Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Suggestion

This article probably won't be promoted as long as there is constant prose jiggling going on. It might be best if we all stepped back for a time and thought about the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. I'm happy to leave it be for a while. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The latest from the reviewers: Good patronage at this review, a fair level of support, and necessary checks complete -- but is it stable? There still seem to be daily edits to the article, and a lot of discussion on its talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I repeat: "-- but is it stable?" YoPienso (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That's why I'm suggesting a pause. Consider the article, give it some time to review sources and think it over, then come back if need be to tweak it. It's not getting promoted with four open discussions and a bunch of random changes. I suspect that when we look at it again, for the most part we will be fine with what is there and not there and there won't be much necessary if at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Let's stop. I just made a few edits myself, one to restore the Historical rep. text to the last consensus version (from a couple days ago) and another to fix some note/citation problems that had been introduced by fly-by edits from other editors (i.e., not those involved in these discussions). Let's let it rest a while. We're almost there! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If there seems to be a main thread to some of these debates I would say it would be using sources outside of the main biographers McFeely, Smith, and Brands...Maybe it is just best to edit without having discussions...why should editors have to take sides on a suggested edit... Cmguy777 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Because the alternative is edit-warring on the actual article page, which will make the article a mess and fail it at FA. These discussions here already have it on the verge of failure. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion there seems to be resistance to any positive suggestion concerning Grant's presidency...Smith and Brands take a somewhat positive review of Grant's presidency...two of his main biographers but at the closing of the Reputation section the state "well below average" is put in and seems to ignore modern assessments by Smith and Brands...Grant's foriegn policy under Fish was successful...Brands stresses Grant's courage prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan...Smith and Brands tend to admire Grant's Indian policy...both focusing less on the scandals...there is nothing about Creswell being considered one of the finest U.S. postmaster generals...or Grant signing into law a reserve to protect the American Fur Seal...I suppose a gilded age "environmental policy"... These are just my impressions of why there is so much "talk" in the "talk" pages...I believe editors can work together to get Grant to FA status...I am more then willing to cooperate to get Grant to FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We're all aware of your pro-Grant point of view. But the rest of us are just working to represent the general consensus of scholarly opinion on Grant. If you see that scholarship as wrong, that's a shame, but this encyclopedia is not a place to right great wrongs. As I (and others) have explained ad nauseum, our opinions don't matter, only the consensus of opinions in the mainstream scholarship matter. If you can't or won't understand that, then I don't know what else to tell you. I also have some disagreements with Grant scholarship, but you won't see me adding it to the article or looking far and wide for justification in obscure sources that aren't even about Grant. (Just to lay our cards on the table, I'll say I think Grant was right about annexing the DR -- but most Grant scholars think it was a fiasco, so that's what we write. See what I mean?)

If you think that we can work together to make this an FA and Main Page feature, I'm more than willing to join hands with you. So let's both stop trying to add or subtract anything from the article and, as Wehwalt suggested, let the thing be for a while. Deal? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am more then willing to work together...what I am stating is that I don't believe the article completely represents the Brands (2012) - Smith (2001) positive view of Grant...but instead relies on nameless historians in an assessment of Grant's reputation...my opinions of Grant pro or con do matter to this article...The McFeely (1981) negative point of view seems to dominate the article...Yellowstone was mentioned with an unanswered critical assessment of Grant's gilded age environmental policy...I want a balanced neutral article on Grant... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we can all agree to a neutral article. Smith is probably our most cited source, and he's largely positive about Grant's achievements. More importantly: can we all agree to chill, to let things set awhile, to cool down the temperature here? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Reputation section matches the positivity of Smith's book on Grant...rather more like McFeely especially with the term "well below average" by anonymous historians and then Waugh's negative assessment of Grant's gilded age environmentalism...The Reputation section is very negative in my opinion... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus and Cmguy777: I'm ready to step back in light of this latest development. I would just ask to mention Salmon Chase and Grant's swearing in as one final edit in terms of content. We don't have to mention the bible or the 22 gun salute, though that would give the statement some historical color and would reflect well on the ceremony. In any event we should give the Presidency section, a cornerstone section, a better opening statement. Regarding issues of neutrality, and which author said 'this and that', such a discussion/debate will obviously tie up this talk page for (quite?) a bit longer, so we should take a breather. I'm sure we all have things we'd like to see added or changed, but I'm ready to sit back and enjoy the view at this point. The article is good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus, Cmguy777, Rjensen, Yopienso, Wehwalt, and Ian Rose: -- Okay, I went ahead and added one last edit, my single exception per above. It's just a general statement, uncontroversial and fills in an important gap, per Chief Justice Salmon Chase swearing in Grant as President. If some one chooses to revert they will get no contest from me, as the article is still FA material, but imo we should at least mention Chase. The existing ref, McFeely, with one page number added (i.e.pp.287-'288') covers this event well. Hope this causes no issues with editors or reviewers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather you'd left it be, but it's a fine edit. I'm happy with the section as it now stands. Now, let's let it rest. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why was foonote removed?

