here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Main points of the summary paragraph

OK, I'd like to first have a general discussion. No need to make special sections for each person. You can talk to each other if you want to.......... This mediation is in reference to Grant's General Order No. 11. I think most everyone is in agreement that GO11 is a notable event in Grant's life and that it is supported by reliable sources. So the main question is how should it be represented in Grant's bio. GO11 has its own article but a summary of that subarticle needs to appear in the main article. Our task then is to write a one paragraph summary of the General Order No. 11 article and place it in Grant's bio. Given that broadly defined goal, I'd like to know what are the main points that each person feels should be included in that summary paragraph (however short or long it might be). Don't worry about sources or precise language at this time. We'll get into all that later. For now, just give me, in broad strokes, the 3 or 4 main points that could/would/should be in a neutral, unduly weighted summary of the GO11 article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (Let me first state an assumption - I believe this assumption is not only proved on the substance, here, but it is vitally important in the consensus functioning of Wikipedia: The FAC version, after literally years of successive review, complied with all Wikipedia policy - this hardly means that improvement cannot be made but it is very difficult to do so - without offending one of the multiple demands of wikipedia content policy). Turning to the needed content and analysis:

• Grant was a very busy man: This was made clear by the context in the FAC version amidst the battles and other incidents.
• Grant was also responsible for cotton trade in his area: As the FAC began:"Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his military district"
• Grant issued "antisemitic" (there is no dispute that the order is antisemitic (ie anti Jewish)) Order 11, and that order is historically of important significance - an official act. Grant states in the order he thought "the Jews as a class" were responsible for breaching trade regulations, harming his military command: As the FAC said: "on December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields. . . .Biographer Jean Edward Smith wrote that Grant's order was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history."
• There was widespread outrage over the order and Lincoln ordered it rescinded: Thus, the FAC: "After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized Grant over his order Lincoln demanded it be revoked.Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided."
• It is true that Grant later made amends, but this was covered in the FAC, in chronological order at the time it was done in 1868, five years later. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Alan explained it perfectly. The FAC version had everything that need to be said about the order. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy777's view:

• Grant was a general fighting the Confederacy and he believed trade with the Confederacy was helping the Confederate cause...Both Sherman and Grant did not want to trade during the War and that the trade was Lincoln's policy.
• GO11 was anti-semitic targeting Jewish families. In that I agree with Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus. I believe a signifigant addition is to add that the order was carried out and that at least over 20 families were removed from Grant's district. This was a real order that caused Jewish families grief. One Jewish officer resigned from Grant's staff.
• Mention that Grant held anti-semitic views common for his times. This is similar to Thomas Jefferson holding racial views of African Americans common for his times.
• Concerning neutrality, in addition to mentioning Grant's apology there needs to be mentioned that Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that stated : " ...it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political'..."

Discussion of GO11 in the article should not be held under the contraints of FAC paragraph version in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a notable event in Grant's life and reflects deeply on the subject of this biography -- Grant. The order itself was obviously anti-semetic but this subject deserves to be better covered in this Featured Article, whose policy is that notable events be well covered and comprehensive. Currently we have something that is not even a good outline of this complex event. The FAC version had only one closing comment and several editors here worked on creating an "expanded" (the current) version which included a balancing comment from another of Grant's biographers. Now one of those same editors wants to revert to the FAC version and is willing to throw all the discussion, time and effort out the window with the generic claim that the topic is well covered. In any case, the current version does not mention two definitive and important facts that occurred shortly before Grant issued the General Order, outlined in bold in one sentence here. Several more facts should be added but the addition of these two are sufficient if we must keep this topic limited in its scope. The addition of this one sentence isn't anything that is going to change the overall "weight" of the existing paragraph. As I've always maintained, we should simply include the most basic and definitive facts and let readers sort out matters of opinion. Leaving out important circumstances could easily lead a reader to believe that Grant's primary motive was anti-semitism. Especially with language that reads "Grant believed Jewish merchants..." and "Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders..." -- more than suggesting that it was some sort of anti-semitic vision that primarily prompted Grant to issue the Order while he was in the middle of a war. The current version is very sketchy and incomplete in that regard. FA doesn't mean the article can't be improved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, thanks for the comments but could please list the 3-4 main points that you feel should be in the paragraph which summarizes the GO11 event and article? Thanks. When that is done I'll summarize and try to guide a discussion. Oh, and a PS, please refrain from making references to other editors. Let's keep our comments strictly about content. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Point one: Cover the several basic events that led up to when Grant issued the General Order. i.e.Historical context. Point two: Cover the basic wording of the Order i.e."Jews as a class", and that Jews in particular were expelled from the territory. Point three: Cover Grant's apology. Point four: Close the paragraph with a balanced commentary by two of Grant's biographers. -- In essence we should at least keep the current version, and simply add the facts (which I've pointed out previously) that occurred just before Grant issued the Order. As this is a controversial issue, it's important that we include as many basic facts as is practical. That would be neutral and represent all POV's. I'm hoping that we concentrate more on how inclusive the historical narrative is rather than the number of words used, keeping in mind of course that we provide a well rounded summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed main points and discussion

Ok I see a lot of common ground here, which is encouraging. I think most of the dispute is about the details of how the main points are conveyed ie what language is used and how much weight is given to each point or subpoints. The devil is in the details as they say. So.... before we get lost in the details, let's agree on a series of main points that should be included in the paragraph. Then we can discuss each point in more detail and together craft language that not everyone will like but that they can live with. So.... here is my proposed series of main points. Please make suggestions for revisions so we can come up with a list of main points that we can all agree on.

The paragraph describing General Order 11 should include the following points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order
6. Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

Comments? Suggested revisions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That's essentially all correct. I'd change #5 to "There was a public backlash and President Lincoln ordered Grant to rescind the order, which he did." As to #6, he apologized at the time, and again five years later when running for president. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find him apologizing at the time. My understanding is Grant revoked it (as ordered) and was silent on it (perhaps he hoped to never speak of it again, as we know he refused to in his memoirs) but then in 1868 he did address it and repudiated it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this issue will tell you there are RS's that say Grant apologized to Jewish community leaders, per the sourced statement in the last paragraph in the Shiloh section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In an interview with Rabbi E.B.M. Browne on Aug. 27, 1875. Grant also explained that the Order was in great part the product of haste, petulance and thoughtlessness : During war times these nice distinctions (concern for anti-semitism) were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves. (emphasis added) <Stephen V. Ash, p.511> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree to the above following points proposed. I don't believe Grant apologized immediately after he rescinded the order. He did apologize in 1868...But remember he served as President for 8 years and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the only 19th Century President to sign a Civil Rights law. This adds neutrality. That law stated it was the governments duty to protect persons regardless of race or religion. In essense a total reversal or repudiation of GO11. I believe adding the Civil Rights Act in the paragraph is appropriate. I would leave out that Grant immediately apoligized. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Gwillhickers, no one is disputing he apologized - all I asked for was evidence of an apology in 1863 or there about, when he rescinded the order -- neither of those sources are at the time he revoked the order - the earliest is five years later Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

editbreak2

Keithbob's point three above will need good clarification, per the facts mentioned. Grant and many others knew that the Confederates were receiving gold from Jewish speculators for their cotton, greatly prolonging the war.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sherman also saw the problem of speculators as expressed in a letter to his wife Ellen
  "Memphis was full of Jews & speculators buying cotton for gold & (federal) treasury notes, the very thing the confederates wanted, money. I am satisfied that the (Confederate) army got enough money & supplies from this Quarter to last a year." Flood, 2005, p.144

• Smith, 2001, p.225 "...trade was permitted so long as the traders held permits and did not cross into enemy territory, and did not trade in gold" and "Although most of the traders were not Jewish, several of the most visible were".
• Reed, 1882, The Vicksburg Campaign Badeau says that Gen. Grant was from the first opposed to this trade, and that he demonstrated to the administration that it furnished supplies to the enemy, and enabled them to continue the war.... p.147 (emphasis added)
• Dana, 1913, Recollections of the Civil War, p.18 Dana, in a letter of January 21, 1863, writes: Plenty of cotton is brought in from beyond our lines, especially by the agency of Jewish traders, who pay for it ostensibly in Treasury notes, but really in gold., Charles Dana, Assistant Secretary of War.

As a Commanding General in the middle of the war it requires no stretch of the imagination to realize that military interests were the primary reason Grant over reacted, though again, we do not say what caused him to issue the order. All we can do is present the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Er . . . we already know they blamed the Jews. There was no trial of anyone to "prove" anything. (Dana, as multiple sources point out was profiting from the cotton trade) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The assumption that Jews were blamed simply because of anti-semitism alone, such that it was, is absurd and reeks of modern day post WWii notions. There were plenty of first hand accounts that supported the idea that Jewish speculators were a very big part of the problem, if not the biggest. Remember also, as Cm' pointed out, one of Grant's staff members, hand picked by Grant, was Jewish, which ought to put in perspective how "anti-semitic" Grant was in reality. Again, we don't say what and who prompted Grant the most, all we can do is present the basic facts, per Reliable Sources, as I've outlined previously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That the Jews were blamed is not an assumption that's in the Order. That the same order is antisemetic is not in dispute by the sources, nor anyone. But your ideas on "Post WWII notions" is entirely irrelevant, and I do hope we do not have to discuss them here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No one said that order did not say "Jews as a class", etc, so yes, let's end this line of discussion and concentrate on what facts need to be included in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All that needs to be mentioned is that the trade policy was Lincoln's and that Grant and Sherman opposed trading because they believed that prolonged the war. All other "facts" or "speculations" should be in main GO11 article. Smith's (2001) assessement is from the 21 century post WWII Holocaust. I suggest that only adding the statement "In 2001 historian Smith stated....". We don't have to add alot to balloon the paragraph. We need to leave room for the reader to make their own assessments. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The dedicated article for the General Order is for indepth and detailed coverage and should overlap well with our paragraph here. I agree with Cm' on one note, that this paragraph ...should not be held under the constraints of FAC paragraph version. The short passage we are attempting to author is a summary, which doesn't mean the topic should read like a patrol report from one person's perspective. It's a chapter in Grant's biography. The subject has much weight, not in the order of Vicksburg or Appomatox perhaps, but well enough, all the many things considered. As such, we can only add the important facts and let readers decide what and why prompted Grant to over react. Because this is a summary it's important to include all the basic and eminent circumstances that Grant was surrounded with during war. Grant's pressing military concerns should not be understated for the sake of word count. Overall we should provide good scope of this subject which doesn't require the reader to leave the biography to basically understand what was occurring at that juncture in the Civil War. One good paragraph could easily accomplish this. As Cm' also suggested, we could mention the number of Jewish families that were expelled as a result of Grant's hasty order, for additional and important historical context and added balance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be reverting to article talk page argumentations...Let's try to go forward. This was Grant's most aggressive order in all the war. The first sentence needs to establish Grant was an aggressive general. We can't put in the article that Grant got news of the gold shipments because there is no record Grant got news of the gold shipments. We can mention Grant's father came into camp asking for a trade permit for "Mack & Brothers" We can't say this is why GO11 was issued. There are so many unanswered questions we can't put in the paragraph. Was Grant upset troops were ordered to McClernand? Was Grant upset over his father's visit? Did Grant get the letter about the gold shipments ? Why was Grant shielded from protests by Jewish families ? Was Grant trying to embarrass Lincoln because he detested his trade policy ? The ??? can go on and on...Yes. We do need to mention that over 20 or almost 30 Jewish families were taken from their homes. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. There are reliable sources that say Grant was warned by other officers and the War Department about gold, and the prospect of this gold helping the rebel war effort is quite established, again with reliable sources, new and old. We simply need to include this in the existing paragrap. Not doing so will grossly understate Grant's military concerns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First we need to establish that FAC restrictions on the paragraph have been removed. I favor FAC restrictions on the paragraph be removed, but I do not favor unnecessarily ballooning the paragraph. What reliable sources state that Grant's staff or other officers told Grant about the gold shipments ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Featured articles need to be kept up to featured article standards. If not, they get de-featured. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Coemgenus. Isn't that up to Keithbob the mediator? That is why we are in meditation. In order to proceed we need to have some ruling if expansion of the paragraph is allowed rather then reversion to FAC status. Articles need to have room to increase neutrality and reliablity. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What I think Coemgenus is saying is that the FAC consensus process already determined that the FAC version met FAC standards including compliance with policy. We cannot undo that (without going through FAC process). Thus, the WP:ONUS is in particular on those who wish to add more and we all have to come to a consensus on what, if anything, to add in mediation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Main points and discussion part II

I understand that some folks want to add additional details to the main points. That is understandable. My proposed list of main points is just a rough outline of what we want to say in the paragraph about GO11. As we proceed through each point we can discuss precise phrasing, language, and sources, in more detail. Meanwhile, can someone point me to the relevant guidelines on FAC standards and restrictions? I'd like to understand this issue a little better. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure:

"For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus." -- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (emphasis added).

Wikipedia:Featured article criteria:

"A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

FA criteria collapsed for optimal navigation of the thread

It is— well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style."

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I read there is nothing that states FAC is permanent or further editing on the article is forbidden. Wikipedia is an ongoing open editing format. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No one said that and that is a deliberate or mistaken take on our position. Wikipedia honors consensus. The consensus has been established by Wikipedia process that the the article version meets policy and the other FAC criteria. Not only that but two users here entirely support that consensus that has already been established. It is the WP:ONUS of those who want to move from that to convince, whether changes should be made. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"The concensus has been established" ? Respectfully, I was not part of the FAC discussion on concensus nor do I recall being invited. If one takes the FAC view then there can be no more editing since "concensus" has already been reached. Again this is up to Keithbob to determine since Keithbob is mediator of this discussion. I am not for ballooning the paragraph but allowing edits that will improve neutrality and reliablity. For example I already mentioned adding "In 2001..." in reference to the Smith quote since Smith represents 21 century historical assessment. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You were invited, everyone was. Do I need to find diff's where the FAC was discussed and you were there? Yes the FAC consensus has been established, or else it never would have nor could have been promoted. And no, you are entirely incorrect about my "FAC view" - that is not what I said (perhaps you should re-read each of my comments -- and policy cited -- beginning with my first comment in the "Expectations" section). It appears we are in the lack of communication stage once again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy, you've been editing the article and discussing it on the talk page throughout this whole process. Your edits and talk page input have contributed to the consensus all the while. How can you say you weren't a part of it? If Alan and I were the only ones writing it, the article would look very different. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I have contributed to the article's talk page but was not involved directly in any FAC concensus decisions or was told to put my views in the article's talk page rather then FAC discussion. That is in the past. The article has since gone under revisions that make the article more reliable and neutral. Why can't the same standards be applied to the GO11 paragraph? FAC restrictions on the paragraph are too limiting in scope. A whole book by Sarna (2012) was written on the subject. At the same time I am baffled how Bonekemper (2012) ignored the subject in his book Grant and Lee. Again. I am not for ballooning the paragraph by "speculation" or "fact" statements that can be put in the main GO11 article. Keithbob can make this decision as to whether allowing expansion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Keithbob is here to facilitate consensus - he cannot do so by ignoring it (and ignoring two editors in this discussion who adhere to that consensus) and, I'm sorry but respectfully, you cannot avoid carrying your burden under WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Look where we are, right now, we have two editors that adhere to the FAC version, we have one editor that wants something added, but not what yet another editor wants added. It is the proponent's of any added content who have the burden - but they have not even tried yet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are we in meditation then if expansion is forbidden by "concensus" on GO11. This was Coemgenus' idea. There are two for expansion and two against. Kiethbob is in charge of concensus yes...But the real question is whether expansion is allowed in the first place...then editors can decide what expansion is allowed. An opinion from Kiethbob would be helpful to continue this conversation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Because we obviously need a communicator between us. You have not been listening for the past month, nor in this mediation, if you can even begin to argue that Coemgenus and I will not consider some changes from the FAC version - we are skeptical, and there are things we will not agree to but that's just the way consensus works. But again look at what we are faced with right now: we have one editor that wants something added, but not what yet another editor wants added, and it is the proponent's of any added content who have the burden to achieve consensus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, and 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think both points of view are correct in this regard. WP is a stream not a statue. It is a constant work in progress and nothing is written in stone and articles, even FA articles, can always be improved. At the same time FA is WP's top tier of articles and FA status is bestowed only after careful development and rigorous examination by a variety of parties. As such, that consensus that created the FA level article should be respected regardless of whether an editor was involved in that consensus or not. So changes can be made, but they should be made carefully and with good reason and purpose. But that is exactly what we are doing here in this mediation. Taking the time to go through everything carefully and come to a consensus about what is best for the article and the reader. Regarding WP:ONUS this is a guideline that I often see misused in disputes. All WP:ONUS says is that additions or changes must be sourced and that consensus rules on WP and if something is unsourced then the editor proposing the new text needs to provide a source. It does not say that one side is right until the other side proves it wrong. It just tells us we shouldn't force change via edit warring etc. Instead we are expected to provide sources, to discuss on the talk page, at a noticeboard, via an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution, until a consensus develops about that proposed change. So let's drop this discussion about FA and onus as I don't see it as productive. Let's just continue looking at the content, the sources and giving proper weight to the sources regarding this one event in the life and career of Grant. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If I am understanding you correctly, I'm afraid I cannot agree with that view of WP:ONUS - ONUS, a policy not a guideline, begins with the proposition that the information is verifiable - that there is a source for it - the matter ONUS deals with is whether there is a consensus for it to go in the article (or should it go in another artcile) not whether there is a source for it. (perhaps you are thinking of WP:BURDEN which is a different section of policy - so, it would be unreasonable to construe ONUS as restating BURDEN - ONUS deals with consensus and undue and places the onus for "inclusion", not the burden for the source, which is already covered in BURDEN). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree Keithbob. Thanks. We can continue to look at the content. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points Alan, BURDEN and ONUS are both parts of the same policy, WP:V. I was commenting on BURDEN and ONUS simultaneously since they are two aspects of the same policy. The former requires a verifiable source the latter requires consensus. I don't think anyone here is suggesting we create content without a source or without consensus so I'd request that we move on to discussion of the main points. Thank you for your clarification and your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We've been down this road more than once. All statements are and will be backed by reliable sources, so let's try to remain focused on how much content and not sidetrack matters any further. Agree with Cm' and Kiethbob, FA doesn't mean the article can not be improved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point - having a reliable source is not enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We've been down this road more than once. The reliable source in question, Simpson, is used a number of times in the FA, you can't just up and decide to ignore certain items because they don't fit your perception of matters. The Warning and letter involved is also supported by Simon, who refers to the letter in the 'Registry of Letters'. The warning itself is consistent with other warnings Grant received from Asst.Secretary of War Charles Dana, along with Sherman and other officers. No more opinions please. Any further objections need to be outlined, in no uncertain terms, with actual WP policy. -- 159.83.4.1 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

These arguments have already been rejected on a the talk page - a single secondary source does not make a properly represented, due, summary scholarly consensus (a primary source on the same issue does not add to that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

While most items are only cited with one source in the first place you still need to start citing WP policy at this point. Could you simply cite the policy that requires us to use more than one reliable source and one primary source? i.e. Two sources -- consistent with other such warnings about gold, collaboration, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I will focus on what I have been asked to focus on by the mediator, but "a properly represented, due, summary scholarly consensus" does cite policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anyone violating any policies or guidelines in this mediation up to this point. So a discussion about policy is not helpful at this time. Let's stick to discussion of content and sources and leave the policy debates for another time. Please, not more posts in this thread. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of first main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order
6. Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

• Ok let's discuss our main points one by one. After we've gained some agreement on the content for one main point I'll create a new section for the next main point. At the start of each section I'll post the main points in total just as a reference. However, please limit the discussion to the single point under consideration. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So now let's discuss this point only:

• Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War

Since the GO11 event is covered in the Civil War section of the Bio and in the subsection of Shilo. I don't think we need to say much. At present we have half a sentence which says: Along with his military responsibilities. Is this sufficient to convey to the reader that Grant was leading troops in the Civil War at the time of GO11?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that and the general context are enough. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree but would add that Grant was "aggressively" leading Union troops into battle against the Confederates. Bonekemper (2012) believed Grant was an aggressive general. Grant had two victories prior to GO11 Iuka and Corinth Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agree -- the General Order advent unfolded as Grant was getting ready to move on Vicksburg, while the Order itself was issued from Grant's HQ for the Vicksburg campaign. Before that his HQ is where his father and company also came seeking trading permits from Grant. We should also make clear that the situation leading up to the actual battle was unstable, with fleeing blacks and collaborators helping the rebels.
• At this point it appears the only thing that is really in dispute is content -- how many facts we are going to include to comprehensively cover point three. There is no pressing reason why we should not cover this aspect well, and with as many basic facts as is practical. We should also mention that Grant, Sherman, Dana and many others saw the cotton trading and collaborating situation as something directly responsible for helping the rebels with supply and thus greatly prolonging the war. It was much more than a mere "perception". Too many people saw what was occurring. As a Commanding General in the middle of a war, not covering Grant's military motives (very) well would indeed leave the readers with a sketchy picture and should not be overshadowed with 20th century notions that often tend to ignore such considerations. Also, to give added perspective to point five we also might want to quote Grant : "During war times these nice distinctions (concern for feelings of anti-semitism) were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to add alot of information, but add that Grant was an aggressive general, i.e. no "kid gloves". We need to allow the reader to make the distinction. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There's good reason not to add "aggressively", not because it's inaccurate, just because it's bad writing. I tend to avoid adverbs when I can; if we want to show that Grant was aggressive, we should describe the actions that were aggressive, not just lazily characterize it. Show, not tell. But I think we're getting beyond the scope of the mediation. Should we save this one for later? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

On page 669 of Bonekemper (2012) Grant and Lee the "aggressiveness of" Grant is listed on multiple pages. I would not call that lazy. Yes. I agree show Grant's aggressive actions. What is unsettling possibly is how "aggressive" Grant could be to win the war. Iuka and Corinth represent Grant's aggressiveness. Remember Grant was the most winning General of the American Civil War. We might as well get out in the open now. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I simple solution would be to transfer information of Iuka and Corinth into the GO11 paragraph. Nothing need be added. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No kid gloves -- let the readers decide? Sure, and on the same note, we can get rid of Smith's "blatant", and let the readers decide there also. Is Smith's latter day comment more important that Grant's own words on this matter? In any case, we need to continue moving away from this notion that the topic not be covered well in a summary. The current paragraph is only 156 words. This mole-hill has been turned into a mountain with this prolonged and rigid fixation on paragraph length. More importantly, we need to relate the pressing military situations Grant was faced with regarding collaborators helping to fund and prolong the war effort. Currently all we have is "bribed federal officers -- transportation and discipline problems" and "breaking the trade regulations". This hardly describes the overall situation. There is nothing in the text to indicate the serious problem of rebels getting gold and supply from collaborators, allowing them to continue the war, which is why Grant issued the order in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Direction from Keithbob would be appropriate right now. We seem to be at a log jam in conversation. The gold shipment is speculation. There was no order from Grant to stop any gold shipments. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, we have two reliable sources that support the warning from the war dept about gold -- and this is all consistent with the warnings Grant received from Dana, Sherman and other officers. This wasn't a speculation. Yes, I think , we need direction from Kiethbob at this point. It seems we've given him more than a sample of the arguments and how they have been dragged out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What sources state Dana, Sherman, and other officers informed Grant of gold shipments and when? Remember Grant did not give any specific violation in GO11, just a blanket statement all Treasury Department rules were violated. That is why pin pointing any specific reasons for issueing GO11 speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

editbreak3

• Where are you getting the idea that Dana and Sherman warned Grant of "gold shipments"? What these two men actually stated is written clearly above. As someone as well read in Grant as you are I'm sure you can find where it indicates that Grant received complaints/warnings about Jewish speculators trading in gold and/or Treasury notes and breaking trade regulations from other officers -- along with a general warning from the War Department about cotton trading helping the rebels. Out of curiosity and before I tell you, are you now saying you are not aware of these things? If you're not, please tell me, so I can better help you during these discussions.
• The War Department, however, felt that these Northern dollars would end up financing the Confederate Army and took a negative view. Flood, 2012, p.143

• Sherman shared his views with Grant. Brands, 2012, p.202

• Again, we don't say what prompted Grant per se, all we do is include important facts. Being warned by multiple sources about trading in gold, in general, which greatly helped the rebel war effort, should be common knowledge for you. Anyone who wants to convey a clear narrative of the situation Grant was faced with should welcome this content. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of first main point- straw poll

OK, let's stay on track. What we are discussing is how to verbalize the first main point which is:

• Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War

At present that main point is represented by the phrase:

• Along with his military responsibilities

Let's take an informal straw poll to see where we are at on this issue and see if further discussion is needed or if there is already an existing consensus.