Editor Coemugenus removed a footnote which cites Grant's Memoirs to the effect that the "s" in his middle name stands for nothing, here. In his Memoirs Grant appears to contradict what the article's cited historians say: according to Grant it was Senator Morris of Ohio and not Congressman Hamer, who mistakely endowed him with the middle initial S in his application for West Point. Curious why this was deleted?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's wrong. Hamer appointed Grant to USMA, not Morris. That's confirmed in McFeely, pp. 12-13; Simpson, pp. 10-11; and Smith, p. 24. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a prompt response, and pleased that editor Coemgenus evidently has quick access to the sources cited. Do any of them mention that Grant himself was mistaken about who appointed him to West Point? Not a major point, I'd cited the letter only to confirm Grant himself said the S was an invention; that was not a conclusion subsequently reached by historians. It just seems likely that one or more historians contradicting a primary source--a letter written by Grant himself--would likely take a sentence or two to explain why. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that was the first I'd ever heard of Morris's role in it. Grant's memoirs are silent on the point, as far as I can tell, but he mentions Hamer favorably in other contexts. Perhaps Grant misremembered? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. Grant wrote the letter to Mr. Elihu B. Washburne (one of quite a few to him) in June of 1864. A time when doubtless Grant was distracted by other, more important matters. Still, here is what Grant says: "It was a mistake made by Senator Morris of Ohio when application was first made for my appointment as Cadet to West Point. My mother's family name is Simpson and having a brother of that name Mr. Morris, who knew us both as children, got the matter confounded and sent in an application for Cadetship for Ulysses S. Grant. I tried on entering West Point to correct this mistake but failing [I kept it]." --It's that "knew us both as children" that gives me pause. Possible mistake but strangely absent minded of him--mistaken about a Senator who was a family friend? The alternative (equally confounding, equally unlikely) is one historian might have jumped to an assumption based on Grant's favorable view of Congressmen Hamer, and that mistake was subsequently repeated by other historians. But this letter is in Grant's Memoirs and Selected Letters copyright 1990--twenty five years ago. Not as if it were buried and unknown. Only one way to find out I guess. I have access to a university library so--if those sources are not sitting on your shelf ready to hand--I will go ferret out McFeely, pp. 12-13; Simpson, pp. 10-11; and Smith, p. 24. and see what they cite in their footnotes.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

PS--It occured to me that maybe Grant and the historians could both be right. That is: Senator Morris agreed to appoint Grant. But he found he'd used up his allottment of 5 West Point appointments. In which case the Senator might have asked somebody in the same state delegation to step in: Congressman Hamer. That would be why Grant thought Senator Morris appointed him, but historians reading West Point records of appointments would have seen Hamer's name. Well, we'll see what the sources say.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In the text you added, you copied a "[sic]". I don't have that volume in front of me, but doesn't the [sic] represent the editor's acknowledgment that the information is incorrect and is thus in the original, not because of the editor's error? Usually it's a spelling error, but it can mean a factual error, too. Everything is spelled right here. Perhaps this is what all the scholarly authors read and acknowledged when they wrote their books. This is why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources here. It's too easy for someone without training and resources to make an error like this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd added the [sic], assuming it was Grant's error. As you did. Turns out we were right. Just back from the library. McFeely at pg. 12 says Grant's father Jesse's "overtures to Senator Morris failed," so he (Jesse) turned to former political rival Congressman Hamer for the appointment to West Point. McFeely offers no supporting footnote. Smith says nothing about Morris but does confirm in greater detail it was Hamer who appointed Grant to West Point with the invented middle initial "S" at pg. 24. Smith's text cites both Hamer's kind letter responding to Jesse's request for an appointment ("why didn't you ask sooner?") and footnotes Hamer's March 4 1839 appointment request letter to the Secretary of War, in the National Archives. So in conclusion: I am pleased to confirm that the cited sources support the existing text, page numbers spot on. I can only speculate that 25 years and two wars later, Grant misremembered it. He recalled his father talking about asking Senator Morris but did not recall that Morris turned him down and his father went to Hamer instead. How you would like to deal with Grant's letter misremembering what happened, I leave to you.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well, folks, we did it. Ulysses S. Grant has been promoted to Featured Article. The process has been trying for all of us, but I think the article has benefited by all of our effort. So, I think a can relax a little. This doesn't mean we should fill the article with all sorts of substandard junk: the same rules apply as before. But we should not worry that our talk page discussions are inspiring the FA delegates to view the article as unstable. Next stop, I believe should be getting the article on to the Main Page for the anniversary of Appomattox. Dank has already been preparing the way for it there, and now we can proceed in earnest.--Coemgenus (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to you, and to all involved!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just scheduled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations Coemgenus and all contributing editors for getting Ulysses S. Grant to Featured Article status ! Cmguy777 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks to all who have contributed their time and efforts, but special thanks is obviously due to Coemgenus and Cmguy777:
  (If it is inappropriate to present Barnstars to these editors here, go ahead and delete (the award), as it has been presented to their respective talk pages.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Congratulations to Coemgenus and Cmguy777 for their extended and arduous efforts in bringing the Ulysses S. Grant biography to Featured Article status. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers...Coemgenus did most of the work...I may have appeared as an obstructionist at times...but my best interests were always for the Ulysses S. Grant article to get to FA status... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cm', it was gracious of you to say so. I just knew that the two of you have been active here on the talk page and on the article itself for quite some time. Both of you were very active when I checked in here about a year ago and in 2013 and 2010 when I dropped in for comment. While I checked article edit history I didn't go through it with a fine tooth comb and count edits and number of bytes contributed. I don't think anyone will argue that you're one of the top contributors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That was a rapidfire TFA. Congratulations to everybody. —Designate (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Future considerations

There is certainly no hurry, and I can wait until after April 9th, but as was asserted before, there are some important items still missing in the biography. The below topics can all be effected with several brief statements and without impacting page length to any appreciable degree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mexican War