• The current phase, Along with his military responsibilities sufficiently summarizes the first main point and does not need any additions or changes.

Please respond to this above statement with a yes I agree or no I disagree iVote. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, I disagree -- I would add that Grant was fighting the Confederate Armies...Iuka and Corinth are examples...How about "Along with his military responsibilities fighting the western Confederate Armies" This conveys that Grant was an active general in the Civil War in the South during the cotton trade. Something to this effect would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus that the phrase "Along with his military responsibilities" is sufficient. However there is a specific proposal on the table (and I like specific proposals) to add a few additional words. I see no harm in taking a moment to comment on this suggestion before moving forward to point #2. Any comments from editors other than the editor putting forth the proposal? How do you feel about the proposed phrase:

• Along with his military responsibilities fighting the western Confederate Armies.........
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think we run the risk of ballooning the paragraph unduly - any addition in isolation can't really be considered in isolation (and luka and corinth in text are just previously discussed) - so perhaps we can revisit this later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any doubt at that point in the article that his military responsibilities involve fighting the rebels? I see no need to restate that very obvious fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not about doubt but rather accuracy.Military responsibilities does not neccessarily convey Grant was an aggressive general fighting the Confederacy and also leaves open what are military responsibilities. According to Simon Grant believed GO11 was giving him an advantage over the fighting the Confederacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What about this "In addition to fighting the western Confederate Armies, Grant was in charge of the cotton trade in his military department." Cmguy777 (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Keithbob wants you 'the proposer' to comment in this section, so it would not be good of us to reply in substance, here, now - that won't mean we are ignoring you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a right to this discussion, disagree, or defend my position. I have made an agreement to participate in this discussion. Are you speaking for Keithbob ? Cmguy777 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I told you my understanding of what a structured mediation is and the multiple requests of Keithbob, thoughout, including:"give me only what I ask for" and "I see no harm in taking a moment to comment on this suggestion before moving forward to point #2. Any comments from editors other than the editor putting forth the proposal?" If people just talk and talk, we already know that leads to just endless nothing, which is why we came to mediation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a natural instinct to defend ones position. Of course I want other editors to comment. Yes. Keithbob is the mediator to guide us to consensus. I believe Keithbob wanted other editors to comment on my proposal. I was commenting on what other editors had to say. I don't want to lead to endless conversation so I will wait for input from Keithbob. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Other editors can disregard my response statements in the interest of discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your continued civility and professionalism. Disputes are never easy. It seems that those that oppose additions are not inclined to expand the phrase even after further discussion. Keep in mind that readers can click the link to the full article on GO11 to get more detail. With that in mind, let's move on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 2nd main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War = Along with his military responsibilities
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

We are now discussing point #2: Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district. Any suggestions for appropriate text?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• ". . .Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I think that works. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Aren't points one and two covered with the same short sentence in the existing paragraph? The existing sentence looks best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• That depends. The trade was out of control and Grant could not completely enforce all the rules. The trade policy was Lincoln's. Grant did not want to trade during the Civil War and he did not have authority to abolish the trade. I suggest adding the either phrases "authorized by Lincoln" or "authorized by the Treasury Department." be added for claryfication. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We have four proposed versions:

1. Grant oversaw trade in his department [note: this is the current text in the article])
2. Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district.
3. Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district [as] authorized by Lincoln
4. Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district [as] authorized by the Treasury Department.

Would participants like to indicate which one is their first choice and which one would be their second choice? This is just for the purpose of discussion and you can change your mind, if needed, as the discussion proceeds. But for now, just to see where we might have some common ground, can you indicate first and second choices?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say let's just use the first version. There's no sense going down the rabbit hole of who authorized what—it's a distraction to the reader that adds nothing to the article. My second choice would be the second on the list, I guess, but I think "oversaw" is better than "was in charge of" just as a matter of style. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I do like the word "oversaw" rather then "in charge of". Grant was more of a manager or enforcer of Lincoln's or the Treasury Department's instructions. I suggest a combination of both # 1 and # 4. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Any of the above work okay, but a passage with context always works better. -- This way we're not 'requiring' the reader to hop to another page every few sentences just to understand the basics. Regarding Lincoln v Treasury Dept -- wouldn't Lincoln have say over the Treasury? I would use the statement that mentions Lincoln, using the phrase 'oversaw'. Btw, we should make the general statement that Grant disapproved over the cotton trading from the start -- even before he had issues with Jewish speculators. The existing paragraph doesn't mention this. We might want to mention that here.
Grant also oversaw the cotton trade in his district [as] authorized by Lincoln but had always opposed the practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I like Gwillhicker's suggestion but would change "district" to "department". Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: ...Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his department but had always opposed the practice. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Did Grant oppose the ongoing cotton trade, or did he oppose the policy that made it his responsibility? I don't remember reading either in the sources (which is not to say it's not there, somewhere). --Coemgenus (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This was previously outlined above, here and here. Grant expressed his dislike for the trade as he (and others) feared it would help fund the rebel war effort. In fact Grant appealed to the Treasury Dept but they declined and instead made a bunch of rules that were virtually impossible to effectively enforce.<Flood, 2005, p.143> <Smith, 2001, p.225> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Flood (2005) Grant and Sherman pages 143-144 refering to both Grant and Sherman stated: "...as they saw it, while brave Northern boys died, profiteers poured into the South to trade with the enemy, ruining discipline in Union Army camps and creating bad feeling among the men..." I believe this would mean Grant opposed the cotton trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant's biggest objection it would seem was that the cotton trading was helping the rebel war effort, but all we need to say is that Grant had always opposed such trading, as did Sherman, the War Dept and others. Somewhere in the narrative we should make this clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we are not discussing, at this time, Grant's attitude towards the cotton trade. We are only establishing that he had authority over (or oversaw or was in charge of) the cotton trade. In the next main point (#3) we will craft text to convey Grant's attitude towards the cotton trade. With this is in mind the text currently in the article [Grant oversaw trade in his department] seems to have the broadest base of support as indicated by these comments:

• I'd say let's just use the first version. -- Coemgenus
• Fine.-- Alanscottwalker
• I do like the word "oversaw" rather then "in charge of"…..I suggest a combination of both # 1 and # 4. --- User:Cmguy777
• Any of the above work okay, but a passage with context always works better. -- Gwillhickers

Therefore it seems like some variation of the current text might be the most satisfying to the most participants:

1. Grant oversaw trade in his department [current article text]
2. Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his department
3. Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district

Thoughts? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say 2 is the best and most accurate description, possibly adding, "...having authority to give permits to traders..." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that more context is needed. We need a better opening statement for this topic.
• The three choices above tend to read like a dictionary entry. The passage/summary overall will need a fair amount of context, as this is a rather complex and controversial issue. Also, expressing that Grant was against the trading from the beginning would be well placed near or at the beginning and would set the tone for the narrative that follows.It seems we need a 4th choice, one that is more comprehensive that the readers will better appreciate. Currently this 'summary' doesn't even mention that Grant was a Commanding General, or his feelings about the trading.

Proposal for opening sentence: Along with his military responsibilities as a Commanding General, Grant oversaw cotton trade in his department, which he and others had been opposed to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think #2 is best. #1 is fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Keithbob: Why is the phrase 'Along with his military responsibilities' not included in choice # 1 (current article text)? Is it possible to include choices that have a bit more context? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We are crafting an opening sentence for the paragraph on GO11. We are going one small step at a time and building on each prior consensus. We already have a consensus to start with the phrase: "Along with his military responsibilities". Now we are adding to that phrase, a second phrase such as one of the three suggested above. So far two of the four editors have indicated they like #2 from the above list of three. So a complete sentence might look like:

• In addition to his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his department.

This is just the opening sentence. There will be opportunity for give further context in subsequent sentences.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would add to the above sentence..."...including granting trade permits..." Mentioning Grant as Commanding General and that he opposed Lincoln's trade policy could mentioned in the next sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Prefer 3, I don't prefer the rather legalistic use of "department" as it's never explained what a department is in the article (it actually sounds like an agency not a geographic region) and it's rather unnecessary to have that complexity - the Army of the Tennessee controlled a region (district) and he was the head of it - and he exiled people from that area. (I can live with department but I think it is poor plain summary, here) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob:, Okay, I wasn't sure that was included when you presented the choices as shown above. Agree with ASW. The term 'department' doesn't really nail the idea. 'Department' can mean a branch or office of a gov or business organization. Prefer 'district', as this applies to 'places' or 'areas'. Also I'm in partial agreement with Cmguy, that we should at least mention the idea that Grant was a Commanding General, and that he (and others) were opposed to the cotton trading from the beginning, in the second sentence, though I still think one good opening sentence would cover all these preliminary ideas well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: "In addition to his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, having sole authority to grant trade permits." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If we mention 'Commanding General' it will be understood that Grant had such authority -- at the same time we provide the readers with the context that he was in fact a C.G. Anyway, we should put discussion of the opening sentence, in its entirety, on hold for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to wait until Keithbob makes comments. I am not against putting the term Commanding general in either the 1st or 2nd paragraph. The important issue is that Grant was the sole provider for these permits...taking up his time in fighting the Confederates. Grant did get Lincoln to stop trade in 1865 in part of the Eastern War front. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears we have a consensus for:

• In addition to his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.

There is a suggestion to add something about' trade permits' to this sentence. Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's fine as it is. The bit about the trade permits is a detail that, while true, takes up scarce space without adding anything important to the narrative. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• This appears okay, but I would recommend that we say from the beginning (1st or 2nd sentence) that Grant was opposed to the cotton trading. Re: Space considerations in general: Space is not so scare that we can't add a few words to this effect. It's very important context, directly reflecting on Grant, and will help much in summing the issue up, per what a summary is supposed to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Coemgenus is correct. Space is an issue. The FAC version was 99 words, the present version is over-long at 156 and quite as long as surrounding paragraphs on the great war -- all this for dwelling upon a 21 day order, which while in need of noting and some explication is still a 21 day order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, space is an issue when we're adding several sentences and more. Using this as a catch-all excuse to block a few words of context is ridiculous. Regarding length of time v issue weight. Lincoln's assassination took place in roughly one day. Does that by itself make the issue not important? Again, ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The only thing ridiculous is bringing up Lincoln's assassination -- not remotely relevant, nor similar, in the least. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You're evading the point. Length of time doesn't by itself make an issue important or not important. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is much that is important about his life; we need to cover them breifly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly Keithbob is allowing editors to discuss content freely without specific regards to space. Why has space been brought up again? Bringing up space is hampering discussion. I signed up to discuss content, not argue whether editors can edit because of interpreted FA space limitations rules. Space in essence is becoming an excuse for not giving better clarification of the GO11 paragraph. Readers need to understand that Grant's authority to give "lucrative" permits gave Grant extreme power as a general and side tracked the war effort. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, "to edit" means to remove and to cut and to reject, not just add - indeed, cutting is the great challenge of writing a good article, when there are tons and tons of sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And entering mediation does not mean the rest of the encyclopedia's rules don't apply. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus are you the mediator or is Kiethbob? Keithbob should decide how the FA rules are to be interpreted. If editors are not allowed to expand the article then why are editors in mediation in the first place? FA article need to expand and contract. I have had to correct several mistakes in the FA article adding some details, including details on the enforcement acts. FA articles are not perfect and should not be restricted by interpreted rules by other editors. Kiethbob is our mediator and Kiethbob allowed editors to discuss expansion of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You've known all along about the opposition to expansion, and indeed the desire to cut. We all said it at the beginning about why we are in mediation, there is little use in re-saying what has already been said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, Keithbob is the mediator and has opened discussion to expansion of the paragraph. Discussion of article expansion has already taken place. If we are not allowed expansion or limited expansion of the paragraph then there is no use for mediation in the first place since there can be no open discussion of content in the paragraph. I am not sure why there is such opposition to expansion if the paragraph has better reliability, context, narration, neutrality, and clarification. Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus have made edits on the article June 20, 2015. We keep going over expansion when we should be discussing the paragraph. Keithbob should have opinions on the matter. Simply adding a sentence fragment that Grant had the power of granting permits is good for context and neutrality to the article. That was why "Mack & Brothers" visited Grant's camp hoping Grant's father would convince Grant to give the company a trade permit. I am not for ballooning the paragraph. Mentioning Grant was against the cotton trade also adds to neutrality of the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's move on to the next point because we are not reaching agreement here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cm' is exactly right on all counts. The idea of space limitation has been thrown out there more times than I care to count by the same two editors, and often just to block small additions of context. Sometimes it has taken an act of congress just to add a few words, just as we are, once again, doing now. This has really gone on long enough. Again, no one during the FAC process used page length to 'not approve' FA status, and the greater majority of those who approved the FAC didn't even mention the idea of length. Again, all some of us wish to do is add a sentence or two of needed context and clarity. The article/paragraph will not explode if we do so. Again, there is no mention of Grant's feelings about cotton trading helping the rebels and no mention of Grant acting as Commanding General. Yes, let's move on and concentrate on how we are going to provide a well rounded summary where the reader doesn't have to hop to another page just to understand the basic story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for any additions to the sentence noted above, so we will leave it as is and move onto point #3 in our summary which deals with Grant's objections to the cotton trade in his district.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 3rd main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War = Along with his military responsibilities
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district = Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

So far we have a consensus to cover the first two points of our summary in this sentence:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.

Now we are discussing point #3:

• Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives

Any suggestions for text that would effectively convey this information?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Point number three here is what I have had issues with mostly. We need to mention pressing military concerns, that cotton trading was greatly helping the rebel war effort and that Grant was opposed to the trading from the beginning. We need to also mention that Grant was not alone in his feelings, that the War Department, Sherman and other officers saw the problem clearly and shared their feelings with Grant, so the reader doesn't think Grant existed in some anti-semitic vacuum and issued the Order primarily on this premise alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. Grant and Sherman believed soldiers were dying while traders were getting wealthy. Grant did get Lincoln to stop trade in 1865 I believe in part of the Eastern War when Grant was overall commanding General. I support adding that Grant was against the trade...Grant wanted to obtain a strategic advantage but this was hard to do since the Confederate war effort was being funded by trade. Again this was a Lincoln policy. Lincoln was a politician while Grant was a General. Lincoln was also giving troops to McClernand, Grant's rival at this time. GO11 was a low point in Grant's Civil War military career. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• This was well covered in the FAC version, which had the prose advantage of getting to the point quickly and efficiently, to answer the summary questions in the readers mind about what we are talking about and what it has to do with the war the article is in the midst of discussing: "[O]n December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that sums up Gwillhickers's and Cmguy's requested points nicely, and covers the episode succinctly and without POV. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Two editors agree on this text:

• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields.

If you feel this version is not satisfactory then please propose specific changes or additions to create a revised version that all four editors might agree to.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with this. The sentence should read:
Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, which he and the War Department were opposed to from the beginning. We should be very clear about this important point -- i.e. Grant's feelings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The language here is a bit sketchy. Instead of saying "Grant believed" (which begs the question 'why?') it should read that Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers. And the phrase 'merchants were profiteering' doesn't even begin to touch on the matter of the rebel war effort being helped/prolonged by the cotton trading. To cover these points clearly this is how the sentence should read:

... Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers that Jewish merchants were purchasing cotton with gold and treasury notes which was helping the rebel war effort and prolonging the war, while Grant was also concerned that Union soldiers were dying in the fields. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reminder: Disagreement over the presentation of point three is why the mediation request was made. Two editors want to revert to the FAC version or keep the coverage to a bare minimum, while two others would like to see additions made for clarity and comprehensiveness. Other editors have also expressed their opinions on this note on the Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

According to GO11 Grant stated Jewish merchants were in violation of Treasury Department rules. I would skip the part about hearing about gold shipments because there is nothing to confirm this. Here is my suggested version: Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant believed trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We have three suggested versions:

1. [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields.
2. [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] which he and the War Department were opposed to from the beginning. Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers that Jewish merchants were purchasing cotton with gold and treasury notes which was helping the rebel war effort and prolonging the war, while Grant was (also) concerned that Union soldiers were dying in the fields.
3. [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] Grant believed trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations.

To my eye version #3 appears to be a compromise between version #1 and version #2. Is #3 a version that all the participants could live with? Please remember that meditation is about collaboration and compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal number 2 is best, as it clearly tells the readers why Grant felt as he did. The idea of 'profiteering' (per choice #1 & 3) is understood and doesn't shed light on any other pressing military concerns. And again, the idea of "Grant believed" is sketchy, begs the question why and suggests that Grant reacted primarily out of some notion of anti-semitism. Previously I wanted to mention that Grant was also warned by the War Dept about large gold shipments arriving in Tennessee, but, per Cm's concern, I think we can cover this affair with the general statement that Grant was simply warned by the War Dept and other officers, including Sherman, about the gold for cotton trading that was helping the rebel war effort. We might also want to mention the arrival of Grant's father, with Mack & Co. which very likely was the catalyst (i.e.Grant was already primed and angry with the cotton trading) that spurred Grant on to issue such an Order, per Jewish historian Sarna's contention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I suppose I am biased for #3 since I wrote the suggested version. The first part can be changed..."Grant viewed" rather then "Grant believed". "Profiteering" can be changed to "Profitted". Remember Grant could give lucritive permits to trade. This is what drove the corruption on the Union lines that led to bribery of officers. There is no direct evidence Grant was warned of the gold shipment...Grant did not say he issued GO11 because of any gold shipments. We have to go by Grant's order, just a general statement that all Treasury trade rules were violated, nothing specific. Mentioning Grant's father is good for the GO11 article along with mentioning the speculation about the gold shipment for cotton. Sarna (2012) covers these issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I like #1 the best, as you might expect. #3 is a distant second. Everything in it can be reliably sourced, at least, even if it's overlong to my mind (and I think "said" is almost always better than "stated", for what it's worth). #2 is also too wordy, and it relies on a minority view of the facts—the business with the gold shipments is unsubstantiated and, it must be said, reinforces anti-Semitic stereotypes. I understand that Gwillhickers wants to put Grant's views on the Jews in the context of their times, but it goes a bit too far, for my tastes. I agree with Cmguy that the bit about Jesse Grant belongs in the main GO11 article.--Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Well 1 was proposed by me and I still prefer it. However, I could be reluctantly persuaded to three with reordering the sentences. I still think getting to the point is of better service to the reader and to summary: "On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations. Grant believed trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields." 2 is opposed; for among other reasons, it has undue emphasis on 'Jews' gold'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SUMMARY: There doesn't seem to be any support for #2 except from the proposing editor so let's take a look at the remaining choices:

• A) [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.]
  • On December 17, 1862, he/Grant issued General Order No. 11 expelling Jews, as a class, from the district.
    • Grant believed (viewed) Jewish merchants were profiteering (profited) from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields.

• B) [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.]
  • Grant believed (viewed) trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering (profited) from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields.
    • On December 17, 1862, he/Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating (saying) Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations.

I've added in parenthesis the suggested changes to wording and I've highlighted in bold the common language between the two versions. Aside from the rearrangement of the sentences the only difference is choice B adds the phrase: violating Treasury trade regulations. Would someone like to propose a final version based on this comparison, that they think everyone can live with?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why are we not including the fact that Grant was warned by the War Dept and other officers? Instead we now have "Grant viewed" instead of "Grant believed". Also, why are we not stating Grant's primary concern as a Commanding General, that the rebel war effort was being helped and that the war was being prolonged?? This would be a major concern for any General. And we still have "profiteering" which is understood (i.e.nobody works for nothing) which doesn't shed any light on the major concerns of Grant, the War dept and other officers. So far I don't see much of a compromise here, just a slight rewording of the same sketchy phrases. Grant's concerns and military interests are still grossly understated. -- Other than the phrase 'Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations' , what is the difference between choices A and B? There were far more pressing issues than 'violation of trade regulations'. i.e.1 Collaboration with the enemy; 2 Helping the rebel war effort; 3 Prolonging of the war. These primary concerns need to be stated in the summary and can easily be covered with one sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal : Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers that Jewish merchants were purchasing cotton with gold and treasury notes which was helping the rebel war effort and prolonging the war, while Grant was also concerned that Union soldiers were dying in the fields. Subsequently on December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again I am biased for version B...That version states Grant viewed the trade was undermining the Union War effort...That includes bribery of Union War officers and the inability to secretly move troops having all the traders in camp. The gold shipment is speculation Gwillhickers and Grant did not mention the gold shipment in GO11. I would be in favor of adding "As commanding general, Grant viewed..." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about this, based on version B, but tightened up a bit: "Grant believed the trade undermined the war effort while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." --Coemgenus (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Cm', I've already mentioned that I would pass on mentioning gold shipments -- and btw, the gold shipment is not speculation. It was reported by the War Dept in a letter, which was recorded in the Registry of Letters, covered by a reliable source, Simpson, used in the biography. It is consistent with statements made by Dana and Sherman about gold. We've had this discussion more than twice now. As a compromise however, we need to say gold was used to purchase cotton, as this was readily useable by the rebels, unlike Union currency. For that reason the trade regulations specifically forbade the use of gold in the cotton trading. Merely saying that the trading "undermined the war" is sketchy, and doesn't point to the urgency and concerns that Grant, Sherman, Dana and the War Department shared. The paragraph already says the trading was undermining the war. As a fair compromise, we should clearly relate why Grant felt as he did, per my proposal above. Merely saying "undermined the war" could mean any number of minor things. We need to express clearly the urgency Grant and others were faced with. i.e.Helping the rebel cause -- collaboration with the enemy -- prolonging the war. There is no reason not to be clear on this important point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I could live with Coemgenus' B. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I like Coemgenus edit: Here is a suggested modification : "Grant believed the cotton trade undermined Union military advantage, funded the Confederacy, while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." Gwillhickers, specific issues such as gold for cotton can be addressed in the main GO11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about this minor tweak: "Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." --Coemgenus (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes I can accept the minor tweak Coemgenus edit. Looks good to me. Specific issues such as Grant's father visiting his camp, bribery of federal officers, and inability to hide Union troop movements can be discussed in the main GO11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• We still have Grant "believed", or "viewed", with no indication that Grant was not alone in his feelings and that the War Dept and other officers shared his concerns. I like Coemgenus' version somewhat, but would only ask that we also mention that Grant was warned by others (instead of "Grant believed") and that the war was also being prolonged, which had to have been among the most pressing concerns of Grant. This would be a fair compromise. i.e.We're still not mentioning anything about gold for cotton trading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• @ Gwillhickers: It is uncertain that Grant was directly warned about any alleged gold shipments. The federal files only state that the War Department received a "gold shipment" letter from one individual in early December and that the War Department was to notify Grant. There is no federal record that states Grant recieved any message from the War Department notifying Grant concerning a "gold shipment". That would be speculation in my opinion. This issue would best be addressed in the GO11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Cmguy. Those points are best left for the GO11 article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777:} As I've said, several times now, I am passing on trying to add "gold shipments". However, there are reliable sources that do say that gold was being used in the trading. Please make more of an effort to read what is written v read what you think was written. This sort of activity is largely responsible for these discussions repeating themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: In the article we need to focus on Grant in my opinion. The gold shipments are a side track. I am for adding a sentence that there was corruption: bribing federal officers: in addition to not being able to hide Union troop movements from the Confederates. This could be put into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: All along you've argued against keeping the paragraph confined to the FAC version, yet I don't see any of the proposals you mentioned materializing in the paragraph. In any case, gold, helping the rebel effort, reflects Grant's major and foremost concerns, assuming he took his role as Commanding General and the responsibilities it incurred seriously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I am for the addition that there was bribery of federal Union officers by the traders and troop movements could not be hidden do to traders following Grant's army. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Well, it's sort of impossible to 'hide' troop movements when you're marching along with a few brigades, but I get your drift. In any case, these items support the idea of 'prolonging the war' coverage of which you seemed to have been opposed to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing an emerging consensus for this version:

• [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations.

Gwillhickers, I understand that you want to add some additional information but so far I have not seen any support from other editors for adding any of the items you've mentioned. With that in mind, is there anything in this proposed, final version that you feel should not be there?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Keithbob: Yes, there has been opposition to virtually all proposals to add more context and comprehensiveness to the paragraph. This was understood before we arrived here. My understanding was that the reason we are here is to arrive at a compromise. Coemgenus added "funded the Confederacy", which is important. (btw, thanks Coemgenus) Other than that there has been almost no other compromise to the many important items mentioned -- and no explanation along historical lines why we shouldn't. Just the pat response 'it belongs in the GO#11 article'. Is it my understanding that all you are going to do here is tally up consensus, which we already have established long ago, and offer no suggestions of your own? You spoke of compromise. What would you suggest? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Side comment on process

As a mediator I try hard to remain neutral; to avoid taking sides. But the one side I do take is the side of WP guidelines and policies.

• The relevant guideline in this case is WP:Summary which says:
  • A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. [bold added]

What we are doing in this mediation is determining, through discussion, collaboration and compromise how the subtopic’s article should be summarized in the main article. As the discussion progresses it’s my job to identify common ground and help the participants to build on that common ground and find consensus.

• WP:Consensus says:
  • When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. [bold added]

• • Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. [bold added]

Every participant has the opportunity to convey their views, their concerns and opinions. Even if their views are in the minority they should have an opportunity to present their views to the others. However, if their presentation and subsequent discussion does not change the views of the other participants, and the remaining rough consensus view is not in violation of any guidelines or policies, then there is no choice but to proceed in spite of the minority viewpoint.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: -- Let's keep in mind that consensus here is rather marginal, as an other knowledgeable editor of the Civil War liked the additions I proposed. I'm sure if we had more time we could have garnered a broader and more definitive consensus but Coemgenus was in a rush to go the 'Mediation' route so I went along. In cases where consensus is marginal I'm hoping that a fair compromise will be reached that reflects everyone's concerns. The proposals I offered are major points that directly bear on Grant that need to be in the summary if it is to be comprehensive. Since this can be easily achieved with a few words I'm still not quite understanding this prolonged and rigid opposition against adding a few words of clarity to the paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gwillhickers, thanks for your response. I've uncollapsed this section in case there are further comments or discussion. Yes I agree, consensus can be difficult when there are only four people. That is likely why the talk page discussions went on for so long without reaching any conclusions. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Unwillingness to compromise on a few simple points of clarity with a few added or substituted words, all backed by reliable sources, is almost entirely responsible for this ongoing state of affairs. I came here with the understanding that you would offer guidance and suggestions about a fair compromise. So far we have no mention of Grant being warned by other officers and the War Dept, (i.e.Grant was not alone and didn't base what he "believed" on "anti-semitic" pipe dreams, but military intelligence), no mention of the arrival of Grant's father with his Jewish partners, no mention of the war being prolonged, no mention of gold shipments (which I said we can pass on), or that gold was even being used against trade regulations. These are all major points, concerns that any general in the field would have, that belong in a summary. There is concern of stereotyping Jews by mentioning gold, but there doesn't seem to be much concern for stereotyping a Civil War general and an American president as a Jew hater. So far the only compromise offered is Coemgenus' proposal, "funding the Confederacy". While this is important, there still remains a number of fuzzy statements. e.g."Grant believed...". Why wouldn't anyone want to clarify that important point? "Page length"? We need a fair and reasonable compromise to bring balance and important clarity to the paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 4th main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

So far there appears to be a consensus for this text:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations.

Point four of our summary says:

• Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district

Is there anything that needs to be added to the current consensus text so that point four is fully conveyed?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Point four is currently worded adequately in the Grant biography, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• In terms of neutrality, I believe adding that there was bribery of Union officers and that traders were hindering troop movements would add clarification before the sentence. I do not have any issues concerning point #4. However, I would add that over almost 30 Jewish families were expelled from Grant's district. This makes the order real and shows that Grant's order was carried out by the Union Army. Another issue is that Rawlin's, Grant's legal advisor and assistant, was firmly against giving the order. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• I thought the Smith quotation was useful here. It's a good place for a professional historian to put the order in historical context. So, I'd add: "Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." "--Coemgenus (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Also because it is attributed, it avoids the problem. Alanscottwalker (talk)

• Suggested paragraph: "Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. Speculators bribed federal Union officers while traders attached themselves to Union regiments. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. The order was carried out by the Union Army removing almost 30 Jewish families, at least, from their homes." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd rather not add the number of families affected, especially since the number seems to be inexact. And adding that the order was carried it is kind of superfluous. Aren't most orders carried out? Seems to me we should only note when they weren't, because that would be unusual. How about this paragraph: Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We have two proposals on the table. This one:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. Speculators bribed federal Union officers while traders attached themselves to Union regiments. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. The order was carried out by the Union Army removing almost 30 Jewish families, at least, from their homes.

And this one:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history.

I've highlighted the proposed additions in bold for easy comparison.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am for the first version. Adding there was actual corruption, bribing federal officers, adds neutrality to the article. Flood (2005) covers this in his book Grant and Sherman on page 143. "Most orders are carried out" is not the issue in my opinion. This order affected at least almost 30 Jewish families. I believe that is signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope everyone enjoyed their holiday weekend and thank you all for your continued civility and maturity during these proceedings. Now that we back into our weekday routine....... Any comments or discussion on these two proposals?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Speculators . . ." sentence in this brief paragraph makes it look like "Jews, as a class" were at fault for that. Wikipedia cannot and should not imply that. The rest I have little to add at the moment other than agree with Coemgenus' cmt at 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding Jewish families who were expelled as a result of the Order: This is excellent historical context and should be added also. We don't have to provide an exact number. To be accurate, we should indicate that most of the Jews in the area arrived for the sake of purchasing cotton. e.g. 'This order effected Jewish speculators and their families' . i.e.Speculators should be mentioned first.
• We still have "Grant believed" which will beg the tag. Given the modern day mindset, this phrase will easily suggest that Grant acted primarily out of prejudice. There was concern for stereotyping. Does this concern extent to Grant? Why can't we simply say that Grant was warned by the War Dept and other officers? No one has answered this question, submitted several times now.
• The existing paragraph has Simpson's quote, that Grant did not act out of anti-semitism. This of course I am assuming will remain in the paragraph for balance. Removal of Simpson's quote (which was added after much discussion), along with the existing lack of context will beg the POV tag above the paragraph in the article. I'm also seeing little mention of compromise. As was mentioned, consensus is marginal, so we should start talking more about compromise soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we have discussed "why" before, to quote myself, As historian Harold Holzer wrote in 2012: "no historian has been able to fully understand — much less justify — why, on Dec. 17, 1862, Grant issued his notorious General Orders No. 11 deporting Jewish citizens." [[1]] Wikipedia cannot present a [summary] consensus on factors, which does not exist . . . As Holtzer also writes, "Not all Civil War-era Jews were speculators, peddlers or smugglers, and not all Civil War-era speculators, peddlers and smugglers were Jews. But Americans living through the rebellion — and many crises before and since — often cast blame on the tiny minority that 19th-century Northerners and Southerners often referred to as “the Israelites.” Shocking as it seems, one of the most notorious offenders was the greatest Union hero of the war: Ulysses S. Grant."[[2]].

I also think you are wrong -- the Jews that were expelled in Peducah lived there before the war. Not to mention the Jewish officer that resigned from Grant's command because of the order - he was affected; or the detained just married couple that were passing through, - they were affected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we don't say 'Grant issued the order because...' . What we do however is simply add important facts. e.g.Grant was warned by many others. Also, I did not say that Jews who were not speculators were not effected by the Order. Also, Hotzler has to be somewhat naive if he can't find reasons why Grant acted with his broad brush Order. Grant himself said there was little time and the matter couldn't be handled with kid gloves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you just argued you wanted to add "why". Moreover, however you feel about Holzer is not relevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should provide the important and basic facts that lead up to the issuance of the Order. Leaving them out will beg the 'why' question. We will not be mentioning gold, but we should indicate that Grant was not alone in his feelings and that he was warned by the War Dept and other officers, including Sherman, covered by existing sources. i.e.Flood, p. 143. Is there a particular reason why you don't want to be clear on the events that led up to the order? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because historians are unclear about why and we can't pretend they are clear -- moreover, details go to the Main article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No one is pretending to do anything here. All we do is add important facts. The existing paragraph has "details" in it already, so your last comment is one sided and attempts to avoid the question of why we should not be clear on events leading up to the Order. Once again, the main article is for extended coverage. This doesn't mean we can't add the basic facts in the paragraph we're putting together here. A summary is supposed to cover the basic facts. Grant being warned by other officers and the War Dept are basic and definitive facts and tells the readers Grant didn't exist in a vacuum and acted on mere notions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's incorrect -- you do not and cannot have basic and definitive where the historians are unclear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I raised several point here, so try not to respond with these generalizations right off the bat. Once again, we don't say why Grant acted, nor do we actually say which facts are basic or definitive. That's up to editors here to decide, as we have been doing all along, with limited success, due to this unreasoned and unwillingness to compromise. Also, some historians remain unclear. Some of them however have a clue, including Simpson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

edit break1

We don't say why Grant acted because historians don't agree on why Grant acted. That doesn't demand an answer as to "why"; most actions are presented in encyclopedia articles without examining the actor's psyche. And, as I said before on the talk page, you're misconstruing Simpson. When I pointed this out the first time, I assumed it was accidental. Yet here we are. I'll repeat again what I said then: "You've set it up like a contrast, as though Smith and Simpson have opposite opinions. They don't, they're taking about two different things. Smith is describing the effect of the order, which was by definition anti-Semitic. Simpson is speculating as to Grant's motives, which he believes were less malign than they appear on the face of it. These are both acceptable things to include in a Wikipedia article, but we should be careful not to make it look like one contradicts the other. They could both be true: the order was anti-semitic; Grant's motives may well have been something other than hatred of the Jews." All authors agree that the order was anti-Semitic. I thought Smith was a fairly recent author who explained the point succinctly, so I included his analysis. Simpson does not contradict him, nor does any other historian. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think explaining the thing in historical context (on which historians all agree) is more important to this brief summary than speculating on Grant's motives (on which there is some disagreement). Simpson's explanations would not be out of place in the GO11 article, though, and I would be pleased to see them added, if that's something you're interested in. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: The word speculators is not used in the same sentence as Jews. The main point is that Union officers were bribed. That is corruption and Grant in part was responding to corruption. The paragraph is no way defending Grant nor implying that all or any speculators were Jews. Flood (2005) used the exact word "Speculators" in his book. Jewish people, as a class, are only introduced in Grant's order. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This how it reads: "Speculators bribed federal Union officers while traders attached themselves to Union regiments. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." So 'the Jews were bribers' is the juxtaposition that is left. I cannot support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker you are adding words to the sentence that are clearly not there. Flood (2005) stated there were speculators who bribed Union officers. There is no implication or juxtaposition in the sentence that Jewish traders bribed Union officers. We don't know who did the actual bribing. That is neutrality. According to Flood (2005) there were both Jewish traders and non Jewish traders. I could reword the sentence: "Union officers were bribed while traders attached themselves to the Union Army." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I quoted the sentences. I did not add. I said how the juxtaposition reads. It is in part because we don't know who did bribing, that I am opposed. I cannot support the suggestion, and I disagree that it leaves it neutral, sorry. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with you opposing the sentence. I believe you added your own interpretation to the Flood (2005) source the juxtapostion "the Jews were bribers". Flood (2005) source does not state this in any manner in his book. Are we then to leave out bribery took place and discount Flood (2005) as a source ? I believe mentioning bribery adds to neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is summarizing the known, relevant information without bias. It's not balancing one "good" fact with one "bad" one. Where the facts unfavorable to Grant outnumber the favorable ones, balancing them would actually be less neutral, not more. Working to make Grant look better in a situation where historians universally agree he acted poorly is not neutrality, it is POV-pushing against the historical consensus. Alan is right that if the facts are unknown or fuzzy, and they're not necessary to tell the story, and especially when they're being added because an editor thinks they make an unfavorable incident in Grant's life look more favorable, there's no way I can support adding it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave what I believe was a reliable source Flood (2005) concerning bribery of Union officers. Are Coemgenus and AlanScottWalker saying Flood (2005) is unreliable ? Wikipedia policy is to make edits from reliable sources. If one leaves out bribery or traders attaching themselves to the Union Army, then Grant's order in my opinion looks to be motivated only from Grant's anti-semitic sympathies or beliefs from a reader's standpoint. Neutrality requires various sources to be represented in the article, not just one, such as Smith. Yes we do not know who did the actual bribing, yet Grant was fighting a war while Union officers were being bribed, according to Flood (2005). There appears to be no concensus on this issue by editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, in a summary we cannot use every source - we can only give a brief overview. As for Grant, we already state the very thing he explicitly said in the order and its relation to the military, this already achieved consensus above, and is a neutral overview - the details, and debates go to the Main article. Unless what you are suggesting is you want in depth discussion in this paragraph of the multiple sources that explicate Grant's contemporaneous anti-semitic statements and the multiple sources that discuss the small percentage of Jewish traders, which I would rather not add, just as I cannot support this (but for somewhat different reasons). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In writing, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, I try to follow Strunk and White's classic rule: Omit needless words. Let's think about what the paragraph would look like without that "Speculators bribed..." sentence. Is anything lost? Is the meaning changed? Is the reader misinformed? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never suggested explicating or defending Grant's anti-semitic statements. Bribery of Union officers is a seperate subject. To be neutral I had left out the number or percentage of Jewish traders. The actual number of Jewish traders I can't find in any sources. I am willing to compromise. We can drop the bribery sentence and leave in the sentence concerning the actual hardship of at least the almost 30 Jewish families who were expelled by Grant's order. The actual number of Jewish families expelled is unknown. In my opinion leaving out information on the number of Jewish families expelled is relevant and could be concidered protectionist of Grant. Since this is Grant's low point I believe more discussion is required in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

edit break2

Compromise paragraph:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, authorized by Lincoln. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Grant's order, carried out by the Union Army, removed almost 30 Jewish families, at least, from their homes. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy but, i suppose I could live with, no more than:'

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district as authorized by Lincoln. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. While Grant's order was being enforced against several Jewish families, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. Biographer Jean Edward Smith calls the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." When Lincoln demanded it be revoked, Grant rescinded the three week order and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends when he became president. -- Unsigned Comment by [3] User:Alanscottwalker

This is good discussion and I think the way forward is to propose specific changes and/or amended text, just as you are doing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the proposed edit but who made the edit. There is an unsigned edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Opps. That would be me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would add the date: "In 2001 biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with something like that. I'd make a few stylistic tweaks, but nothing major. How about: Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Biographer Jean Edward Smith calls the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." As Grant's order was enforced against several Jewish families, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. The president demanded it be revoked and, after three weeks, Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends when he became president. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I do not think the date needed as the cite says 2001, and it makes it more clunky. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

At least in the reference there should be some reference to the date of Smith's statement. Smith's statement came 138 years later. Why was Lincoln taken out of the paragraph? Lincoln authorized the trade hoping to "bribe" the Confederates back to the Union. With that said I think the paragraph looks better. The current paragraph makes it sound as if the trade policy was all Grant's policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: Thanks for your well reasoned response with regard to placing the tag after "Grant believed...". Yes, historians are not clear as to exactly why Grant issued the Order, but I still think it's safe to say they have a general idea. Even so, on retrospect, since there is varying opinions and a measure of uncertainty perhaps the 'why' tag would be misplaced. Having said that, we should give the readers a fair measure of context so they can attempt to comprehend the situation for themselves. This is what I had in mind by simply saying Grant was warned by the War Dept and other officers, that Grant was not at all alone in his view, so as not to leave the reader without much of a clue as to why Grant over reacted. We've added "funded the confederacy" which is a 'big' help in that regard. Since mine is the minority opinion here, I can only hope this point will be reconsidered and that we give the readers something more than "Grant believed...", which as I said, more than suggests that Grant was alone in his view and that prejudice was the primary motivating force. I am mindful of stereotyping Jews here, but at the same time we should not ignore that many (most?) of the big operators were Jewish, per Smith, 2001, and that they were doing business with southern cotton long before the Civil War and had business relations and contacts already in place. I am also just as concerned that we may be stereotyping Grant, and ultimately, the American people, most of whom had their own lives to live and cared not about the religion of other peoples so long as it did not infringe on their beliefs and liberties. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Smith v Simpson. Both historians see the General Order as anti-Semitic, but Simpson clearly says that this was not what motivated Grant. Like most of history, this is not a two-dimensional topic, and there are many things to consider, which is why I often try to add a fair measure of context, esp where controversial issues are concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As to the 2001 date: I didn't see Cmguy's last comment to that effect when I wrote mine (edit conflict, maybe?) but I agree with Alan that it's clunky. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Keithbob: At this point could you share your thoughts about consensus inasmuch as it also exists outside this forum and your ideas about the prospect of compromise? I have tried to discuss the idea of "Grant believed..." but as you can see above, there has not been any discussion or even an acknowledgment about this important point. Also, does your opinion count around here? I was under the impression that it did and that it was up to you to bring disagreeing editors together in a compromise when a marginal consensus exists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding a comment 138 years later directly after Grant's GO11 sentence seems biased. The reader does not have time to think. The reader does not know when the comment was made. Can the reader assume the comment was neutral. I would rather be clunky and historically correct then smooth narration mixed with historical bias. I am not against the adding the Smith statement. I suggest putting the sentence at least at the end of the paragraph. That would avoid or reduce both clunkiness and any bias. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I've already explained my views regarding consensus and cited appropriate WP guidelines in a prior section. Regarding the phrase "Grant believed". That is part of the text which has already achieved a rough consensus and hence we have moved on. Continuing to bring that up is not productive. It would be better if you moved off that issue and joined the current discussion. Also it is not necessary to ping me as I check this case every time I log on to WP and I read everyone's comments.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought that up several times only because no one has bothered to discuss it. I thought we were here to discuss ideas, not ignore them, and then reach a compromise, keeping consensus in mind. You brought up the idea of compromise, but no one seems willing to discuss that idea either. WP:Consenus mentions compromise at the top of the page i.e.in a nutshull, and elsewhere. Don't want to be difficult but you were not clear about marginal consensus and the prospect of compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 4th and 5th main points

We seem to be making some good progress. In prior discussions this text (below) achieved a rough consensus:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations

There seems to be an emerging consensus for some version of these three sentences (below) which cover points #4 and #5 in our summary outline:

• Biographer Jean Edward Smith calls the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." As Grant's order was enforced against several Jewish families, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. The president demanded it be revoked and, after three weeks, Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends when he became president.

Let's discuss the three sentences (above) one at a time. First, let's discuss this sentence:

• Biographer Jean Edward Smith calls the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history."

There seems to be two issues with this sentence. A) Some feel it should include the year B) Some feel the sentence should be placed at the end of the paragraph rather than the middle. Can we discuss and resolve these two minor issues? Then we can move on to the other two sentences.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Adding the year of the statement at least gives some context to the reader that Smith (2001) made the statement 138 years later in the 21st century for an event that took place in the 19th century during the Civil War. Smith (2001) is the most critical of Grant's GO11. Yes. GO11 was an anti-semitic order as most biographers agree. To put the statement right after Grant's GO11 is hinting toward POV in my opinion and assumes other biographers are just as critical as Smith (2001) since Smith is the only biographer represented. Should readers have time to think? Only part of Smith (2001) sentence is quoted. The full sentence reads, "In one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history, Grant expelled all members of the Jewish faith from the Department of the Tennessee." Since the order was stopped by Lincoln and recinded by Grant we don't know if all Jewish families were expelled. Sarna (2012) says at least almost thirty families were expelled. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Cmguy makes a good point. We should add the date (i.e.Smith, 2001) to put it in the context of time.
• Are we now going to remove Simpson's statement, that it was not anti-semitism that motivated Grant to issue the order? Simpson's quote was added to give balance and perspective to Smith's. Quoting only one biographer in this controversial issue is not very neutral and raises NPOV issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I could see moving the Smith sentence to the end, I guess. It's more of a style question than anything, so I'm happy to compromise on that. The date wouldn't be the worst thing. Maybe "Writing in 2001, biographer Jean Edward Smith called..." or something like that. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Commentary is usually placed at the end of the paragraph (or section), after the facts are presented, with mention of Smith, 2001, one way or the other. e.g.In 2001, biographer Smith referred to Grant's G.O. as "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism". Since Smith refers to the Order as "blatant", which is speculation about Grant's motives, we should also included Simpson, who also makes a speculation about motive. Quoting one biographer in this instance would raise POV issues. We are not asserting anything as fact -- we are only relating what biographers have said in both instances. Also, mention was made about not including too many facts in an attempt to paint Grant in a given manner. On the same note, we should not exclude facts in an attempt to not paint Jews in a given manner, which is what two editors here said we should do. Excluding facts for the sole purpose of not stereotyping Jews is POV pushing. This is why we should simply include all the most 'basic' facts, including the expelling of Jewish families, to achieve balance and neutrality. I fear that when we are done here, we are still going to have POV and neutrality issues to deal with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion the issue is the reliablity of the Smith (2001) statement in full context. The total number of Jewish families removed is unknown, while Smith (2001) contends all persons of Jewish faith were removed from Grant's Tennessee district. Lincoln demanded Grant rescind the order and Grant complied 21 days later. Sarna (2012) states at least almost 30 Jewish families were removed, the possibility of more, but there is no exact count on how many Jewish families were removed. Additionally, Grant's GO11 did not apply to Jewish Union officers, because one Jewish officer voluntarily resigned out of protest, but was apparently not forced to resign. I would have no issue if Smith called the enforcement of GO11 "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history", but Smith contends the expultion of all persons of Jewish faith in the Department of the Tennessee was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history". For clarification here is the full Smith (2001) sentence: "In one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history, Grant expelled all members of the Jewish faith from the Department of the Tennessee." Sarna (2012), the most current book research, counters Smith (2001) statement. I don't have any issues with the use of the word "blatant" since Smith (2001) was quoted. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggested sentence: "Biographer Jean Edward Smith in 2001 wrote that the expulsion of members of the Jewish faith by Grant from Grant's Tennessee District was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history."" Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Smith is talking about the order, itself, that is made apparent in the prior sentence to the one you quote: "...Grant issued an order..." - The order was in fact to expel all Jews, "as a class", and that's how it was understood at the time by Lincoln and others. The order to expel was antisemitic. Sarna, in his book, When General Grant Expelled the Jews, makes clear that enforcement of the order was fortuitously delayed by communication problems, and by the fact that Lincoln quickly revoked it. Sarna agrees with Smith about the order, Sarna writes on the Order itself: "By indicting and punishing all Jews for just the sins of a few, Grant seemed to be harkening back to an older corporate view of the Jew . . . "Jews as a class" meant that Jews were not treated as individuals, responsible for their own actions. Instead Grant's order treated them as part of a Jewish collectivity . . ." (p.32, emphasis added);and Sarna writes on the Order and the lead-up to the Order: "Clearly, and despite subsequent claims to the contrary, the order fit into a pattern of orders . . . Grant identified a widespread practice -- smuggling -- with a visible group and blamed "Jews as a class"" (p. 45)

With respect to other issues, above, I think putting the Smith quote right after the order, or right after the outrage ("complain", which we delicately use) is helpful to context, and then we end with Grant revoking and making amends, which also helps with context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence order makes the most sense to me, too. That way, the paragraph ends with how the issue was resolved. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy's proposal is best here. Sarna claims only about 100 Jewish people throughout the entire 'department' (i.e.a very large area covering several soon to be states) were effected by the Order, most of them speculators. Saying that Jewish families were effected gives the impression that long lines of men, women and children were left to find their way out of the district. However, we should place commentary at the end, as the paragraph is very brief to begin with. Sticking one singular commentary in the middle of the narrative gives it too much weight. Also, "state sponsored" and "blatant" are opinionated. i.e. Many officers were bribed. Does this make the affair "state sponsored" bribery? "State sponsored" suggests that Congress, the President, et al were responsible for an Order that effected the entire country, when in fact Lincoln and many others were opposed to it. As such we need to include Simpson's statement that Grant did not act out of anti-Semitism. There was no discussion in this forum to remove Simpson's commentary. It was just left out of the proposal and we got side tracked and moved on from there in sort of a hurried fashion. As part of the compromise we should leave Simpson's commentary in the paragraph for balance and neutrality. It is consistent with Waugh's claim (pp.127-128) that charges of "anti-semitism" (regarding Grant himself) came mostly from the Democrats and the press -- i.e.Biased opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Is there no room for compromise? I left out the sentence about bribery out of compromise...and I suggested the Smith sentence be put at the end of the sentence. I thought Coemgenus had initially "reluctantly" agreed to putting the Smith sentence at the end of the paragraph. GO11 was anti-semitic. Smith states directly "Grant expelled all members of the Jewish faith" not that Grant ordered the expulsion of all Jewish families. One can assume Smith was refering to the order not the number of actual Jewish families expelled from Grant's district, but that is only an assumption. Plus Smith states persons of "Jewish faith". First GO11 does not mention "members of the Jewish faith". Grant states only the term "Jews". Smith was adding to GO11 words that are not found in GO11. Second the actual number of Jewish families removed is unknown. Jewish officers were allowed to stay, only one resigned, as far as I know. The Smith sentence should go at the end of the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. It's not just a matter of compromise now, you are accusing Smith of falsity - otherwise you must agree that he is talking about the order and talking about Jews, which is what he says he is talking about in the immediate prior sentence . . . by extension you are accusing Sarna of falsity when he says "punishing all Jews" and in calling his very book When General Grant Expelled the Jews -- More to the point, even were we to go with something like your Smith sentence - you have not actually addressed the second argument. If Smith goes before the end, the issue is has some resolution - rather than hanging out there. What is wrong with that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alanscottwalker you were critical of Flood (2005) so I dropped the bribery sentence. As an editor I can be critical of Smith (2001) or any book author. I am not accusing neither Smith (2001) nor Sarna (2012) of falsity. I am asking you respectfully to be careful with your accusations against me and please don't put words into my statements. Sarna (2012) does not state the exact number of Jewish families removed. As for Smith (2001), Grant GO11 only stated "Jews", not "members of the Jewish faith". In my opinion that could be misleading, not false. I assumed Smith (2001) talking about Grant's GO11 order, but that is not what Smith (2001) states "Grant expelled all members of the Jewish faith" and could lead to misunderstanding of Smith (2001) statement that Grant expelled all Jewish families from his district. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No. I did not criticize Flood, ever. And why even bring up something so irrelevant? Since we agree that Smith is not being false, and no one has ever proposed anything like, the order was ever fully enforced, we can move on from that. In context Smith is talking about the order. As we agree that Smith is talking about the order, we can move on from that too. --- So, what is wrong with putting Smith before the resolution, even if we use some modified version of your Smith sentence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am all for progressing the discussion. Flood (2005) made the statement that Union officers were bribed. I believe Alanscottwalker opposed that sentence in part because it was unknown who did the actual bribing. What is wrong with putting Smith before the resolution is that Smith is the only source quoted on GO11 and putting Smith's statement made 14 years ago and 138 years after Grant's GO11 makes, in my opinion, Smith's words unmovable and set in stone. The reader, in my opinion, should be allowed to make their own critical assessement of Grant's GO11 order. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not a criticism of Flood, I certainly was not criticizing him for not knowing, what is not known. What do you mean set in stone? The points we agreed to at the beginning of this mediation were:

4.Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district

5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later.

Smith belongs with 4, the antisemitic point, and then we conclude with 5, giving a rather appropriate resolution for Grant. The reader, we have agreed all along, will be explicitly informed that the order was antisemitic - in fact in our opening statements, we all agree with that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keithbob is the mediator and I hope can give us guidance on this issue. We seem to be going around in circles. Of course the order was anti-semitic, but Smith (2001) I believe is more critical of Grant then other authors. Additionally the Smith quote is not put in full context, only part of the sentence is quoted, "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." The sentence belongs at the end of the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why at the end? Even, if I agreed with your Smith take (which I don't - as I said before, that the order is antisemitic (ie. anti Jewish) is supported by every source, including Smith, McFeely, Simpson, Sarna, Brands, Holtzer, Shevitz, Urofsky, etc.), if that's your view, would it not make much more sense to end on a more positive note for Grant? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Commentary should be put at the end of the paragraph. Inserting after GO11 before resolution as undo weight as Gwillhickers mentioned. Since Sarna has been brought up, why not use Sarna's view (2012), instead of Smith (2001) the most recent research on Grant's GO11. Smith does not represent "McFeely, Simpson, Sarna, Brands, Holtzer, Shevitz, Urofsky, etc." only Smith's view. Let's let Keithbob give some commentary on the issue. That is why we are in mediation. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I figured we would use Sarna as cite for the last amends sentence in this paragraph - as Sarna is what is what Rjensen used during this mediation to expand on this subject later on in the article.[4] (As I have noted before, this paragraph is not the only time the order comes up - it is also covered, when he became president - are you saying that gives Sarna undue weight?) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's strange to discuss the order, then talk about it being revoked and resolved and Grant making amends, then to go back and talk about the order again, isn't it? It makes more sense chronologically to describe the order, historians' opinion of it, and then talk about how the conflict was resolved. As Alan suggested, I thought you'd like this better, Cmguy, since it ends on a high point for Grant instead of reminding the reader of how awful and unprecedented his actions were. Isn't that what you want? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, this forum is turning into something of a bickering circus over menial items, while discussion of several major considerations are avoided. In the last several days, most of my comments and questions have been ignored almost entirely. Three editors, one not present in this forum, want to see additions made to the existing paragraph, to clarify fuzzy language on several points, which I've pointed out, repeatedly, while two editors want to block almost all additions of context -- basic and definitive facts no less. To his credit Coemgenus added "funded the confederacy", while somewhere along the line, Simpson's commentary was dropped from the proposals, with no discussion. Now look at what's happening here. Compromise?? Disappointing. Failure to make reasonable compromises, involving small additions of text, backed by RS's, is what caused many prolonged debates before the FAC passed, after it passed, and is now creating the same problems here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have an issue concerning commentary and Smith (2001) in my opinion would be highly critical of Grant either after GO11 or after Resolution. I believe commentary is best at the end of the paragraph. Ending on a high note could be an alternative option. If one reads the entire Smith (2001) sentence then one can assume Grant was attacking person's Jewish faith or that Grant was both anti-religious and anti-semitic. The cotton trade was not a religious issue. Is Smith (2001) best for the commentary or should Sarna (2012) be used for the commentary ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did comment on your Simpson issue above, Gwillhickers. The problem is that you're misreading the source. Simpson is essentially in agreement with Smith. As to using a Sarna quotation instead, Cmguy, is there one in particular you'd suggest? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have a full copy of the Sarna (2012) book. Maybe Smith (2001) quote can be transferred to the historical reputation section. I have read through Sarna (2012) and have not found a sentence as critical as Smith (2001). Here are a few sentences from Sarna (2012) found on page 37: "Cooler heads understood perfectly well that smuggling and speculation formed the central basis for General Orders No. 11. The order specifically indicted Jews for "violating every regulation of trade" and complaints about Jews who "traded upon the miseries of the country" were legion. Grant determined to put down the South's rebellion and focused upon capturing Vicksburg, looked upon all smugglers as traitors." Sarna (2012) seems to counter Smith (2001) assessment that Grant expelled the Jews for faith reasons. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna, calls the order "anti-Semitic" and directly agrees with Smith, Sarna writes: Gen. Ulysses S. Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history. [5] Cmguy, I'm sorry, but it makes so much more sense to me to put commentary, with what it is commenting upon - and just some unknown rule that it has to go at the end of the paragraph, I am having a very difficult time understanding - and reconciling with in-context use of sources. For example, the quote you refer to seems to be talking about a years later debate in the Jewish community. You have previously called this Grant's lowest point, we should forthrightly and in summary get to the low and then start to come back up, IMO.

Gwhillhickers, sorry, it is difficult when we seem to have discussed the same things over-and-over. Coemgenus and I have tried to compromise, but it seems never enough - and that's a problem when we have expressed serious and sustained reservations about too much text focusing on this Order, in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• ASW, you have not discussed the idea of allowing compromise on the many items of context proposed. The only compromise worth mentioning is the inclusion of "funding the confederacy", while in the process, Simpson's commentary has been removed from the proposal. And no one contests that the Order itself was not anti-semitic, per Simpson. We've been through this! Once again, Simposn says that Grant did not act out of anti-semitism, so we need to include that if we are going to include Smith's "state sponsored" and "blatant" comments. We've been through this also. Round and round we go. Again, three editors want a fair amount of additions made, only two seem to be opposed to most if not all other additions, still. No? What additions would you like to see made that don't exist in the paragraph presently? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Mention of the letter warning Grant about gold shipments was opposed because apparently Simpson is the only biographer that mentioned it. Okay.. Smith is the only biographer that refers to the Order as "state sponsored" and "blatant", so, using the same yardstick, we should remove Smith's commentary and merely mention that historians see the Order itself as anti-semitic and forego commentary altogether. i.e.No double standards. Earnestly waiting to see what additions are included in the final proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 4th and 5th points (cont)

If I'm reading this right three of the four participants have agreed, in the spirit of collaboration, that the Smith sentence may specify 2001 and can be moved to the end of the paragraph. Is that correct? On the other hand, Alan, you seem to have some objections to this sentence. Are you suggesting it be amended? Or are you asking that it be removed altogether? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I propose or suggest that the Sarna (2012) quote be used rather then the Smith (2001) quote. Sarna (2012) calls Grant's GO11 "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history" Sarna (2012) is directly referring to Grant's GO11 in the sentence and uses the term "anti-Jewish" rather then "anti-Semitic". That is more accurate then Smith (2001) where the reader is left to assume Smith (2001) was referring to the preceding sentence. Smith (2001) also alludes that Grant's GO11 was anti-religious against "members of the Jewish faith". I can compromise with putting the Sarna (2012) quote before the Resolution paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggested sentence: "Writing in 2012 historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant's order was "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I have no objection to the Coemgenus' Smith sentence, never had. I support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna (2013) is the most current research on Grant's GO11. Shouldn't the most current research be used in the article, especially when Sarna devoted a whole book to the subject of GO11. Smith (2001) research is 14 years old verses Sarna (2013) research is two years old. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What? Smith: ". . . Grant issued an order . . . one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history"

Sarna: ". . . notorious anti-Semitic order . . . Gen. Ulysses S. Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna (2013) does not state "blatant examples of state sponsored anti-Semitism" Sarna states "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order". To me the Sarna (2013) sentence is complete. Smith (2001) states Grant GO11 was against "members of the Jewish faith" attacking religion rather then the cotton trade in the Sarna (2013) quote. Gwillhickers is correct. There appears to be no room for compromise and I thought that was what mediation is all about. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarna, in the article quoted, discusses the Jewish faith and religion - and how it seemed attacked. That's the 19th century for you. But neither of the quotes do, the quotes both state it was anti-Semitic. One says "official" and one says the same thing with "state-sponsored". One uses "notorious" and the other uses "blatant" - that is not much different, but notorious is worse. But I will defer to Coemgenus, if they want to use either or both authors, as it was his sentence. (as an aside, Sarna is 2012, both book and article) Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

They mean the same thing. The difference in age is irrelevant, unless you think there's been some new discovery about GO11 since 2001. We certainly shouldn't use both, since that would be saying the same thing twice. Beyond that, I don't care, they're practically identical. If people want to change it to Sarna, fine. Is there a quote from the actual book? I'm reluctant to use Slate in place of an scholarly, peer-reviewed source. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is a mediation. All I am reading is that using Smith (2001) is set in stone and immovable. Sarna (2012) book interestingly is not as critical of Grant's GO11 as Smith (2001) since the Sarna (2013) made the critical quote similar to Smith (2001) in Slate magazine. I had offered a compromise. Sarna (2013) makes the quote in one sentence not two. Sarna (2012) says Grant's anti-Semitism was motivated for economic reasons (above quote) while Smith (2001) says Grant was motivated by anti-religious reasons. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there's disagreement about Grant's motivation, which is why I thought we were sticking to historians' analysis of the actions. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

By leaving out any motivations Grant really looks like the bad guy attacking persons because of their religious beliefs. The Smith quote makes Grant look like a racist against Jews. Why not add a sentence there is disagreement over Grant's motivations for the order including economics and racism? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Smith doesn't make it look like Grant's motivations were racist, he makes it look like Grant's actions were racist. Which they were! Getting into motivations, with Smith's, Sarna's, and Simpson's opinions (plus whatever other ones we find) balloons the paragraph to a size that gives it undue weight in the main article. Grant's motivations would be a fine discussion to have in the GO11 article, but not here.

But as to the original point: if you want to replace the Smith quote with a similar Sarna one, I'd be glad to discuss it. I don't remember which of you have actually read Sarna's book (I haven't) but if whoever it is could propose a quote with a citation, we can get down to the business of evaluating it. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to keep us on track. We are discussing point #4 in our summary:

• Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district

In that context two sentences (so far) have been proposed:

• [In 2001] Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history.
• Writing in 2012 historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant's order was "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history

There is ongoing discussion over which one is more appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer the Sarna (2013) version: 1. "Anti-Jewish" is the most accurate since GO11 mentions Jews only once. 2. "Official order" because Grant was the one who gave the order. Smith (2001) full statement implies that Grant gave GO11 out of anti-religious reasons. Sarna (2012) implies Grant gave GO11 out of economic reasons. I believe a sentence should be added that historians debate Grant's motivations for issueing GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• What did Sarna write in 2013? I thought book and article were both 2012 publications. Is this a new source? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cm', that we should go with Sarna, esp in terms of how Grant acted out of "economic reasons". If we could be more clear on that point I would foregoe Simpson's commentary,. If we don't there will be POV and neutrality issues to deal with after we're done here, esp since Smith is the only biographer who asserts the "state sponsored" and "blatant" opinion.. Consensus, (some of which seems to have been ignored in this forum per another editor not present) cannot be used to support a less than neutral POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I could support replacing the Smith quote with the quote from Sarna's 2012 article: Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna called Grant's order "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." But, just to be clear, have any of you actually read the book he published that same year? If not, we should probably leave it out of these discussions. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Considering all the items that were missing in the FAC it's sort of apparent that no one here has read any book in its entirety. All we need to do here is be clear that Sarna did in fact say what Cm' said he said. Let's not start inventing rules again.
• Also agree with Cm' that we should indicate that historians are in debate about what motivated Grant. That has been the most neutral proposal put on the table in a while. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Putting aside, I am unpersuaded by CmGuy's reasons - both authors call the order anti-Semitic, and official is state sponsored) I could live with this compromise: Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna called Grant's order "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history".[cite: Sarna, [slate article]. See also, Smith, p. 225] -- with that citation, an article and a book, that seems like a good middle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• As we are still only including commentary from one author, for some reason, we need to indicate that historians are not in agreement as to why Grant issued the Order. No reason has been submitted as to why we shouldn't. In reality Grant's "anti-semitism" isn't even with mentioning, as once again, one of his staff members was Jewish, and he went on to appoint several Jewish people to various positions while president. Let's not be swayed or goaded with the modern day exaggerations and the typical hyper-speak that has permeated much of politics and the media.
• "State sponsored" is an opinion, as is "blatant". Referring to the actions of one man as "State-sponsored" is another modern day distortion. [Add:] Also, after the Order was issued, did Grant allow now Jewish speculators to continue with the trading and collaboration?? This is yet another consideration that seems to have been ignored by academic types and/or people wanting to make some sort of social statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about a choice between two similar quotes, you and Cmguy have the quote you want and a citation issue is compromised upon. Is this never going to end? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We need to make the general statement that historians are in disagreement as to why Grant acted. This will all end when we have achieved clarity and neutrality in the paragraph as I'm sure you want also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• With the exception of the word "notorious" Sarna (2013) is toned down a bit more and Sarna (2012) says Grant's motivations were economic. Smith (2001) says Grant's motivations were anti-religious. I agree with Gwillhickers that we need to introduce a sentence that states historians debate why Grant issued GO11. "State-sponsored" sounds as if Lincoln or the Union government was behind the measure, when Smith (2001) says Grant alone was the one who issued the order even against legal council from Rawlins. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What is Sarna 2013? Why do you keep saying that when you have either been corrected, or have been asked what you are talking about? This is silly, Grant was in charge of martial law in the Department -- he by ruled by Order there, but we've already moved on from that - you have your quote a slight compromise on sourcing. For both Smith and Sarna and most every source, there are a number of overlapping, complex, and not mutually exclusive theories. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarna is dated 2012. There is nothing "complex". We use Saran's commentary and then state that historians are in disagreement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am corrected. The Slate article is 2012. Proposed compromise paragraph: Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, indicting Jewish merchants for violating every trade regulation. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." As Grant's order was enforced against several Jewish families, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. The president demanded it be revoked and, after three weeks, Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends when he became president. Historians debate Grant's true movites for issuing General Orders No. 11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with what we can agree on. Here's your draft, up to the last sentence (I changed one word in the second sentence--"Grant" to "He".) Can we agree on this much, before discussing motivations?

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." As Grant's order was enforced against several Jewish families, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. The president demanded it be revoked and, after three weeks, Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends when he became president. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The edit looks good so far Coemgenus...something should be mentioned concerning motivations in the paragraph..i.e. "economic" verus "anti-religious" or "racism". Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Haven't come across any biography, or other account, that even hints that Grant's motives were "anti-religious". Remember, Grant wasn't a very religious man to begin with so it's sort of a stretch to assume that Grant, in the middle of a war, had religious motives rather than military/economic motives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What we have so far for summary point #4

It appears that everyone has accepted the sentence below as a replacement for the Smith sentence.

• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history."

If there are no objections we'll move on to point #5.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• We seem to be moving too fast here. We still need to mention also that historians are in disagreement, or that opinions vary, as to exactly why Grant issued the Order. Without this clarification and context the commentary still comes off less than neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] OK, let's slow down. I've collapsed the discussion of point #5 below until we finalize our discussion on point #4.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777: Above you wanted to include a statement that historians are in disagreement. We should include this statement, which as I said, is the most neutral proposal introduced in awhile. This one statement will do more to bring balance to the paragraph than most if not all other statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of "historians are in disagreement" I would say "historians debate reasons why Grant issued General Orders No. 11." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That would work, or we could simply say that opinions vary. Either way, this perspective is important and brings needed balance to the paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna (2012) Grant's motives were economic. i.e. Grant viewed smugglers as traders. Since Sarna (2012) is already introduced why not add Sarna (2012) perspective. I would not say historians are in disagreement but rather debate Grant's true motives. This was an order that affected his entire life thereafter and I believe noting that historians have taken an interest in debating Grant's GO11 is signifigant, especially since Sarna (2012) wrote a much overdue book on the subject, in my opinion. I would add Grant disregarded Rawlins legal council, one general refused to implement the order until forced to by Grant, also one Jewish officer resigned. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying Grant's motives were "economic" is okay but it still understates Grant's military concerns. Catton, 1968 p.17, says Grant opposed the trading all along as it provided the rebels with almost all the supply they needed and prolonged the war in the west for another year, while it also robbed his army of a third of its soldiers/strength in the ongoing attempt to curb and curtail the collaboration, etc. I don't think we need a slide rule to figure Grant's feelings on that one. In any case, Saran is better than Smith and when we include the statement that opinions vary, we will have a marked increase of neutrality in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Textually, I agree on just that much (Coemgenus 21:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC) version). Theories of motivation go to GO11 article, we have discussed this before, and remember the requirements of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS for inclusion for any new additional last unknown motivation sentence -- that is not even in the framework of the points for this mediation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• OK. That we can agree on that much is good, I think. But let's look at that sentence about motivations: "Historians debate Grant's true motives for issuing General Orders No. 11." What does it tell us? Nothing. Historians can't agree on Grant's motives. Well, that sentence could be added after many of the paragraphs in this article. Grant was famously inscrutable, but even a man given to explaining himself might find his motives questioned and debated by historians. Why did he act the way he did during the cornering of the gold market? The Santo Domingo business? His defense of Babcock? Historians disagree. Just noting that there's not a consensus explanation wastes the reader's time. It's just a sentence saying we'd love to know why he did this but even the leading scholars disagree so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I wouldn't object to all of the theories being explored in the GO11 article, but here it adds nothing and takes up space. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• It tells us "nothing"? Hardly. It tells us quite simply that historians are in disagreement and that opinions vary, which by itself gives the perspective that Grant's motives are in controversy. This belongs in the summary. Details about the 'various' theories go in the G.O.11 main article. Why are we getting this habitual and prolonged opposition every time a bit of clarity is introduced? Also, since we are quoting a historian, why are we not quoting Grant himself? Does the comment from one historian have more weight and significance than Grant's own comments? We should include, just before the commentary, Grant's quote where he says "During war times these nice distinctions (concern for anti-semitism) were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves." Adding opinionated commentary without direct representation from Grant himself yields a (far) less than neutral account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it tells us that opinions vary, a statement without value to the reader. I could see, maybe, an endnote saying "Historians debate Grant's true motives for issuing General Orders No. 11. For more information, see General Order No. 11." That wouldn't add to the already voluminous readable text, but would help to redirect curious readers to a fuller discussion. Is this a fair compromise? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

editbreak4

• Well, the statement has value, as it tells the readers that opinions indeed vary, and that the idea of Grant's "anit-semitism" is a rather subjective idea which is not carved in stone. A fair compromise would simply be to make the statement without going into all the details of the various opinions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• We need to quote Grant. Does the opinion of one author have more weight than Grant's own explanation? Commentary needs to be presented in the context of Grant's own words on the matter. This is not some minor detail that belongs in the G.O. article only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Sources for Grant's quote: Sarna, 2010, Shevitz, 2007

I can't find the guideline at the moment, but somewhere WP:MOS says not to use side notes like "for more information see..." What we can do though is a make the words "Historians debate Grant's motives" an Easter egg wikilink to GO11.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can make the statement with the link, but I would also add the citation to the source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Rather then mention "historians debate" why not just state "Grant's true motives for issuing General Orders No. 11 are unknown." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• That presents the idea as some sort of ambiguous mystery, when in fact most people familiar with this episode have a general idea why Grant acted, including Sarna. In fact, I don't know of any source that says Grant just up and made the Order based on prejudice. Considering the pressing situations Grant was faced with in the middle of war, this is nothing amazing really. Your first suggestion is best, as it mentions '"historians". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers. Ulysses S. Grant was a historian in his memoirs. He did not mention General Orders No. 11 because the subject haunted him...Grant is the only one who knows why he issued the order... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's doubtful the subject 'haunted' him near as much as soldiers dying in a needlessly prolonged war, esp since only about 100 Jews were actually effected, most of them speculators. As I said, your original suggestion is best. To assume historians have no idea is to assume they're all sorta naive or stupid. In any case, is there a source that says historians don't have a clue about Grant's motives? Is there also a source that says Grant issued the Order primarily out of prejudice? Imo, like most social issues, the affair was/has been hyped way out of proportion, esp by the press and Grant's political rivals, in order to give it the attention that it otherwise would never receive by the greater public. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Since no one has presented a good reason why we shouldn't quote Grant and give lip service to only one author, we should include Grant's own explanation for context. After all, this is the Grant biography and as such it warrants Grant's own words on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary point#4 discussion (cont)

Their seems to be an emerging consensus for a sentence like this:

• Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Orders No. 11.

Any final objections, refinements or corrections before we move on?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say many (i.e.not all) historians debate Grant's motives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say "Historians debate Grant's motives." and leave it at that. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer "Historians debate..." rather then "Many historians debate...". Some historians, including Grant himself Memoirs and Bonekemper II Grant & Lee, are silent on Grant's GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggested sentence: "Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Orders No. 11 while Grant himself did not mention the controversial order in his Memoirs." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Any of the above will work, but I like mention of Grant's memoirs for context. It suggests that the issue wasn't much of a big deal to Grant compared to all the soldiers dying in a needlessly prolonged war. Sort of difficult to give weight to social considerations when people are dying all around you. Of course, the average and complacent modern thinker seems to lacks this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• We should also mention Grant's explanation just before the comment about historians. Again, Grant's own words have much weight and need to be included in the Grant biography.
  Suggested sentence :
  

Grant later explained, "During war times these nice distinctions were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves."' yet he didn't mention the affair in his memoirs, while historians debate Grant's motives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it our job to decide that modern historians are approaching this topic from the wrong perspective? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would think it's our job to be aware of our surroundings before we blindly embrace the words of any author, past or present. As editors it's our job to decide what is a reliable source, as there is no bot-generated official list of RS's. In any case, it was just a comment. Don't intend on mentioning this in the paragraph, or to get anyone side tracked on things other than what are proposed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an RS that supports the statement: "Grant himself did not mention the controversial order in his Memoirs" ?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Grant quote concerning "kid gloves" could have merit, but how do we know Grant was speaking directly concerning GO11. There is no direct reference to GO11 in the reference sentence...Can you Gwillhickers give us the link to the full paragraph for context? Also Grant had an opportunity to defend or explain GO11, but he chose not too in his Memiors. Maybe Grant had no defence for GO11. It is possible modern historians are ignoring how "aggressive" Grant was as a general or that Grant was trying to defeat the Confederacy? Are historians saying war is to be run by rules and regulations that all parties in the war are suppose to obey? Confederate raiders I believe under Mosby William Quantrill Lawrence Massacre indiscrimantly shot and killed 150 pro Union families in Kansas in 1863. However, that is beyond the discussion of GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Above there are two links (to Sarna and Shevitz) that put's Grant's quote in context. It also explains that Grant issued the Order in haste. Sometime back I even referred to Grant's hasty blunder, but that was deleted in the typical fashion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jonathan D. Sarna (2012) When General Grant Expelled the Jews page 48 states Grant did not mention GO11 in his Memoirs Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While writing his memoirs Grant was racing with the clock, as he was only days away from dying. No doubt there were a number of things he didn't mention that he thought were not near as important as the war itself. Again, (too) many complacent and naive "modern" thinkers tends to see social issues in the same light as the 911 disaster. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Grant himself never defended General Orders No. 11 and later omitted the episode from his “Personal Memoir.” According to his son, Frederick, who assisted his father with those memoirs, the omission was deliberate. “That was a matter long past and best not referred to,” he quoted his father as telling him. Julia, Grant’s wife, proved far less circumspect. In her memoirs, she characterized General Orders No. 11 as nothing less than “obnoxious.” The general, she recalled, felt that the severe reprimand he received for the order was deserved, for “he had no right to make an order against any special sect.”" [6] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• From reading the two references I would say Grant's "kid gloves..." comments has merit. That would be good for the GO11 article. I am not sure that the comment warrants enough weight to be in the Grant biography article. Grant seemed to justify GO11 because of the American Civil War. Possibly stating Grant's GO11 only applied to Grant's military district rather then Jewish people throughout the Union or United States would be acceptable. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• ASW, the Order was indeed "obnoxious" -- hasty decisions made during war can be like that. And yes, Grant wasn't proud of the Order. Guess that's why he apologized. In any case, it's already been proposed that we mention that Grant did not mention the Order in his memoirs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Cm', Grant's on words on the matter is important to the summary. Much more important than any commentary. Are we expected to represent all the sources except Grant himself? Also, the existing paragraph already says ... expelling Jews as a class from the 'area' , so I don't think we have to cut it any finer than that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think mentioning that Grant's GO11 did not apply throughout the rest of the Union is important and that Grant's GO11 applied only to Grant's Tennesse district. Grant's "kid gloves" comment does not explain directly why Grant issued GO11. William Quantrill and the Lawrence Massacre was a horrible part of the American Civil War. Were there any Jewish casualties resulting from Grant's GO11? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Grant's quote isn't supposed to explain anything else but his feelings on the matter. To better understand why Grant issued the Order there are plenty of facts we could add, but most have been objected to for some reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• From what I understand there were no reported civilian casualties resulting from Grant's GO11 such as in Lawrence Massacre. Maybe adding that Jewish families were allowed to return to their homes after the order was rescinded by Grant would be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As to Grant's feelings: I think the debate here is between what the historians have said, and what one editor thinks they should have said. There can be no doubt as to which side we have to take there. I think the "Historians debate Grant's motives" sentence says this neutrally, accurately, and succinctly. As to the further details of the order and its effect on Jewish families, this is getting too far away from the biography of Grant, but would be a very useful tangent to pursue in the main GO11 article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: This is not the place to post speculations about what you think another editor has said about historians. While I have commented about "modern thinkers" I have not misrepresented anything any historian has said. Please confine these less than honest remarks regarding what this debate is about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on point #4

Ok, I see a consensus for these two sentences:

• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history."
• Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Orders No. 11.

Now let's move on to our final point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 5th main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

So far there appears to be a consensus for this text so far:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11.

So now we will discus the final main point:

• There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

One participant has proposed the following text:

• As Grant's order was enforced against several Jewish families, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. The president demanded it be revoked and, after three weeks, Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends when he became president.

Comments? Suggested modifications or changes?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Should it be mentioned that Jewish families returned to their homes after the order was rescinded by Grant for neutrality ? Did the order have any effect on the course of the American Civil War ? I am not sure if historians even discuss this. Also Grant continued to protest trade between the Confederacy and Union and was able convince Lincoln in 1865 to stop trade I believe in an Eastern department in the American Civil War after Grant had assumed Commanding General rank. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Saying that the "...order was enforced against several Jewish families" without mentioning the speculators is grossly misleading, esp since we offer no approximate number, 100, as Sarna, a leading Jewish historian, has pointed out. The Order was the result of out of control speculator activity. Grant issued the order immediately after his father showed up with prominent Jewish businessman seeking trade permits. It's bad enough we aren't even mentioning this, or Grant's own explanation. Instead we have another opinionated comment from one historian and now a misleading statement about "Jewish families". The paragraph is once again coming off less than neutral and will raise POV and neutrality issues when we are done here. We will need to seek a broader consensus as I tried to do before I was rushed into this forum, which I had assumed was going to function as a forum to achieve a fair compromise. Too many major facts have been swept under the rug, almost exclusively by two editors who said too many facts will stereotype Jews, with no regard for stereotyping Grant. This is POV pushing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I favor a brief mention that speculators attached themselves to Grant's army without mentioning any race or nationality. This brings me to another point. We say Native Americans why not say Jewish Americans in the article. Saying "Jewish families" sounds as if Jewish people were not Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jewish Americans is much better, but we should say Jewish speculators along with all Jewish Americans is much more accurate and clear. The General Order doesn't even mention "Jewish families" -- it says Jews as a class. Saying "Jewish families" conveys the idea there were more women and children than there were speculators. This is nonsense. i.e.Jewish speculators were the reason Grant issued the Order. Also, to put this sentence in perspective we need to include Grant's own words in his own biography. Not doing so is giving more weight to one single historian than to Grant himself and as such the paragraph will be ignoring Grant on this important point. This is ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• The existing paragraph says Bribing federal officers, speculators attached themselves to Grant's army creating transportation and discipline problems. Where was the discussion to drop this from the paragraph? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The issue of bribery was meant to be dropped because we don't know who did the actual bribing. I am for mentioning speculators attached themselves to Grant's Union Army. We do not need to mention race in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What the? Take out the Jewish families clause, all together. It was only put there because Cmguy proposed it and wanted it - that he is now arguing against is ridiculous waste of time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I only agreed to it to compromise with Cmguy's earlier concerns. If he's against it now, I think we're all I agreement: take it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jewish families were removed, but I believe Jewish Americans sounds better. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggested paragraph: "Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. Speculators attached themselves to Grant's Army causing morale issues among Union soldiers. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from the Grant's Tennessee district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating every trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Orders No. 11. As Grant's order was enforced against Jewish Americans, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. The president demanded it be revoked and, after three weeks, Grant rescinded the order. Jewish Americans returned to their homes, and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends with the Jewish community when he became president, although he did not mention the controversy in his Memiors." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the statement "historians debate Grant's motives"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Added to the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't think we don't have to spell it out a second time. To avoid redundancy we should simply say, Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing the Order. And I still think we should close the paragraph with commentary. No reason was offered, typically, to stick commentary in the middle of the factual portion of the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirming consensus on Main point #5

We can discuss the paragraph as a whole and see if there are ways to refine the language or grammar and we can entertain suggestions for proposed additions after we have established consensus on main point #5 which is:

• There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

The proposed content to summarize this point is:

• As Grant's order was enforced against Jewish Americans, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. The president demanded it be revoked and, after three weeks, Grant rescinded the order. Jewish Americans returned to their homes, and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends with the Jewish community when he became president, although he did not mention the controversy in his Memoirs.

Are we in agreement on this content? If not, then please propose an alternate wording so we can finalize main point #5.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is still very misleading. Most of the Jews in the district were speculators who came to the district for the sole purpose of buying cotton. Saying "Jewish Americans returned to their homes" gives the impression that most of them were women and children who lived in this area which was mostly a war zone. We should say Jewish Americans were allowed back into the district. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the content is acceptable. Possibly adding "Southern Jewish Americans" would be signifigant since GO11's effect was only for the South or Grant's Tennessee district. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Making misleading statements is not acceptable. Here again we are creating neutrality issues. Saying Jews were allowed to return to their homes ignores the majority of speculators who came to the district to only buy cotton and gives the impression that Grant just lashed out at Jewish families. Btw, The Order was for all Jews. i.e.Jews as a class", not just those from the south. i.e.Mack and Bros were from Cincinnati. Sarna doesn't even give us a number of "families". Is there a RS that cites families as a significant number? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Those displaced from their homes lived in the South. Mack and Brothers would have had to return to their homes in Cincinatti. Grant could not ban Northern Jews from living in their homes outside his military district. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of where they lived, "Jews as a class" were expelled from the district and were later allowed to return. We need a reliable source that says "families" constituted most of the subjects that were effected by the Order if we are only going to mention "families" and not speculators. The statement as it is ignores speculators and is very misleading. Let's try to give the readers a more clearer picture. Again, Sarna maintains only about 100 Jewish people were effected. We should mention that for perspective. Do you know the approximate number of "families" who were expelled from their homes, and the source(s) that supports this? If not we need to indicate speculators as they were the single reason why the Order was issued, or forego a statement covering the aftermath. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Because only one editor wants the extended discussion of Jewish families or Jewish Americans, it probably makes more sense to drop those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So, The proposed content to summarize this point is:

• The Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. Within three weeks, the president demanded it be revoked, Grant rescinded the order, and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends with the Jewish community when he became president. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is acceptable enough for me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Jews, as a class" represents all Jewish Amercicans including families. Sarna (2012) said at least almost thirty families were expelled by Grant's GO11 order. I have already mentioned this. Nothing much has changed in the above sentence. There is no mention that the order was enforced nor that Jewish Americans returned to their homes. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How many of those "families" were just husband and wife, or brother and brother who came into the district just to buy cotton? Yes, every speculator I'm sure was part of a family. Sarna also said only about 100 Jewish people were effected and if most of them were speculators then it would seem that a lot of speculators simply brought their wife or brother along. And I think it would be safe to assume they were also part of the effort to purchase cotton, for better or worse. According to many officers, including Sherman, it was for worse. While we don't want to stereotype Jews with mistruths or exaggerations we also don't want to mislead the readers and make them believe they were just helpless sheep who were victimized by the mean ol Yankee General, per modern day stigmas and a largely naive society. The Order was issued because of the speculators and their collaboration with the rebels and their overall disregard for trading regulations, esp where gold was concerned. Their efforts prolonged the war in the west for approximately a year, costing many more thousands of lives. Let's not lose sight of that pressing war time reality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggested sentence: "Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency." I believe GO11 was still controversial even at the time of Grant's death. I think my wording is more accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cm', your wording is essentially the same, but Jewish community is more inclusive, per ASW's proposal. Also. out of curiosity, what source does Sarna cite for the "thirty families"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: "Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency." I believe GO11 was still controversial even at the time of Grant's death. I think my wording is more accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems ok, too - Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jewish leaders represented the Jewish community complained to Lincoln. Sarna (2012) is the source. One would have to check Sarna (2012) source to find where Sarna (2012) got the information on the "almost at least thirty families". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Okay, either phrase works. On retrospect, perhaps Jewish leaders is more appropriate as a good number from the Jewish community voted for Grant when he ran for president. Perhaps they were open minded enough to realize Grant was in the middle of the war and heeded his "kid gloves...there was no time" explanation. Of course that sort of perspective is often swept under the rug by the press and activist types who have to paint a notorious picture of gloom and doom to sell their story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers. I don't think there is a conspriacy by historians concerning Grant's GO11...but I would agree this was not the Lawrence Massacre either. As far as I know there were no casualities nor imprisonments. Did Grant's GO11 give the Union a military advantage ? I am not sure and historians seem to ignore the question. Also I think more historians should ask why was Lincoln trading with the Confederates in the first place. These are all moot points and we should focus on a final draft paragraph. I think we have made alot of progress and I appreciate all editors involved in the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No one said anything about a "conspiracy" here. Comment was only made about the tendency of some to inject their own modern day notions into matters of history, etc, often in an attempt to give more weight to a point that can't stand very long on its own. Per your suggestion, which I am in agreement with, we should mention Jewish leaders rather than Jewish community for the reasons stated above. Btw, the reason Lincoln was trading with the rebels was two fold. The Union badly needed cotton for tents, uniforms etc, while trading was allowed in the hopes to win over southern business and the states they operated in. Unfortunately it was an idealistic idea, not practical during a war, and as has been mentioned numerous times, resulted in supplying the Confederacy and greatly prolonging the war at the cost of many thousands of soldier's lives. It should be no mystery as to how Grant felt about this. It's a wonder at all if he even thought about social considerations and hurt feelings. -- In any case, let's get through this final point, which we seem to be all in basic agreement with. Then we can begin discussing what additions are needed. Seems to me you've had a number of them, most of which I agreed with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

2nd attempt to confirm consensus on main point#5

There seems to be a consensus for this paragraph:

• Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

Let's move on to the final section discussion below. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Final suggestions for additional content

We now have a consensus for this text:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

The text that we finalize here at mediation will replace the entire third paragraph in the article section called: Shiloh. Nothing from the old text will be carried forward. With that in mind are there any suggested additions to the consensus text above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We have a statement that says "historians debate Grant's motives", which is a perfectly neutral statement. Yet we only have one comment from Sarna with nothing else to balance it out as we would if we were to add Simpson's or another such claim. Simpson was blocked on the grounds that he was the only one who made a claim about gold shipments (and because two editors have POV issues about stereotyping Jews). Sarna is the only one who refers to Grant's order as "notorious", which is an overstatement, as only around 100 Jewish people were effected according to Sarna. What Hitler did was "notorious". What Grant did in the midst of war was insensitive and unfair and effected speculators mostly, if not almost entirely. The Order was certainly not "notorious". We either have to balance this out with another comment, or remove cherry picked commentary and just go with the "historians debate..." statement. There is a serious neutrality issue here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Compared to the Lawrence Massacre yes. We don't have to agree with Sarna (2012) statement. This was not a massacre and as far as I know there were no casualties nor imprisonments. Sarna (2012) however is correct that the order was anti-Jewish. We should also not neglect the hardships created by Grant's GO11 on Jewish Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the order was certainly anti-Jewish (or anti-semitic if you prefer), but if we are going to make the neutral statement and say that "historians debate Grant's motives" then we should present comments from both sides of the fence -- not just the one side. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• That is what the Historians debate... sentence is for. There is one underlying issue not covered and that is did Southern Jewish Americans support the Confederacy and slavery? Jewish Communities on the Ohio River: A History by Amy Shevitz (2007) page 101 is one source. Shevitz (2007) states the Grant's GO11 "had virtually no practical effect on the lives of Jews in America." Shevitz (2007) says Southern Jewish Americans supported the Confederacy and slavery. All of this however is best for the GO11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The "historians debate Grant's motives" statement as it reads is a neutral and straight forward statement. It has nothing to do with 'Southern Jewish Americans supporting the Confederacy'. It has everything to do with Grant's motives. Since we are making the neutral claim we need to provide examples from both sides or none. Providing only one example creates serious neutrality and POV issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additions

Here are additions (in bold) that are needed for neutrality, context and clarity:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. After a number of warnings from other officers, (clarity) Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy, prolonging the war (context) while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history", while Brooks D. Simpson maintains it was not anti-semitism that prompted Grant to issue such an order.(balance) Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency, appointing several Jews to various positions (context).

The additions only amount to 32 words to the paragraph. At this late date, no viable objections have been submitted that justify blocking this important context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The first two, if you insist, ok. But I do not support the last two.

Simpson writes that the order is "infamous" (ie. notorious). Simpson also says Grant's statements at the time were "clearly anti-Semitic", that "Grant crossed this line", "attacking people" because they were Jewish, not "for what they did." He then continues: "Grant's anti-Semitism, however much it may have shaped the wording of his order, did not induce him to issue it . . . What sparked him to act was his belief that Jewish cotton traders were more successful than other "unprincipled" traders" p. 156.

The last proposed clause is covered in the section below, so is redundant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Grant was warned by Sherman specifically, who shared anti-Jewish views concerning trade. Dana, Lincoln's emmissary, also expressed anti-Jewish sentiment. I am for the addition of "prolonging the war". The Simpson comment is out of context in my opinion. Simpson maintained that Grant believed Jews were a favored class. I believe Simpsons views are best expressed in the GO11 article. I believe the Presidency section already mentions Grant appointed many Jews to political office. That would be repeat information in the article as AlanScottWalker mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Proposed alternative:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. After being warned by Sherman, Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy, and prolonged the war while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from his Tennessee district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating every trade regulation. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians continue to debate Grant's true motivations for issuing General Order No. 11. While the order was being enforced Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln and the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd object to all of those additions, and I especially object to the idea of revisiting parts of the paragraph we'd already agreed on. If we're going to reopen those parts, this meditation will never end. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "...paragraph we'd already agreed on..." What paragraph have all editors agreed upon in this mediation ? We are still in mediation and have been given the opportunity to add additions to the paragraph so I added additions I believed relevant to the paragraph. I don't agree Simpson should be discussed in the paragraph rather the GO11 article. Grant was warned by Sherman. These additions I believe are relevant details. Whatever happened to compromise? I added "true motivations" because historian do not know Grant's true motivations for issuing GO11. Why not rewrite the paragraph to get a compromise by all editors ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Rewritten proposed alternative paragraph:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy, and prolonged the war while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from his Tennessee district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln and the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Historians debate Grant's motivations for issuing General Order No. 11. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Cm', We don't know if Sherman "shared anti-Jewish views" in the manner you are suggesting. In any event, whatever the views of Sherman, Grant was warned by a number of officers and the War Dept (i.e.Dana) about the trading abuses involving Jewish speculators and the capacity in which they were operating, so we should just make the general statement that Grant was warned so as not to suggest that he acted on "anti-Jewish' notions alone. This could easily happen. After all, you just said Sherman "shared anti-Jewish views" for no other reason than exception was taken regarding Jewish speculators. In modern times it seems if you say anything unbecoming about Jews you are likely to be labeled "anti-semetic". Though this may be somewhat understandable considering what happened before and during WWii it is not fair. Many "classes of people" were involved in questionable business dealings throughout history. e,g,The Italians in New York, The Irish in New York (ala Tammany) and in Boston, the British, etc.
• Balance: this is very important, and warrants Simpson's commentary, the inclusion of which we spent a good amount of discussion on only to see it disappear in this forum. I would be satisfied if we only made the statement that historians debate Grant's motives and not cherry pick any one author's commentary. However, if we are going to say "historians debate..." and only include one example on one side of the fence then we have a serious neutrality/POV issue we'll have to deal with after we get through this, someday soon hopefully.
• Coemgenus, Keithbob, the mediator opened the "Final suggestions for additional content" section. Three editors want to see needed additions made, while you and one other editor have habitually opposed any and all additions, rarely if ever offering any viable objections regarding neutrality, context and clarity, and often ignoring topics entirely. Please be reminded that you don't own the article and that the FA review in this case overlooked many things. It's time to let other editors do needed work on the entire article. You have not suggested one single improvement to the article on your own initiative since FAC and seem to resent the idea that the FA article you worked albeit very hard on should actually need some improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are correct, we have been over this before but the order itself is anti-Jewish/anti-semitic is not debated by Simpson. (As for Coemgenus acting as an editor on this article, that's his right, editors edit out, it's one of the hardest things editors do. And I hope User:Keithbob shuts down such unduly personal criticism.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I never said he didn't have the right to edit, nor did I say that Simpson didn't regard the order as anti-Semtic. What he did say is that grant dd not act out of anti-semitism. As for crriticism, you have done more than your share, but no one ever suggested that you be "shut down". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(Well, then there is no point in criticizing Coemgenus for editing.) So, Simpson does not dispute Sarna, and in context does not belong. To even begin discussing Simpson, it would have to be something like, Simpson writes that Grant's statements were antisemetic, and his antisemitism may have shaped the wording of the "infamous" order . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Tennessee" is wrong or misleading - the order covered Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, at least (perhaps, technically, also Southern Illinois.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We can easily specify department or district. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Neither is the term "district" since the original title is "Department of the Tennessee". I consented to use the term district out of compromise. Department was changed to district, so why not state Tennessee District or The Tennesse District ? That can be resolved, but his district needs to be stated for clarification. GO11 did not apply to other districts or other parts of non militarized Union. Can we editors get along just enough to make a compromise final paragraph ? That's why we are here in mediation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Army of the Tennessee (river) is linked at the top of the section. His district is limited to "the district" - not anywhere else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Grant was appointed head of the Department of the Tennessee by Lincoln making the district his. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• I know that in a prolonged content dispute tension gets built up but let's all take a deep breath and refrain from personalizing the discussion. We want to speak only of content and not anything about editor tendencies or behavior, past or present.
• Second, we approached the rewriting of the paragraph in sections. Sometimes that can create a paragraph that is stilted and doesn't read well. So this is an opportunity to tweak the paragraph from the standpoint of grammar and flow. That was my main intention.
• However, if there is a minor addition or two that can be agreed upon by the participants and that creates a better summary for the reader that is also OK. But in doing so keep in mind that we are not going to rehash the points we've already discussed and achieved a reasonable consensus on.
• Lastly, suggesting and negotiating specific minor text additions, as you have been doing, is the best way forward. Theoretical and tangential discussions are not likely to yield much result. We've come a long way and I'm proud of the efforts of all the participants. Let's keep our cool in the final stretch and finish this up. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. Here is a second rewritten proposed alternative paragraph:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy, and prolonged the war while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from his district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Historians debate Grant's motivations for issuing General Order No. 11. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing for flow:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funding the Confederacy and prolonging the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from his district, charging Jewish merchants with violating trade regulations. In 2012, Jonathan D. Sarna wrote, "Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." As the order was being enforced [or, At the time], Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. The president demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it within three weeks. Later, Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Historians continue to debate Grant's motivations for issuing the order.

User:Coemgenus is good at flow, perhaps they can take another pass. Can I say, I like all that has been agreed to? -- No (particularly the 2012 is clunky and the easteregg sentence, but I guess I failed to persuade on those, and perhaps we could mention what scholarship oft discusses as something like, "the vast majority of illegal traders were not Jews" (Urofsky, 2006), or the oft discussed contemporary anti-Semitic statements by Grant - or just reserve those for the full GO11 article). I would also like to enter into the record of the mediation a few more quotes - not for use in the article, but we have already discussed how similar Sarna's and Smith's quotes are, Holzer's similar sentiments, that Simpson's use of a word like "infamous" is common in the scholarship, and that "anti-Jewish"/"anti-Semitic" runs through virtually all the scholarship, so, see also, "The Civil War was the context for the most egregious act of official anti-Semitism in US history." (Shevitz, 2005); "Grant's order was the severest attempted official violation-civil or military, federal, state or local--of the rights of Jews in the history of this nation." (Jaher, 1994). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I like that version. I made a few minor edits, below, which shouldn't change the meaning any. If you think the changes change the substance, let me know and we can certainly keep working on it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funding the Confederacy and prolonging the war while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, believing that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from his district. In 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna called it "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." As the order was being enforced [or, At the time], Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. The president demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it within three weeks. Later, Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Historians continue to debate Grant's motivations for issuing the order. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I like the paragraph and "As the order was being enforced" My issue is the word "Later" that in my opinion sounds like a few days after GO11 was rescinded. Grant made amends during his presidency from 1869 to 1877 over six years since Grant ordered GO11 in December 1862. How about this? "During his presidency starting in 1869 Grant made amends with the Jewish community." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• We could just cut the word "later", too. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. That would be good to edit out the word "Later". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is an interesting link: Gen. Grant and the Jews. New York Times (January 18, 1863) Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

edit break

• Reminder : My contentions is why this mediation was requested, however I did not agree to this course of action only to have important points ignored. My proposals have been completely reasonable, are backed by RS's and don't raise page length or erroneous content issues, so it's sort of difficult to remain cool when these points are not even discussed before a new proposal appears. To my surprise ASW went along with the idea of indicating that Grant was warned, as did Cmguy, however, now we have a proposal that just skips over this important perspective. This has become a fall back routine for at least one editor and is unfair to the overall discussion.
• Commentary : We still have a serious neutrality issue. We are saying that historians debate Grant's motives while offering only one side of the picture. No one disputes that the Order was in effect anti-semitic, but we need to show the other perspective that Grant was not acting out of anti-semitism, and get coverage of this idea balanced out once and for all. We can also forego commentary for this short paragraph and simply say Historians generally agree that the General Order No.11 itself was anti-semetic, however they debate Grant's actual motives for issuing the Order.. That is also a fair compromise.
• I am willing to drop the my last previous addition saying that Grant appointed several Jews... if certain individuals have issue with such context. In fact we can use Cm's proposal for the last sentence.

Compromise proposal :

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. After a number of warnings from other officers Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy, prolonging the war while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Historians generally agree that General Order No.11 itself was anti-semetic, however they debate Grant's actual motives for issuing the Order. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. During his presidency starting in 1869 Grant made amends with the Jewish community. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna's description of "Anti-Jewish" is best rather then Anti-Semitic. We can't say historians general agree if there is no source that states historians generally agree. I do like the term "actual" in the paragraph. "Warnings from other officers is vague." When did I ever agree Grant was warned...I remember asking for a source that Grant was warned. There is no record of Grant receiving a warning concerning the gold shipments. Why is that issue being brought up again ? I like the term motivations over motives Cmguy777 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Revision:

''Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy, prolonging the war while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from his district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Historians debate Grant's actual motivations and military reasons for issuing the Order. As the order was being enforced Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. During his presidency Grant made amends with the Jewish community. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not bad at all, but you forgot to discuss why you are omitting Grant was warned by other officers. Before you were willing to say Sherman warned Grant. If we can just add that Grant was warned I would go along with your latest proposal here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sherman gave Grant an anti-Jewish warning and in my opinion encouraged Grant to issue GO11. That is beyond the scope of the article paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• No. After much debate, we agreed on the Sarna quote, which was itself a compromise from the Smith quote, no reason to go back on that, wasting time. The very point we agreed on at the beginning of this mediation was:"Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district." As has been said a couple times, no one disputes the order was anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic. It does not balance anything, with respect to the Sarna quote, to say, 'yes, it was anti-Jewish but something else...' Whatever the motivations, it all ends up the same way, the Jews are officially by military government order expelled. (If you want to add "military reasons", to the motivations debate sentence that's fine.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) ((adding to the quotes I quoted above, "This order, the infamous General Orders No. 11, is unique in the history of the United States: it is the one official overtly anti-Jewish decree in the American experience." (Chanes, 2004).) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• How about this? Historians question Grant's actual motivations and military reasons for issuing the Order. Maybe "question" is more accurate then "debate". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

With Sarna quote all agreed on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Side note to let you know I"m reading along every day and however the next few days I will have limited access to Internet. So see what you can do without me. It seems we are very close to a version everyone can agree on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Cm', above you favored mention of Sherman. Just above you now want to change debate to question. It would help much if you settled on what you want. Yes, it's more than safe to assume that Grant was in communication with Sherman, other officers and the War Dept, who all frowned on the trading. It shouldn't be difficult to find a source that says Grant was warned, or informed, or that he at least shared these views. This is important context. As I've said a number of times, without such context the paragraph will easily suggest Grant existed in some anti-semitic vacuum and acted on notions alone, esp if we have one sided and misleading commentary in the middle of the narrative.
• ASW, there was much discussion for Simpon's quote also. If we include Sarna, we include Simpson. This effort to put more emphasis on "anti-semitism" than Grant's military concerns in the middle of a war is becoming a little puzzling, to say the least. Because this is a brief summary commentary really belongs in the main G.O. article. However, to be fair to the idea of neutrality, we need to indicate that the order is considered anti-semetic, or anti-Jewish. Here is Cm's latest proposal, which didn't even mention anti-semitism, with mention of warnings and now, anti-semitism.

Neutral and contextual proposal:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. After warnings from others (Sherman and/or War Dept) Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy, prolonging the war while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued 'anti-semetic General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class" from his district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Historians debate Grant's actual motivations and military reasons for issuing the Order. As the order was being enforced Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. During his presidency Grant made amends with the Jewish community.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"It shouldn't be difficult to find a source that says Grant was warned, or informed, or that he at least shared these views." You mean you don't actually have a source for this? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do you actually believe Grant was not informed and that he was all alone in his view? There are many sources, some posted here, with links, indicating that Sherman, the War dept, et al, frowned on the trading. Off hand I can't cite an actual source that says verbatim that 'Grant was warned', but I will check after I log off here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• We can always say The War dept and Grant felt that cotton trading funded and prolonged the war. <Smith, p.225> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarna was agreed to by all four of us. (Sarna's quote does not even use the word anti-Semitism, that you have objected to.) Simpson was rejected by three of us as your proposal was out-of-context. To discuss Simpson in context is to emphasize Grant's own anti-Semitism. Whereas, as multiples of us have noted, Sarna's quote, and Smith's quote before him, and the Shevitz, and Chanes, and Jaher quotes, all discuss the very order, itself. If the article cannot bring itself to note the nature of this very order, on a fact everyone agrees upon, that is not neutrality - it's the opposite - it's failure to follow multiple reliable sources on the nature of the order, itself - solely because it may make Grant look better. (You have never provided any source that takes issue with those five quotes) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(E/C)I'll list the quotes again, if it will help:

• "Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." (Sarna, 2012)
• "The Civil War was the context for the most egregious act of official anti-Semitism in US history." (Shevitz, 2005);
• "This order, the infamous General Orders No. 11, is unique in the history of the United States: it is the one official overtly anti-Jewish decree in the American experience." (Chanes, 2004)
• ". . . Grant issued an order . . . one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history" (Smith, 2001)
• Grant's order was the severest attempted official violation-civil or military, federal, state or local--of the rights of Jews in the history of this nation." (Jaher, 1994) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing facts

ASW, yes, they all refer to the Order as "anti-semitic" or "anti-Jewish", but if we are going to say that historians debate Grant's motives we need to provide an example for both sides. Though Simpson refers to the Order as "anti-semetic" he also says Grant did not act out of anti-semitism. Waugh claims charges of anti-semitism came only from the democrats and the Press. We need to make this perspective clear or we will have neutrality and POV issues to deal with later. That you are dead set against providing this perspective for the readers only confirms you are pushing a one sided point of view, where we will have to call in other opinions for a more broader, neutral and comprehensive narrative. These are the major points you have objected to, all supported by RS's:

• Mention of gold shipments
• Mention of gold being used in the trading
• Grant opposed the trading all along, long before the Order was issued.
• Grants own explanation -- i.e.kid gloves...there was no time.
• Mention of the arrival of Grant's father with Mack & Bros
• Mention of Grant being warned by Sherman and/or the War Dept.
• Commentary that mentions Grant did not act out of anti-semitism.

Keeping all of these things out of the summary is your idea of neutrality? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Historians debate Grant's motives sentence was not my idea, but as I recall you supported it, so, don't blame me for that sentence. With respect to Waugh, you yourself wrote, " The order itself was obviously anti-semetic . . .", that does not make you, "democrats and the Press", nor does it make any of today's scholars those things, and just because the contemporary democrats and the Press said it, does not make it wrong. We've discussed this at length, "[N]o historian has been able to fully understand — much less justify — why, on Dec. 17, 1862, Grant issued his notorious General Orders No. 11 deporting Jewish citizens." (Holzer, 2012) That's not me talking, that's a well known Civil War Historian. Wikipedia cannot present a summary consensus on factors, which does not exist.

• "mention of gold shipments" -- (that cannot be what you mean, what you must mean is, rumours of gold shipments - detail that belongs in the GO 11 article) Nor are the gold rumours of any consequence to almost all scholars, bar one single biographer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• "mention of gold being used in trading" -- But the facts are: "the vast majority of illegal traders were not Jews", as sourced, however, you have opposed inclusion of that fact.)
• "Grant's own explanation." -- According to Simpson, it is not the quote you want, it is this Grant quote: "The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere..."
• "mention of the arrival of Grant's father with Mack & Bros" -- As Simpson and others write, Grant's order did not expel his father, his order did not "take it out" on his father, or even his partners, it expelled all Jews.
• "Mention of Grant being warned by Sherman and/or the War Dept." -- I did not object to your short clause. Details go to the GO11 article.
• "Commentary that mentions Grant did not act out of anti-semitism." -- The Simpson commentary you are referring to is not what you think it is: Simpson writes that the order is "infamous". Simpson says Grant's statements at the time were "clearly anti-Semitic", that "Grant crossed this line", "attacking people" because they were Jewish, not "for what they did." He then continues: "Grant's anti-Semitism, however much it may have shaped the wording of his order, did not induce him to issue it . . . What sparked him to act was his belief that Jewish cotton traders were more successful than other "unprincipled" traders . . .." Simpson argues for the idea that the order, itself, that Grant wrote is shaped by anti-Semitism.

Given your list, it's as if you want to bleed one writer Simpson of all the things you don't think he should say, while raising what you want to from him be the definitive summary of all scholarship - but our article cannot do that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I'm quoting and responding to your bulleted comments with inserts here so you won't get confused again.

• Historians debate Grant's motives sentence was not my idea, but as I recall you supported it, so, don't blame me for that sentence.

You're twisting things once again. I am fine with historians debate... What I take exception to is the one sided commentary, which I've mentioned more than twice now. Please make more of an effort to remember the discussion so you don't make the same mistakes over and over.

• With respect to Waugh, you yourself wrote, " The order itself was obviously anti-semetic . . .", that does not make you, "democrats and the Press", nor does it make any of today's scholars those things, and just because the contemporary democrats and the Press said it, does not make it wrong.

You're twisting things once again. Waugh merely puts the complaints in persepctive. It doesn't make anyone a Democrat, nor is this affair "wrong". Again it was just a perspective as to the complaints made.

• "mention of gold shipments" -- (that cannot be what you mean, what you must mean is, rumours of gold shipments - detail that belongs in the GO 11 article) Nor are the gold rumours of any consequence to almost all scholars, bar one single biographer.

You just referred to reports from the War Department as "rumors". Once again, you are reaching in the typical fashion. Are you absolutely sure Simpson was the only one who mentions gold in any capacity? Both Sherman and Dana complained about gold being used in the trading. We've been through this. Please make more of an effort to remember the discussions.

• "mention of gold being used in trading" -- But the facts are: "the vast majority of illegal traders were not Jews", as sourced, however, you have opposed inclusion of that fact.)

We've been through this. Most of the traders were small time and not Jewish. However, as Smith points out the major players were 'visibly' Jewish, and already had long established business relations with the cotton south in place. Again, you need to make more of an effort to remember what you've read so you don't keep making the same 'innocent' mistakes over and over.

• "Grant's own explanation." -- According to Simpson, it is not the quote you want, it is this Grant quote: "The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere..."

This quote is not an 'explanation'. If you have a dictionary I suggest you look this word up to avoid further confusion. Again, Grant's anti-semitism amounted to no more than general remarks about Jewish speculators. You've obviously have read more into that per the notions you seem to harbor. Please make more of an effort to maintain objectivity in these discussions.

• "mention of the arrival of Grant's father with Mack & Bros" -- As Simpson and others write, Grant's order did not expel his father, his order did not "take it out" on his father, or even his partners, it expelled all Jews.

All beside the point Sarna makes, that the arrival of Grant's father with Mack and bros is what prompted him to issue the Order. We've been through this also. Once again ASW, please make more of an effort to remember what you've read so you don't keep making these sorts of mistakes.

• "Mention of Grant being warned by Sherman and/or the War Dept." -- I did not object to your short clause. Details go to the GO11 article.

Yes, but in the final proposal you didn't support this important context either so your acclamation here has sort of an empty ring to it.

• "Commentary that mentions Grant did not act out of anti-semitism." -- The Simpson commentary you are referring to is not what you think it is: Simpson writes that the order is "infamous". Simpson says Grant's statements at the time were "clearly anti-Semitic", that "Grant crossed this line", "attacking people" because they were Jewish, not "for what they did." He then continues: "Grant's anti-Semitism, however much it may have shaped the wording of his order, did not induce him to issue it . . . What sparked him to act was his belief that Jewish cotton traders were more successful than other "unprincipled" traders . . .." Simpson argues for the idea that the order, itself, that Grant wrote is shaped by anti-Semitism.

We've been through this ASW. Though Simpson refers to the "wording" of the Order as "anti-Semitic", he clearly maintains that it was not anti-Semitism that "induced" him to issue the Order. Once again, please make more of an effort to remember what you've read so you don't keep making these mistakes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken, nor am I twisting anything. You've just been entirely unpersuasive. Do you have page numbers you want me to look at, as it is your BURDEN and your ONUS? You're asking me for sources that support your claims? That does not work at all. You're the one who has to come forward with other RS that treat that the same as Simpson - or they don't exist. And why, for example, are you making sweeping claims about "Jews" (especially ironic - or something- given this topic), without giving quotes from sources, that everyone can look at? I have never seen your "major players" claim in the scholarship - does it even exist? --Jews were visible because they were different, I have seen that, but not what you claim. It's just unhelpful and unpersuasive, when you won't fully quote, for example Simpson, or others. Quotes and pages, please? (I'll choose to not respond to your claims about me, as they are entirely wrong, and irrelevant - other than demonstrating how bad your arguments are.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ASW, over the last couple of months I have provided cites and links to every major point of context I have ever offered, either here or on the Grant talk page. Point to any major point of context where I have not. No vague claims -- point to one. I have also explained these points quite well and reasonably, esp where Grant's war time concerns were at issue. Simpson plainly said Grant did not act out of anti-semitism, regardless of the wording of the order. This requires more than two dimensional thinking to understand. Your flat-earth take on Grant's so called anti-semitism is based on Grant's words, in the midts of war, about speculators. Again, Grant never had issues with the Jewish religion or race. Apparently you refuse to see that distinction. As I've always maintained, we don't say what caused Grant to do this or that. We just include facts, but here also, we were told that too many facts will stereotype Jews, and as such, we mislead the readers about Grant while a POV is being pushed. This issue is far from resolved and regrettably, with all due respect for Keithbob's efforts and patience, this mediation has only prolonged the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I don't have any personal view of Grant's anti-Semitism, let alone a two dimensional one. Simpson, Sarna, Mcfeely, Holzer, Urofsky, Shevitz, etc. are the varying views, at issue - not mine, at all. These sources discuss various things about Grant's anti-semitism, including its prevalence in his 19th century American culture, or in specifically the "intolerant" 19th century American military, or in his European forebears tradition of stereotyping or scapegoating or prejudice against Jews as foreigners and in commerce, as avaricious, and corrupt. That sources take from his words those things, is just what sources do, and what we are all bound to follow. (eg. Simpson does plainly argue that anti-semitism was involved in the order). Then too, Grant is the only one to have ever issued such an order. As sourced, there is no summary historical consensus on factors that went into the order, however, there is a consensus that Grant's order is anti-Jewish, an official act of military government, thus they use words like "infamous", "notorious", etc. etc. There is no misleading going on, it's just a matter of making a short consensus summary and leaving the various cross-cutting details to the main article. (I did specially ask for your source for your "major players" argument, and for your claim about Grant's staff, and for secondary sources beyond Simpson regarding gold.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

edit break

This is our consensus text:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency

Proposals for specific refinements or minor additions are encouraged but we shouldn't be making proposals that remove main points or entire sentences that have already achieved a rough consensus through prior discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. I'd tweak the wording on one sentence. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." might read better as Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna called it "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." No difference in what's being said, it just reads better, to my eye. If the rest of you disagree, that's fine. Just a wording thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• That is a good edit change Coemgenus. I would change debate to question because I think most historians are critical of Grant's GO11. Debate sounds as if some historians think GO11 was a good order while other think the order was bad, but that is simply not the case. Some historians are less critical of Grant and GO11 including Flood (2005) and Brands (2012). Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Question" is fine. I'd be happy either way. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, we are moving too fast, and have not settled on including the fact that Grant was warned. Cm', Coemgenus and myself were in the middle of a discussion about this, and once again, the consensus here, such that it is, is marginal, so I'm waiting for the mediator to open up a section that discusses compromises regarding all the major points left out that I just outlined above. Again not all editor opinion is represented in the forum. I think at this point we need to call in other opinions as I was in the process of doing before I was rushed into this forum. Given all the items that have been blocked there is obviously a serious neutrality and POV issue being allowed to occur here. Some editors have already said that too many facts will stereotype Jewish people, POV pushing, with no apparent regard for stereotyping Grant, or giving him the benefit of the doubt, per RS's, about an idea that is highly speculative. i.e.anti-semitism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers, Grant was given anti-Jewish warnings from Sherman in essense encouraging Grant to issue GO11. The warning from Sherman or even the alleged "gold shipment" is moot. Both Sherman, Grant, and Dana held anti_Jewish views. The main issue concerning Grant's order was Grant's "Jews, as a class" edict. Does the paragraph convey there was corruption in the cotton trade ? Rather then going after specific corrupt traders Grant classified all persons as Jewish were in on the corruption while excluding non Jewish traders. The order also forbid Jewish people from granting permits to stay from Grant. I think it is POV to be defending Grant at this point. I think possibly adding that the traders attached themselves to Grant's Union army would be signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

editbreak5

• Suggested paragraph additions and modifications:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, while traders attached themselves to his Union Army. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, prolonged the war, and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said it was "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." As the order was being enforced, Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Historians question Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As to Cmguy's suggestions: adding "As the order was being enforced," is fine with me. Changing "debate" to "question" is also fine. I don't think "prolonged the war," adds much, really, but if the rest of you want it, I won't object, I guess. Changing "He" to "Grant" in the second sentence doesn't make any sense to me. What's wrong with the pronoun? It's unambiguous who "He" refers to. Adding "while traders attached themselves to his Union Army" seems like unnecessary verbiage.

As to Gwillhickers's comments: I don't know what to say to that. If you refuse to recognize the results of the mediation, why did you enter into it? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• How will the reader know that the traders were inside the Union camp ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alternative version:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, granting trade permits. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said it was "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." As the order was being enforced, Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Historians question Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Cm' saying that Sherman held anti-Jewish views is an opinion, not backed by RS's. Sherman, Grant and others may have referred to all the speculators as Jewish, but that's about as far as their "anti-semitism" goes. They never made comments about their race and religion, and again, one of Grant's own staff members was Jewish, so how "anti-semitic' was Grant in reality? Their anti-semitism is hardly worth mentioning and breathing life into it by blocking facts for fear of stereotyping Jewish people and the ssort of speculation you just offered here is rank POV pushing. Also, we need to say historians debate Grant's motives which says that there were two sides to the debate. If we say question Grant's motives" it suggests that they all had their doubts.
• Coemgenus, I entered the debate with the idea that their would be an appreciable compromise where important and neutral facts are concern. Kiethbob mentioned compromise at the beginning of the discussion here, so I am waiting to see how this will materialize. In any event, mediation results are not final for all time. They are only a settlement until a new and more inclusive consensus is established. Of course i will not edit against consensus and the decision of this mediation beforehand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Again, too many important facts, along with balanced commentary, not to mention Grant's own explanation have been blocked for this paragraph to even begin to look neutral and balanced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

One of Grant's staff was Jewish? Who? I think that is wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Cm' is the one who first mentioned one of Grant's staff members being Jewish. Do you really need an actual name? Apparently you're disappointed that Grant's so called "anti-semitism" isn't anything you have hoped, all along, that it would be. Sorry if this undermines your POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop this personalization, it's wrong factually and otherwise. I am asking for your RS for your claim (Cmguy is not RS)-- yes, by Policy it's imperative that we have it - do you have the RS for it? Does it exist? If not, than why are you saying it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite a lot of discussion. So far I only see a consensus for this change regarding the Sarna sentence:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna [called it] "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

Any other minor changes or additions that we can agree on before we close the mediation?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks great to me, Keithbob. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask before we close, we source the paragraph using the ref talk template? (On a perhaps minor note, we call it General Order, instead of General Orders No. 11, but the later seems to be what it is called in scholarhip - even if it does not seem to 'sound right')Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's reassuring to see that we are saying historians debate Grant's motives rather than historians question... which suggests that they're all on the same page and doubt Grant's motives entirely. However, somewhere along the line the phrase prolonging the war was dropped from the proposal. Could we just restore that to this final proposal in the interest of representing Grant's situation a bit more? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• For the record, we still have serious neutrality and POV issues here. i.e.Quoting only one historian, ignoring Grant's own explanation, blocking the context that Grant was not alone in his view and received warnings/complaints about the trading, while many other major points have also been blocked. I'm hoping Keithbob will recommend at least one good compromise to remedy this glaring neutrality problem. I also hope that these neutrality issues will be ironed out here so we don't have to continue this on the Grant talk page. As I said, I'll go along with the mediation and will not edit against consensus and the decision here. However, this doesn't mean that anyone has to agree with the paragraph as it might read. Again, there are serious POV issues here that will apparently require a more broader and objective consensus to iron out.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• The remaining issue concerns me is that there apparently is no establishment of corruption in the cotton trade. Flood (2005) specifially mentions Union officers were bribed. Does the above paragraph establish any corruption in the cotton trade? I don't think so. Are we to assume there was no bribery or illegal activity ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Possibly another concern is that many Jewish families in the South were pro slavery and supported the Confederacy. That is signifigant. I gave a reference source above. This issue has not been discussed. Cmguy777 (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jewish Communities on the Ohio River: A History by Amy Shevitz (2007) page 101

I agree with Alan that we should cite everything to a RS before moving on. And I agree that Gwillickers's invective isn't helful. Let's leave insults out of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What is mostly not helpful is the practice of ignoring points in the discussion and just moving on to a new proposal, not to mention the complete gaps in reasoning exhibited by another editor. Very difficult to maintain good faith when many of the accounts are skewed and underhanded, like the claim that many of my points are not backed up by RS's -- this after months of cites and links posted on the talk page and here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If you would directly cite and quote, in response to the specific requests I made, than we could discuss what is said specifically in those sources, and you wouldn't have to focus on other editors - that's always helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to review what we've done so far:

1. I pointed out that per WP:SUMMARY "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it"
2. Based on people's opening comments I made a general list of points that should be included in the summary.
3. We went through each point and created text that we felt adequately represented each point.
4. We spent a week discussing any minor additions and tweaks that might further knit together the text we had created.

I understand that some editors feel there is some missing information and are not wholly satisfied with the current paragraph. This is not unusual and in fact quite common in a mediation. There is no paragraph that everyone will be 100% satisfied with. Our goal here was to create a paragraph that we could live with not a paragraph that we like. That is the nature of compromise and collaboration. At this point I'd like to add citations to the paragraph and finish up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We already knew what the overall consensus was, marginal and that two editors wanted to keep the paragraph at a bare minimum. We didn't have to come here to find that out. Yes, the paragraph should be a reflection of consensus, but it should also be based on sound reasoning. Granted no one can be 100% happy, but because of the marginal consensus everyone should be around 50% happy. Everyone. That has not happened. I was under the impression that Kiethbob would offer his own (good) reasoning from time to time, and once in a while offer a compromise. After all, Keithbob is an editor also. If it will not go against policy or protocol I am in favor of Keithbob offering at least one significant point of compromise so we can lay this issue to rest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a mediator is not a 3rd or 5th opinion. Their role is to remain an uninvolved party and to moderate discussion. They keep discussion focused and make sure WP guidelines and policies are upheld. That is the role we play. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations

Our consensus text as of Aug 1, 2015:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's add citations to the paragraph one sentence at a time:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.

Can we agree on citations for this first sentence above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note, I have moved the second sentence here, for later: He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. Feel free to revert. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sources generally state that Grant was trying to curb the corruption of the cotton trade Flood (2005) page 143 "illegal cotton trade", Smith (2001) page 225 "illicit cotton trade", and Brands (2012) pages 214-215. The cotton trade was Lincoln's, Chase's, and Stanton's policy. McFeely (1981) page 124 states Grant had the power to grant cotton trading permits. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district." References: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is the above sentence modifications and citations acceptable then ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

McFeely p. 124 works for me. The revision to the sentence is OK, I guess. I'll agree, in the spirit of compromise, and all that. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, there seems to be a consensus this text and citation:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143

Let's move on to the next sentence.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

2nd sentence

Our consensus text as of Aug 4, 2015:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Now let's source the second sentence:

• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields.

In addition to deciding on a source..... per the comment below and in prior sections there is a suggestion to add the phrase "prolonging the war" to this sentence. One version suggested earlier was:

• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, prolonged the war and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Time and again things just disappear from the proposal without a discussion. What happened to prolonging the war? As as Commanding general wasn't this among Grant's major concerns? Where is the discussion and reasoning for dropping this? This sort of activity was pointed out before, yet it continues. Are we not here to discuss what and what's not included? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Flood (2005) 143-144 supports the sentence without "prolonged the war". 23:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Cm', above you included prolonged the war in your proposal and then without any discussion it disappears. With all due respect, you keep changing what you want to add in the paragraph, and as such, nothing you have suggested has had a chance to gain consensus. In any case, simply saying funded the Confederacy, while helpful, is vague in that it hardly reflects the urgency Grant was faced with as does prolonged the war -- which precedes and gives context to the phrase 'while Union soldiers died in the fields' . Sarna, p.37 not only says the trading prolonged the war he also says Grant looked upon the smugglers as traitors. Be nice if we could reflect Grant's feelings on that note, but prolonged the war will do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The above unsigned comment was made by User:Cmguy777.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• If we could just restore prolonged the war that would be a big step toward neutrality and would reflect Grant's military concerns, however as you must know, I still feel his concerns and feelings are understated in the paragraph. We are also ignoring Grant's own explanation and instead including only one commentary, but if we indicate that the war was greatly prolonged this would serve to (almost) adequately reflect Grant's concerns imo. Anyone half familiar with Grant, the simple and honest man, who even sent his own father away, can hopefully put the pieces together for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers, there needs to be a reference for that phrase "prolonged the war". I have not found a reference that supports that phrase. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Sarna (2012) page 37 is the reference. Although Sarna (2012) does not specifically say Grant believed or said that phrase "prolonged the war". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Those references are fine. As I said above, I don't think "prolonged the war" adds anything. It's not untrue, just extraneous. But whatever. No sense arguing about it, I guess, if the rest of you are on board. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• @ Gwillhickers. I don't keep changing the paragraph just to change the paragraph. This is a meditation and compromise is in order to get the paragraph into the article. Besides I did not take out "prolonged the war" phrase. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The following "Alternative version", written by you, omitted prolonged the war. Yes, more could be said of compromise, esp where it pertains to Grant's concerns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe I was the first to take out "prolonged the war" phrase. I was compromising. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK there appears to be a consensus for:

• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, prolonged the war and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields.
• Flood (2005) pp. 143-144
• Sarna (2012) p. 37
• Badeau (1885) p.410

Is this correct? If so, then we can move on to the citations for the next sentence. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, with the addition of a comma after "war". --Coemgenus (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, though I would place prolonged the war, after funded the Confederacy and just before while soldiers died.... i.e. ...funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good to me too. Suggestion would be to change "funded the Confederacy" to "funded the Confederate Army". The cotton trade was used for empowering the Confederate military. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No doubt that's generally true, but it would seem that funds generated from cotton sales would also pay off the politicians and civilians who were helping and/or supplying the army and who very often came under the general heading of Confederacy. In any case, it's not really an issue with me. Either term will work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• The reality is that the Confederacy only consisted of the Confederate Armies. No nation officially recognized the Confederacy and Grant was concerned about defeating the Vicksburg Confederate fortress. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Confederacy consisted of the government, Jefferson Davis, legislators, Confederate Postmaster General, et al, regardless of who chose to recognize it or not, and again, monies could have gone to a number of places outside the coffers for the army. Confederacy is the more inclusive term, but again, whichever term we use is fine by me.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

2nd sentence (cont)

Then the tweaked version would be:

• • He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederate Army and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields.
• Flood (2005) pp. 143-144
• Sarna (2012) p. 37
• Badeau (1885) p.410

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Keithbob, you're moving a little too fast again. Though it doesn't make much difference to me, we haven't settled on whether to use Confederacy or Confederate Army. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gwillhickers, "Confederacy" makes more sense than "Confederate Army". If the money went to the cotton growers, who then paid taxes to the confederate government, just saying "army" is not accurate. I also don't see the need for a citation to Badeau. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of fighting the war Grant was seeking to destroy the Confederate Army especially at Vicksburg. Stated before the "Confederacy" was not a recognized country. Is wikipedia recognizing the Confederacy as country ? Grant was seeking a military advantage concering GO11. I would want to keep source references as current and consistent as possible although Badeau (1885) is a reliable source. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Confederacy is fine we are just acknowledging their was a confederacy). Agree, strike Badeau, and let's move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Then it sounds like this is the consensus version, yes?

• • He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields.
• Flood (2005) pp. 143-144
• Sarna (2012) p. 37

If there are no objections we can move on to the next sentence.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd sentence citations

Consensus text and cites so far:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. References: Flood (2005) pp. 143-144 and Sarna (2012) p. 37
• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

What is the appropriate citation(s) for the third sentence?

• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Should there be mention that Southern Jewish families supported the Confederacy and slavery for neutrality ? Grant's district extended into the South. My reference is : Jewish Communities on the Ohio River: A History by Amy Shevitz (2007) page 101 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No. It's not relevant and is undue -- nothing in the order is against slavery supporters (Jewish or not). It, moreover, has nothing to do with Grant and his issuing the order, at this time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I felt this issue should be discussed. The current paragraph reads as if the Civil War was suspended during Grant's GO11. Shevitz says the Jewish community was not neutral during the Civil War. Southern Jewish people supported the Confederacy and slavery. Lincoln had issued the preliminary emancipation proclamation prior to GO11. In my opinion the current article reads as if the Jewish community was neutral during the Civil War. If this information is not needed in the article I am fine with that but I felt there was a need for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's undue weight to a tangential topic. I'm curious why you'd even bring this up now, after we've effectively achieved consensus on the text. But whatever your reasons, I'd just as soon not add more tangents and asides. If you want to write Jews and the American Civil War, have at it. But not here. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I did not bring this up now. I brought it up early but no one talked about the issue. I believe this is relevant because Grant headquarters where in the South. I would not state we have achieved consensus but rather fragile compromise. I even gave a source link. Actually there does seem to be enough resources for the above article mentioned: The Jewish Confederates by Robert N. Rosen (2000) including Shevits (2007) Jewish Communities on the Ohio River: A History Again. I believe this needed to be discussed. We can continue completing the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Insert : Cm', as an aside to this mediation, if you ever have a mind to launch the above red-linked page it would be a good opportunity to strip away many of the modern-day stigmas that continue to plague much of contemporary thinking, esp where it involves Jews and other stereotypes regarding the South. Here's an interesting read from the book you brought to our attention. Your efforts haven't gone unappreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Agree with Coemgenus and ASW, that content covering the allegiance of Jews, whether towards the north or south, has nothing to do with Grant, or the Order, so this should be left out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• The reason I brought up Jewish allegiance was to show that GO11 was issued during the American Civil War where families and fellow countrymen took sides or were divided. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone have a source(s) for the sentence under consideration?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Brands, 2013, p.218 will work fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that works. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That works. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

4th sentence citations

Consensus text so far:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. References: Flood (2005) pp. 143-144 and Sarna (2012) p. 37
• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Brands, 2013, p.218
• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

What cites do we have for this sentence?

• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history."

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• The above proposal doesn't even say Jews were expelled. In any case, Sarna doesn't actually say "notorious" himself -- he quotes others who used that term. However, on p.7 he says, ...the most sweeping anti-Jewish regulation in American history. (Belated suggestion:) For context we might also want to cite Sarna again on p. 17 and mention that only about 100 Jews, most of whom were traders/speculators, were actually expelled from the department, which was an area covering several (soon to be) states:.

Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most sweeping anti-Jewish official order in American history", which expelled about 100 Jewish people, most of them traders, from the area." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Page 17 does not say, "most of them were traders" -- do you have another cite for that clause? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• The cite we got this quote from, above, and which we discussed was: Sarna (2012) article; see also, Smith, p. 225. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, since we're quoting Sarna, citing the article makes the most sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the sentence simply references a quote this should be pretty easy to source. Are we set then as follows?

• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Sarna (2012) article; see also, Smith, p. 225.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Please cite the Sarna (2012) article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK on to the next sentence.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Again, we're moving too fast. ASW noted a citation problem, but there is no discussion as to why we're not writing a well written and informative sentence here. Why is almost every point of context always blocked, and always in cases where clarity is needed and where it otherwise leaves the reader to assume the worst? Let's remember we're not authoring a dictionary entry, and statements written in Featured Articles should be comprehensively and well written. The above sentence is not well written and comprehensive, and by itself it's merely a claim that leaves too many questions unanswered. As such we are now in violation of at least one Policy or Guideline -- two if we're going to be mindful of writing truncated sentences that belong in a dictionary -- three violations if we're going to use an external link for an embedded/inline citation.

Comprehensive sentence:

Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history.", which expelled approximately 100 Jews from the department. Sarna, 2012, p.17.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would not object to putting the approximate number of Jewish people expelled as a result of Grant's GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree to the change. We resolved this nearly a month ago. Why reopen that discussion now? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is the discussion, and reason where we collectively decided not to include the approximate number of Jewish people that were actually expelled from the department? Policy for featured articles maintains : Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (emphasis added) As usual, we just rushed on to the next stage in the typical fashion. With the exception of funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, (where I had to prod editors here several times to re-include), overall context for this paragraph has been routinely blocked. We need to show the effect and the extent of which Grant's "notorious" Order actually had in reality. This is a 'major detail' and puts the whole affair in context. Two editors have had their way on almost all accounts, so it is only fair that the two other editors who want to include the number should be allowed to do so. Besides, by leaving out major details we are looking at policy issues, not to mention yet another POV issue. Balance and context can be added with just 8 additional words:

Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history.", which expelled approximately 100 Jews from the department. Sarna, 2012, p.17.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

5th sentence citations

Ok, we are moving along. Here is what we have so far:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. References: Flood (2005) pp. 143-144 and Sarna (2012) p. 37
• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Reference: Brands, 2013, p.218
• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Reference: Sarna (2012) article; see also, Smith, p. 225.
• Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

What citations do we want for this sentence?

• Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press critisized Grant.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Historians debate Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11." This sentence does not have a source but is a generalization. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It needs a source, so if you are arguing it cannot possibly be sourced, it is not going to get us anywhere, useful. I think you proposed the sentence, so hopefully you had RS in mind, something like Holzer, and Sarna, and Smith, and Simpson. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

For the first sentence, we could cite to Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that works. (It would also be easier to go one sentence at a time, Keithbob). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Does the source say "Jewish leaders", or does it refer to Mr. Kaskel where he went to Washington and complained to Lincoln? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are for the first sentence. 'Jewish leaders' is the next sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What does the source say? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Smith on page 226 states "Apologists for Grant have suggested..." Smith does not refer to these apologists as historians nor does Smith state there is any debate in the matter. Smith flatly says none of the apologists views were true. "None of this is true" There was no debate mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Smith describes what some have said Grant's reasons were, then disagrees and gives his own views. That's the debate. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And Sarna book, p. 45-49., covers similar ground, as does Simpson, also Holzer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• If that is the case then I would cite all four references: Smith; Sarna; Simpson; and Holzer. That would tell the reader that historians are discussing Grant's GO11. Rather then use the word "debate" why not use the word "theorize". Cmguy777 (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've stricken the second sentence. We'll go one sentence at a time as suggested.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The two truncated sentences above, one temporarily stricken, work fine, such that they are. Debate is better than theorize, as the latter terms can suggest there is no disagreement regarding Grant's actual motives. We need to find a source regarding historians in general or, to my disappointment, we may have to omit that phrase. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Debate implies that historians have actually gotten together and debated with each other over personal motivations for Grant's GO11. Simply not the case. I believe theorize is more accurate since historians have provided their own theories regarding Grant's GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It implies no such thing. Historical debate almost never involves face-to-face discussions. And changing it to "theorize" makes the sentence nonsensical."Historians theorize Grant's motives for issuing General Order No. 11"? That makes no sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What if we amended the sentence to say something like: "Historicial opinions on Grants motives vary." Would that be helpful?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I agree Keithbob. That would be an appropriate and helpful change. Your sentence is better and eliminates the word debate. Theorize is similar to opinion. Each historian has their own opinions of Grant's GO11 is accurate. Smith (2001) does not even refer other historians as historians but dismisses them as apologists. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "Historians' opinions on Grant's motives vary."? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, then the proposal is for a revised sentence that would look like this:

• Historian’s opinions vary on Grants motives for issuing General Order No. 11. Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165 -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe Historians' opinions vary on Grant's motives for issuing the order. might read better. The cites are fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Either version sounds good Coemgenus or Keithbob. The term debate has been removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, and approve Coemgenus' tweek. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, last call, any objections to this text and citations?

• Historian’s opinions vary on Grants motives for issuing the order. Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest adding one more reference: Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union pp 217-219 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sources don't actually refer to historians collectively on this note, but as editors I believe we are allowed to make obvious deductions if there is consensus. The sources are okay with me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Cm' that we should also include the Brands source/explanation, which provides yet another quote from Grant regarding his motives. It's too bad we can't express this simple context in the so called summary we're turning out here. Instead we're requiring the readers to check on books that most of them don't own. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

OK then final text and cites seems to be:

• Historian’s opinions vary on Grants motives for issuing the order. Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165 and Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union pp 217-219

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate side discussion

With so many things occurring at the same time we moved on without any discussion regarding the General Order's effect and the number of people it actually effected. This is a major detail which gives the paragraph needed clarity and context, required of Featured Articles, and can be easily covered with only eight words. Those are the reasons for inclusion of this context. What are the reasons, if any, for not including this major detail? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) I believe the addition of the approximate number of Jewish people actually removed by Grant's GO11 is signifigant for the article. This information is provided apparently by Sarna (2012). Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) It's unnecessary, and it misses the point. The problem with the order is that it would have expelled all Jews if Lincoln hasn't stopped it. That it only affected a few is clear already from the text when we say that it was repealed after three weeks. To cite the small number of Jews actually expelled from their homes without also citing how many were supposed to be expelled looks like we're presenting one side of the equation in order to minimize the order's impact and make Grant look less bad. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I'm in the unneeded camp. As with many details, the issue is not whether something is true but whether it adds detail that make things longer for insufficient benefit. 1) It does, in my impression, make Grant look worse by stressing the really bad that happened (so in that sense, I guess, I disagree with Coemgenus), although, whether better or worse, we don't need the ambiguous impression, either way. 2) The fact itself, certainly does not make the order itself any less "obnoxious" or give Grant any more "right" to have issued it (using the words of Grant's beloved wife) - so, therefore, the fact itself is a side-trip, on a road to verbosity, without sufficient enlightenment. 3) Finally, this was discussed before, and three of us rejected the focus on it - so, I see no reason to go back. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Sarna (2012) the most recent authority on Grant's GO11 apparently thought this information was useful to be put in his book. I don't believe Sarna (2012) was attempting to minimize GO11. Grant rescinded GO11 21 days after the order was given by Grant of course by Lincoln's objection to the order after complaints by Jewish leaders. Yes. The order did affect the entire Jewish population. But the reader needs to understand that the order was not fully implemented. Grant could have refused to rescind the order similar to Frémont refusing to rescind the order that freed slaves that Lincoln desired to be overturned. Grant rather obeyed Lincoln. Grant, according to Sarna (2012) did not believe the general population at his headquarters in Paducha was loyal to the Union. Loyalty to the Union may have been another reason for GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Saying 100 Jews were expelled, does not tell anyone the order was not fully enforced. Moreover, Sarna wrote a whole book on it, we are not - we have been over that before, many times. Sarna also goes into detail about how Grant's communication was cut and the confusion engendered by the unprecedented order, and how one general refused to even consider enforcing it. What if Grant would have personally delayed enforcement of the order and waited for Washington to weigh in, as he is reported to have said to Rawlins when Rawlins objected -- 'let them appeal to Washington' -- but Grant explicitly decided not to delay the order and issued it, anyway. Even so, the order given it's sweeping language would still be the subject of historical debate. The Peducah Jews were partly so incensed by the order because they believed themselves to be good Union men. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Of course Grant's GO11 is sweeping and represents a low point in Grant's career, but neutrality of the paragraph should be taken into consideration. Grant did not believe the people in Paducah, Kentucky were loyal. Kentucky was a battle ground state for loyalty. He was a general fighting the Confederates in the South where loyalty of citizens mattered. The order was in effect 21 days and I believe the reader should know how many actual Jewish families or people were removed from Grant's district in this time period. The Jewish people did object to Washington and were successful after talking to Lincoln. Grant rescinded GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Kentucky in the American Civil War Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC) This bit about the residents of Paducah being disloyal is a red herring. He didn't expel all Paducans, he expelled all Jews. Let's just leave it at that. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC) The paragraph is about the General Order, and not even mentioning its effect on Jewish people in the department leaves the statement wide open for interpretation in that regard. Simple math. The statement isn't supposed to do anything else -- like inform the readers whether or not the Order was fully enforced, per ASW's concern. It was in effect for three weeks, plenty of time for it to have effect, such that it was. i.e.Barely negligible in terms of numbers and the very large area it was supposed to cover. In any event, this is a major detail and needs to be included in the paragraph -- which doesn't even approach being comprehensive, as too many details and context have been routinely blocked. Once again, either we achieve neutrality and comprehensiveness here, or we'll have to deal with it later. The paragraph reads like a dictionary written by someone who is trying to obscure the truth by blocking numerous points of context -- context that is required by Featured Articles. We now have two editors for inclusion of this context and two against. Seeing how many other points of context have been blocked already, its more than fair to allow the inclusion of this important context. And besides we need to start observing Policy regarding Featured Articles and "context". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) A couple of points: The issues surrounding Jewish families were discussed at length in the main part of the mediation There was an opportunity to discuss loose ends in the Final Suggestions section which I started 26 days ago I don't see any consensus for inclusion of additional text about Jewish families in the discussion above. We are now in the final phase of assigning citations to text that was crafted via a two month discussion and collaboration. With that in mind I'd like ask that we end this side discussion and get back to the task at hand.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC) We decided not to mention families as this was misleading. We did not discuss mentioning the number of Jewish people actually effected. Leaving this out would also be misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) I don't see how it would be misleading, and I agree with Keithbob that the issue's already been resolved. The point of this mediation was to talk through things with a neutral mediator so that we might arrive at a lasting consensus. If we're going to keep going around in circles, we mightn't have bothered. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC) This was discussed weeks ago and was rejected, with not "families" but with "enforced against Jewish Americans" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC) I believe the reader should understand that the order was not fully carried out. Listing the number of Jewish persons who were actually expelled would give a better understanding on how notorious the order was compared to what occured in actuality. I understand there is no concensus with the issue and am willing to proceed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Families were discussed and the idea rejected because saying "families" is misleading in terms of the speculators for whom the Order was drafted. The number of Jewish people effected by the Order was not discussed. Still, no one has offered a good reason why we should not include this important context. This context needs to be included if we don't want to hand the readers a narrative that begs too many questions. Cm' you said "I believe the reader should know how many actual Jewish families or people were removed from Grant's district". I also feel mention of the number of Jewish 'people' is needed, so consensus is split here if you don't just give up and go along with this continual blocking of context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Gwillhickers. I am not giving up. Keithbob said " I don't see any consensus for inclusion of additional text about Jewish families in the discussion above." We have to go by Keithbob's meditation. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Cm', we are talking about the inclusion of context regarding the number of Jewish 'People' effected by the Order. No one is talking about mentioning families here. Indeed we discussed why we should not refer to those effected as families. Are you now saying that we shouldn't mention the number of Jewish people effected, according to Sarna? I have no intention of opposing the mediation and as I've said, will not edit against consensus and the finding of this mediation until a broader and more objective consensus is achieved should that become necessary. Unfortunately there is this ongoing attempt to block many important points of context. The way the proposed paragraph reads now, the reader can easily assume Grant was and acted alone and that his "notorious" Order was the product of "anti-semitism" which effected any number of Jewish people. Calling the Order "notorious" without providing context will easily and often be interpreted by the modern and naive thinker that thousands, perhaps millions, of Jews were effected. There is nothing in the paragraph that even suggests otherwise. Is this what we really want? Nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Gwillhickers I tried to give you a graceful out with my prior post but you didn't take the hint. This discussion is out of order. We are assigning citations to text already agreed upon. If there are some rewordings of current text that can be easily agreed upon as we go through the citations then we can incorporate them. That is not the case here. You are arguing for the inclusion of new text and the time for that is long past and to continue this discussion is disruptive to the mediation process. I'm closing this section so we can move on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC) I understand your position. I was just trying to get important context included here so we don't have to continue the effort to include needed context and neutrality later. Sorry if I was out of order, however it's unfortunate that we are handing the readers a paragraph that is unbalanced and lacks (very) much context and clarity on a number of important points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks, my friend, your understanding is very much appreciated. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

6th sentence citations

Here is what we have so far:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. References: Flood (2005) pp. 143-144 and Sarna (2012) p. 37
• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Reference: Brands, 2013, p.218
• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Reference: Sarna (2012) article; see also, Smith, p. 225.
• Historian's opinions vary on Grant's motives for issuing the order. Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165 and Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union pp 217-219
• Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant.
• Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks.
• Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

What citations do we want for this sentence?

• Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarna, 2012, pp.16-17 and Smith, 2001, pp.226-227 cover the events well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe there is any direct recorded meeting between President Lincoln and Jewish leaders. Cesar J. Kaskel and Senator John A. Gurley had an unrecorded meeting with Lincoln. Kaskel had been expelled by Grant's GO11. Also Grant did not overturn the order rather Halleck, Grant's commander, did. My source is Gary Phillip Zola (2014) We Called Him Rabbi Abraham: Lincoln and American Jewry, a Documentary History pages 97-98 Zola is a great source. It seems more information is being revealed about Grant's GO11 as more authors are taking on the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is more accurate: Jewish leaders and the Northern press decried Grant's order, while an expelled Jewish merchant, Cesar J. Kaskel, from Paducah, Kentucky and Senator John A. Hurley met personally with Lincoln and Halleck. Lincoln disapproved and Grant was told by Halleck to revoke the order. Grant waited three days to rescind the order stating the order was revoked by Halleck rather then Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Correction: Grant's official headquarters were in Holly Springs, Mississippi rather then Paducah, Kentucky. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• New version: Jewish leaders and the Northern press decried Grant's order, while an expelled Jewish merchant from Grant's district, Cesar J. Kaskel, and Senator John A. Hurley met personally with Lincoln and Halleck. Lincoln disapproved of the order and Grant was told by Halleck to revoke it. Grant rescinded his own order, having lasted 21 days, under Halleck's name. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• The above sentences are to be referenced by Zola (2014) pages 97-98. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• So we're changing things again? No, I don't agree to this. Didn't we already achieve a consensus on this phrasing? Why the 11th hour alterations? Will there ever come a point where we can stop and agree that this is good enough? Or will this mediation continue for the rest of our lives? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Cmguy, it is odd that you propose language, as I think you did here with this language weeks ago, and now at this late stage you want to change it. As for "Grant rescinded", yes, he rescinded, it makes no difference that he said 'per orders from Washington.'Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As to the actual purpose of this section: McFeeley p. 124 says that the protests reached Lincoln and Stanton, but I can't find anything that says they personally heard from Jews. Maybe in Sarna? If not, striking the word "personally" would bring the sentence in line with the citation without rewriting the whole thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course they personally heard from Jews, most by telegram or letter and then, of course by Kaskel and a few days later Wise's group, so with or without personally will be fine, not that I was ever insistent on "personally", which I think was proposed by CmGuy, so fine drop "personally", and use McFeely p.124 -- it will make it shorter. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully that is sloppy history in my opinion...Kaskel, an expelled Jewish merchant from Grant's district did personally talk with Lincoln and Halleck. Zola (2014) is more recent then Sarna (2012) but two editors are relying on McFeely (1981) reference apparently for the sake of narration. Grant did not overturn GO11 but Grant stated that Halleck officially overturned Grant's GO11 order. Kaskel's personal testimony to Lincoln is what made Lincoln disapprove of Grant's GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am willing to drop that Halleck rescinded GO11 rather then Grant, but Kaskel and Senator Hurley should be mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Revised version: "''Jewish leaders and the Northern press decried Grant's order, while an expelled Jewish merchant from Grant's district, Cesar J. Kaskel, and Senator John A. Hurley personally met and petioned Lincoln and Halleck to rescind the order. Lincoln and Halleck agreed and Grant was ordered to revoke it. Three days later, Grant rescinded his order, having lasted 21 days. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't this getting a little long winded, mentioning four(!) different other names in the process? How many times was I told to put details in the main article, yet look at this proposal. And we already have plenty of sources to work with -- do we really have to add yet another to the bibliography to source this simple idea? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Lets get back to the simple statement:

Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant.

We can use Flood, 2005, p.145 to source the first part of the sentence, and Waugh, pp.127-128 to source comments about the press. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• :Kaskel and Senator Hurley were the ones who got Lincoln and Halleck to reversed the order. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Here is a compromise sentence:

• The Northern press critcized Grant while Jewish leaders protested against the order to Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with GWillhickers here. Let's get back to the original sentence and use the Waugh quote, or McFeely, or both. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• McFeely (1981) is a 34 year old source. Zola (2014) is one year old source while Sarna (2012) is a three years old source. Since this is a controversial subject why not use the most recent sources ? That makes sense to me. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick note to let everyone know I'm reading along daily. My only comment is a gentle reminder that our focus is sourcing not rewriting. A little tweaking is OK if its dictated by the sources and easily agreed upon by the participants.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cm', simply because a source was published at a later date doesn't automatically make it more reliable than older publications. Unless revealing new facts are covered in a given newer publication, it possess no built in advantage over the older. Often times the only thing 'new' about later publications are the opinions and the resultant conjecture, and we certainly have plenty of this stuff to go around already. There is no 'rule of thumb' for determining the best source. Each source should be judged on a per-source basis. We have more than enough sources to work with already. What new facts does Zola (and Sarna for that matter) offer that sets it apart from older sources? (!) Let's get back on the main track and source the statement Keithbob listed above so we can move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gw' Modern research is more reliable then older research...More information is coming out on GO11 including Sarna (2012) who wrote a whole book on the subject. Zola (2014) tells us Grant did not overturn the GO11 under Halleck's name, not Grant's, until three days later. Zola (2014) tells us that Kaskell and Senator Hurley's visit to Lincoln and Halleck overturned GO11. Halleck told Grant to overturn GO11, not Lincoln. These are things readers should know. McFeely (1981) only briefly if not haphazardly discusses GO11 in my opinion. Modern research is much more reliable in my opinion having access to the Internet and sources online. McFeely (1981) there was no public Internet. McFeely (1981) does not even acknowelege slavery caused the Civil War and has been critized for factual errors. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding sources, all you've done is reassert an opinion, while not telling us what new facts Zola is in possession of. WHY is Zola more reliable than, say, Smith, Brands, or Flood, etc? You need to think for yourself here instead of blindly embracing some rule of thumb. In any case, let's keep the statement simple -- it already makes the point without adding other names, etc. If you want to cover this point with more depth there is the main article. You are not asking us to include basic details but ones that are besides the point. i.e.Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. This needs no extra context/clarity as does Grant believed ... "Modern" research is more reliable on a given topic only when it offers us new facts, newly discovered documents, letters, etc. Is that the case here? Let's move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• It would look better if modern sources were included and let the reader know more interest is being taken on the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I have to agree with Gwillhickers—and you know he and I don't always see things the same way! The newest source isn't necessarily the best. McFeely's ground-breaking biography reshaped Grant scholarship and won a Pulitzer Prize. To dismiss it because he had to do his research in person and not on the internet is absurd. If Zola adds something new, name it and we'll consider it. Absent that, I don't see the point in introducing a new source. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cm', nearly all the sources in the Grant bibliography are modern. While the internet offers us convenience, it doesn't produce new facts, documents, etc in of itself. Serious historians have/had access to University libraries, public libraries, various institutions, museums, and historians before our time (e.g.Badaeu) often had direct access to many primary sources. i.e.famous people, places, documents, letters, etc. An argument could easily be made that older sources are more reliable on that note alone and that many "modern" sources simply copy-reword the older sources and merely pile on their own opinion/conjecture, sometimes obscuring the truth. We can concede that Mcfeely could have covered G.O.11, one topic, a little better, but let's not use the shortcomings of one historian, on the one topic, to judge all the sources. Again, sources need to be judged on a per-source basis. If Zola can offer us any new and revealing facts I would be interested. Since he apparently doesn't let's just wrap us this timely affair, aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• How can a 34 year old source like McFeely's be groundbreaking today ? ...Zola (2014) tells us Grant waited three days after Halleck told him to overturn the order...and that Grant rescinded the order by orders from Halleck...not Grant. Also Kaskel and Senator Hurley talked to both Lincoln and Halleck. Halleck could not believe Grant had issued the order...From what I understand concerning the Pulitzer Prize journalists, not historians, gave McFeely the award and since then Grant's reputation has had improvement. McFeely wrote the book I believe because Catton series on the Civil War and Grant made Grant look like the good guy and McFeely's Grant was to counter Catton. I am happy Coemgenus and Gwillhickers are in agreement. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, no one agrees with you, so, let' move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is a mediation...hold on...I would like Keithbob's opinion whether modern sources such as Zola (2014) should have precedence over older or dated sources such as McFeely (1981). In my opinion newer research should trump older research in terms of precedence... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keithbob...Should newer references have priorty over older or dated references ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how he could rule on that, since there is no such policy on Wikipedia, nor, if there was, have you proven that McFeely is outdated and Zola is in any way better. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keithbob is the mediator Coemgenus. I am waiting for an answer. Please let Keithbob make this decision. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of anything in WP:RS that says that recent academic sources should take precedent over older ones. Especially when they are discussing an historical event. There are some exceptions for scientific research publications, per WP:MEDRS, but I don't see that being applicable here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I will go by editor consensus. With all the modern online research and libraries today one would think modern is better. Zola (2014) and Sarna (2012) put in alot more research and effort on GO11 then McFeely's (1981) to page summary and I thought would be benefitial to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

6th sentence citations (cont)

A lot of sources have been mentioned in this thread. Would someone like to summarize what they feel are the consensus sources for this text?

• Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant.

Then we can move on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it is good to give the readers mis information...Kaskel was the only Jewish person who personally complained to Lincoln and Halleck... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• "...the Northern press criticized Grant" Smith (2001), Grant, page 226 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Gwhillickers proposed Sarna 2012, pp. 16–17 to cover the other half of the sentence. That works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jewish leaders protested througout the nation but Kaskel was the only Jewish person to talk with Lincoln and Halleck. Zola (2014) Jewish leaders organized protest rallies in St. Louis, Louisville and Cincinnati, and telegrams reached the White House from the Jewish communities of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia. reference: Anti-Semitism in the United States: General Grant's Infamy Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine Smith and Sarna, and as I said before striking "personally" is fine with me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Suggested change: Jewish leaders nationally protested and complained to Lincoln, while the Northern press criticized Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd also be fine with striking "personally". Adding "nationally" is just excess verbiage. Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna (2012) pages 16-17 does not support the first half of the compound sentence. Sarna (2012) pages 16-17 only states Jewish leaders were in the process of complaining to Lincoln but the order was revoked before any complaints could be sent. The web reference I gave supports the first half of the sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The web reference mentioned Abraham Karp (1991) From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the Library of Congress as a source but does not list any page numbers. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

* I suggest the following references for the sentences: Brands (2012) page 220 and Smith (2001) page 226. I would not use Sarna (2012) pages 16-17. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• How about this change ? Jewish leaders protested to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

6th sentence citation (straw poll)

We seem to be going round and round regarding this sentence:

• Jewish leaders personally complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant

Let's take a straw poll and see where we are at.

• Remove the word 'personally' from Part I of the sentence (Support/Oppose)
  • . Kaskel did personally talk with Lincoln and Halleck. The rest were written protests...I would remove personally. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • . Sure --Coemgenus (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • . Yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • . Yes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• My preferred source(s) for Part I of the sentence is [Sarna 2012 pp.16-17 or Flood 2005 p.145 or McFeely 1981 p. 124 or Zola 2014 p. 97-98 or Brands 2012 page 220]:
  • Prefer Flood and Brands. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Prefer Brands...The sentence is actually a direct quote from Brands. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Brands is fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • .Brands --Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Use Smith (2001) p. 226-227 as a citation for Part II of the sentence (Support/Oppose)
  • Prefer Smith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Prefer Smith. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Smith is fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • .Smith -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)--

Alright, then our consensus text is:

• Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln (Brands, 2012, page 220) while the Northern press criticized Grant. (Smith, 2001, p. 226-227)

On to the next sentence! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cm, you were asked what new facts Zola had to offer (i.e.he offers none), yet you keep ducking this question and keep pounding the same empty 'new' drum. Once again, you have to consider more than just a date of publication but consider its content. Selecting a source simply because of a date is patently stupid and is wasting everyone's time at this point. Please let's wrap this up. If this sort of activity continues we should just let Keithbob make the final decision regarding the cites. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Gw' I had already given what I believed to be new information: ...Zola (2014) tells us Grant waited three days after Halleck told him to overturn the order...and that Grant rescinded the order by orders from Halleck...not Grant. Also Kaskel and Senator Hurley talked to both Lincoln and Halleck. Halleck could not believe Grant had issued the order Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not newly discovered information, and besides we will not be using this in the paragraph, as again, this context is not germane to the simple point we're making. In any case, thanks for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

7th sentence citations

Here is what we have so far:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. References: Flood (2005) pp. 143-144 and Sarna (2012) p. 37
• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Reference: Brands, 2013, p.218
• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Reference: Sarna (2012) article; see also, Smith, p. 225.
• Historian's opinions vary on Grant's motives for issuing the order. Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165 and Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union pp 217-219
• Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln (Brands, 2012, page 220) while the Northern press criticized Grant. (Smith, 2001, p. 226-227)
• Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks.
• Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

What source(s) should we cite for this, our 7th, sentence?

• Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• As mentioned the Zola (2014) source gives better clarification what actually went on. After Lincoln heard personally from Kaskel and Senator Hurly did Lincoln disapprove. Halleck, Grant's superior disapproved too, and told Grant to rescind the order by telegraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I still do not understand wht "quietly" is meant to convey, perhaps if someone could give me a source to look at for quietly that would help. It seems to suggest that Grant was like hiding the retraction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think it means this that Grant waited 3 days before retracting the order under Halleck's name. This information is found in the Zola (2014) source that gives specific details. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• As with most adverbs, it reflects the author's attitude more than the actual events. I don't know where it came from, but it doesn't add anything. Let's strike it. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• How about this ? Both Lincoln and Halleck demanded the order be revoked and Grant finally rescinded it on January 7, 1863. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Whatever descriptors we use (quietly, demanded, finally etc.) we should have sources that support those adjectives.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Suggested revision and referenced sentence:

Lincoln and Halleck demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it on January 7, 1863. Zola (2014) pages 98-99 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are no adjectives or adverbs in the above sentence. Halleck, Grant's superior, also disapproved. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Where are other editor comments ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If here are no objections to this proposal, we can move ahead:

• Lincoln and Halleck demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it on January 7, 1863. Zola (2014) pages 98-99

Comments? suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good...It is important to note Halleck also objected to Grant's GO11 in addition to Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, why are we changing it? I can understand the addition of Halleck, even though it's an unnecessary detail, but the date makes the sentence worse, to my ear. Before, it had the important detail -- the length of time between the order's issuance and its revocation. Now, it just has a date, which adds less value to the reader, leaving him to calculate the distance between these otherwise unimportant dates. I'd prefer to revert to the previously agree-upon version. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, there is an objection here and as I've said before this is the time we are focusing on sourcing not on revising the content. So let's go back to our orignally agreed upon sentence and focus on the sourcing.

• Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks.

Is Zola (2014) pages 98-99 an adequate source for this sentence?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm just getting over the flu, the worst I've had in some years, and havent abandoned the mediation. Yes, agree with Kiethbob -- let's get back to the simple statement, Lincoln is more important than Halleck and would have recinded the order regardless of Halleck's position. I'm sorry i can't be of more help at this point as it's very difficult for me to be on line for more than ten minutes to do leg wor etc. Back to my pillow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers...hope you have a speedy recovery...Halleck is important...because Halleck gives us a time line...Grant rescinded the order three days after Halleck told Grant to revoke GO11...It was Halleck who told Grant to overturn GO11 not Lincoln...I would put 21 days rather then three weeks...either way is optional...Grant rescinded the GO11 by orders of General Halleck...Zola (2014) pages 98-99 is a good source for the sentence either way written. How about this:

Lincoln and Halleck demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gwillhickers here. Let's not reopen the discussion. And why the new source all of a sudden? What's wrong with Brands or Smith? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with Zola (2014) who gives more details then Brands (2012) or Smith (2001) ? Why such resistance to modern sources on a controversial subject ? I gave the reference and it's rtg ready to go . Cmguy777 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is everybody ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason for our resistance is: every time you find a new source, you want to rewrite the article. It's exhausting and unnecessary. If the existing sources already cover the point, why duplicate efforts? Why not stick with sources we've all read and agreed upon? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Quietly" is still vague and ambiguous. It should be struck, and cite to Smith 226-227. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a controversial subject and the most modern reference sources should be used. Zola (2014) informs us Halleck had every thing to do with overturning Grant's GO11...Lincoln and Halleck overturned the order...Smith (2001) does go over in somewhat detail...but Zola (2014) gives the reader better context concerning Grant's GO11...also the reader is informed that historians are taking more interest in Grant's GO11, Sarna (2012) wrote a book on the subject, and Zola (2014) dedicted a whole chapter...14 years is a long time since Smith (2001) book...Is Halleck important enough ? ...Lincoln created the cotton trade policy...looks like the hero on overturning GO11...and Grant is the villain... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Cm', Halleck only 'told' Grant to rescind the Order because Lincoln had said so. It was not Halleck's decision. Did Lincoln actually tell Halleck to instruct Grant? In any event, Halleck gives us some interesting historical context here, but in this case it is not important to the simple statement we are making. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

7th sentence straw poll

Ok let's try another straw pole so we don't go round and round on minor points. Regarding the sentence:

• Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant quietly rescinded it within three weeks

Please indicate support or oppose under each question below.

• The word 'quietly' should be removed from the sentence.
  • Conditional support (for 'quietly'): If there is a source that says "quietly", which is descriptive enough, I would include this word, as we know Grant was reluctant to reverse the Order and wasn't exactly celebrating over the event. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • . Support Grant was more hesitant then quiet to remove his GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It adds little to the sentence. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • .Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• The sentence should be cited to Smith only
  • Support any source that supports "quietly". If there are no such sources, then any source that supports the sentence otherwise will be fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • . Oppose Zola (2014) is a modern source that adds more detail then Smith (2001). Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • .Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence should be cited to Zola only
  • . Ditto, per above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • . Support Zola (2014) devotes a whole chapter to the GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • .Opp Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence should be cited to both Smith and Zola
  • .Ditto, per above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • .Support I believe inserting both Smith (2001) and Zola (2014) would be a good compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • .Opp Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, my summary of the straw poll is:

• Unless someone can quickly provide a source that clearly supports the adjective "quietly", it should be removed.
• Assuming that Zola does not support the 'quietly' adjective the general feeling seems to be that the Smith citation is all that is needed for this sentence.

Can we move forward on this basis? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why not use both...? In my opinion Smith (2001) is the most hostile source concerning Grant and GO11. Zola (2014) is the most recent reliable source on the subject...I still don't understand such resistance to Zola (2014)... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

* Here are the two references: Zola (2014) pages 98-99 and Smith (2001) pages 226-227 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite a thorough discussion no consensus for using the Zola source has emerged. After discussing the sourcing for this single sentence for more than two weeks it's time to move on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

8th sentence source(s) --(final sentence)

Here is what we have to date:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. References: Flood (2005) pp. 143-144 and Sarna (2012) p. 37
• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Reference: Brands, 2013, p.218
• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Reference: Sarna (2012) article; see also, Smith, p. 225.
• Historian's opinions vary on Grant's motives for issuing the order. Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165 and Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union pp 217-219
• Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln (Brands, 2012, page 220) while the Northern press criticized Grant. (Smith, 2001, p. 226-227)
• Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it within three weeks. Smith (2001) pp 226-227
• Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

What source(s) should we cite for this, our 8th and final, sentence?

• Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence by itself is vague. We should at least mention that Grant appointed several Jews to federal positions so the reader knows he just didn't do a lot of talking and apologizing. Sarna, 2012, covers this very well on numerous different pages. Page one hits the nail on the head.

Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency, appointing many Jews to high level federal positions. <Sarna, 2012, p.1> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not here. We do that in the election section. But yes we should use Sarna for the cite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

We need to say something here also. Many texts have chapters that often overlap on various points, and remember, many readers only read up on the topics they are interested in. If we include it only in the election section this important point will be over looked in many instances. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, saying he made amends is enough overlap - it is also simple and straightforward and thus powerful writing, and we settled on that weeks and weeks ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Vague is not "straightforward". The only thing you have right here is that we discussed this weeks ago, so on that note I'll not pursue it further at this juncture. However, as you must know, we still have many issues to settle after we're done here. The paragraph as a whole is sketchy, misleading and leaves many points wide open for interpretation. i.e.Not comprehensive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

'He made amends' is not vague. 'He may have made amends in some way' would be vague. As for the rest, disagree - it is a (reasonably) fine WP:Summary, without the prolixity of being WP:Undue. Reasonably, I say because, of course, I am not overly happy with everything included - but some compromise will have to do.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not vague only to those who are sorta simple minded and/or uninterested in the topic. Also, a summary is supposed to include all the important and major details, per FA policy. I believe this was brought to everyone's attention more than once. i.e.it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And again, that must be balanced with Summary Style - it's as if you have not read all the criteria - which the FAC paragraph passed. Sure we can go into the debate about the apology or non-apology as some RS see it, and their doubts about the truthfulness of parts of the apology, but 'he made amends' is more than enough, especially since the entire sentence is out-of-chronology, and more additions to it just make it more out-of-chronology - and not any clearer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Final comment: I'd like to see the policy for 'summary style' where it says to leave out major details and context, esp where FA's are concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna 2012, pp. xi, 88-90, 101-3. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This not the time to start a new debate on the text. Our task is to gain consensus on a citation for the already agreed upon text. So far two editors have agreed that Sarna 2012 is adequate sourcing for this sentence. Any objections from others? It would be nice to wrap this up so we can all go home, put on our slippers and feed the cat so to speak :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's wrap this up, as almost every suggestion for improvement has too often been and continues to be met with the same, almost robotic, objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the Sarna sourcing and that we should wrap this up. I disagree with the personal attacks, GWillhickers. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sarna is best here, and the criticism was aimed at debating style -- nothing personal. None of us are above criticism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would use Sarna (2012) pages 89, 147. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cm' but I would also include p.1. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, it looks like a consensus for:

• Sarna (2012) pp, 1, 89 and 147

Yes? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the preview in google books, page 1 does not appear relevant - it talks about Kaskel and his hopes and fears about America in the 1850s (and 1858) not about Grant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I got Sarna in the mail last week. There is no p.1. Chapter 1 starts on p.3.--Coemgenus (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sarna (2012) pp 89 and 147 will reference the sentence in my opinion. There is no need for page 1 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Looked again. Google preview does not have a page number on that first page of Chap 1 (but then it has hardback and softback). At any rate, is the summary I gave basically correct? So, we can't use it here? And can you ok page 147? My copy already went back to the library. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the way you described the first page is completely accurate—it's not about Grant. 147 is fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, then we have this as our final version:

• Sarna (2012) pp. 89 and 147

Yes?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, we have our final version of the mediated content with sources. (see below)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Implementation

Final outcome of the mediation:

• Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. Reference: Smith (2001) page 225 and Flood (2005) page 143
• He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. References: Flood (2005) pp. 143-144 and Sarna (2012) p. 37
• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Reference: Brands, 2013, p.218
• Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Reference: Sarna (2012) article; see also, Smith, p. 225.
• Historian's opinions vary on Grant's motives for issuing the order. Smith pp. 226–227 and Simpson pp. 164–165 and Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union pp 217-219
• Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln (Brands, 2012, page 220) while the Northern press criticized Grant. (Smith, 2001, p. 226-227)
• Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it within three weeks. Smith (2001) pp 226-227
• Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency. Sarna (2012) pp. 89 and 147

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How will the changes be implemented?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Posting a preview summary paragraph here would help with the added references. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good thinkin! I've posted the final copy above. Can we agree on a method for implementation? Would someone like volunteer to make the changes ie replace existing copy with this new version?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Think he meant more like using ref talk, and actual article form (which is sfn). Getting started,

Along with his military responsibilities Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. He believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy, and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class," from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Writing in 2012, historian Jonathan D. Sarna said Grant "issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." Historians' opinions vary on Grant's motives for issuing the order. Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it within three weeks. Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

References

That looks good. How shall we implement? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentences and references are good, but there is no mention of trade being a Lincoln policy...One would think that the trade was spontaneous rather then a Presidential policy...In this respect Grant did not favor Lincoln's trade policy... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Drum roll please

I'm preparing to close the mediation as successfully resolved -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Keithbob ! One remaining issue that could possibly get further discussion after mediation is whether to mention that the cotton trade policy was implemented by Lincoln, Stanton, and Welles. The current paragraph does not mention this... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You want more discussion? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We have discussed this enough. Whatever the trade policy, it would have to be enforced (anything from entirely a black market to entirely unregulated, and Grant did not want those, either). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph, as far as this mediation is concerned, looks good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am for implementing the paragraph as is but believe in discussing information concerning Lincoln's trade policy in the article in the regular talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree the mediated content shown above should be implemented and further issues such as trade policy can be discussed on the talk page. Anything else before we close?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

None from me. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for doing this, Keithbob, your efforts are appreciated. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keithbob, many thanks for your time and effort, and esp your patience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone!!! I also have great appreciation for all of you and great respect for your willingness to work together in spite of your differences and create some form of resolution in an are of protracted dispute. Congratulations!!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Keithbob ! Your efforts as mediator have been valued and apprecited ! Thanks to all editors who participated in the discussion and successuful mediation ! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • This mediation is now officially closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and add the new paragraph to the article, replacing the old. Thanks again, Kiethbob. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)