The Mexican War is a bit under represented here with some major details still missing. It's where Grant 'actually' became a soldier and an officer, where he was first exposed to battle and bloodshed, his first real trials as a soldier. This war is covered well by many modern and older sources. McFeely devotes an entire chapter to this episode in Grant's life, as does Simpson and Smith, while Waugh devotes many pages to this war. Older sources such as King, 1934, and McCormick, 1898, devote entire chapters to this subject, while Grant mentions the Mexican War more than 50 times in his memoirs. Imo, this subject is more important, more telling of Grant, than his dealings with Foreign affairs while president -- yet, again, that section is 3-4 times as long, much of it minor details in terms of Grant the person (and there is a dedicated article for Grant's presidency). Ultimately this topic needs its own subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree more could be added to the Mexican-American War...Apparently Robert E. Lee knew or had met Grant...Did Grant serve under Robert E. Lee ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's enough already, but I could see maybe a sentence or two more, if there are corresponding cuts elsewhere. We should still be conscious of the size. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. As you probably can guess at this point, I still feel we should mention that Grant 'volunteered' to carry a dispatch through enemy held positions, which defines Grant as a soldier early on in his military career. This is covered by existing sources. Btw, Grant not only returned with ammunition, but with troops, though his outfit was in retreat at the time. Also, imo, the topic could use a better opening statement. e.g.Grant served in every major battle...except in the Battle of Buena Vista. Still don't know why this topic hasn't got its own subsection. There's certainly enough content to warrant it, and it's covered by many sources, new and old. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe Grant and the Mexican American War needs its own article...I think what would be interesting is Grant's association, if any, with Robert E. Lee if there are any reliable sources on the matter...Was Grant influenced by Lee in addition to Taylor and Scott ? ... For a northern General Grant was very agressive... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant served directly under Captain Robert E. Lee on a reconnaissance mission at Veracruz...here is the link: Jack White (November 9, 2011) Sea to Shining Sea: The Mexican American War and the Manifest Destiny, page 210 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We won't be citing to an historical novel "crammed full of interesting tidbits and information not found in any books covering this important moment in America‘s colorful past." YoPienso (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yopensio...According to Brands (2012) page 367 states the Grant and Lee knew each other in the Mexican American War...What their relationship was is a mystery. There is currently no way to authenticate Whites' statement, even if true, that Grant served under Lee...There needs to be a more reliable source Grant served under Robert E. Lee. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(Reworded first sentence : ) We should mention Grant and Lee knew of each other and marched together under Scott from Vera Cruz to Mexico City, as these two men were key figures later on in the Civil War and would become arch-enemies in terms of that war. (19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC))
Along with that all we really need to do is make clear that Grant participated in every major battle, save one, and again, mention that he volunteered for a very dangerous assignment, which as I said, defines Grant as a soldier, and a person, btw, early on in his military career. This important topic is covered well by many new and old sources, including Grant's memoirs, and needs its own subsection. A dedicated article would be nice, but remember, this main article is supposed to overlap well with all lesser articles, which, unfortunately, usually aren't read very much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Important detail

@Coemgenus and Cmguy777: -- I added an important detail, that Grant 'volunteered' to carry a dispatch through enemy territory, which is covered by the existing cite, Smith, pp.56-57. We can wait to add comment about Grant fighting in every major battle(-1), association with Lee, etc later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, now we have this fact and the business with the howitzer. I think both are good additions, but that's probably enough. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant's name and baptism

Grant's name and baptism Brief mention of the naming of Grant is in order. While Grant's maternal Grandmother did want the name of Ulysses for her grandson, like the other suggestions, her suggestion was placed in a hat and chosen by chance at a family gathering -- all covered by Simpson, 2000, pp.2-3. Also, I've encountered albeit several older sources that claim Ulysses was baptized at youth. Abbott, 1868. p.12, claims Grant received a baptismal name on the day he was born, April 27. Richardson, 1868, p.50 claims Grant was baptized at youth. Franklin S. Edmonds, 1915, pp.21-22, 341 claims he was baptized at youth 'and' in 1885 by Bishop John P. Newman. Apparently some have interpreted this to mean that Grant was only baptized in 1885. Carpenter, p. 181, 212, claims baptism in 1885. If there are modern or older sources that say in no uncertain terms that Grant was 'not' baptized at youth I'm hoping they at least mention the source(s). We should at least mention that Grant was baptized in 1885 shortly before he died. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Names are important and so is baptism...however if the sources are contradicting then I would leave both alone... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, I think Cmguy's right. This subject is confused, and beyond the fact of what he was actually named (Hiram Ulysses) and what his name later became (Ulysses S.) there's no pressing need to include more. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC) It appears that way. I think however we can safely say that Grant was baptized in 1885 shortly before his death. As there's modern sources than mention the 1885 baptism we ought to at least include that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Insert : Evidently Bishop Newman baptized Grant at his mother's request when he was unconscious. This is a side note, but Grant's name Ulysses fits well since he was the first President (ex) to travel around the world by ship... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Sources to consider for 1885 baptism: Simpson, 2014 -- Newman -- Carpenter, 1970 -- Perret, 2009 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC) We might also want to mention: e.g.However, there are accounts of Grant being baptized shortly after birth: Cunningham, 2009 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC) There are accounts of Grant's baptism but that really is not a certainty...also if Grant was baptized while an infant or child then why was he supposedly baptized on his death bed...In my opinion baptism leads to questions beyond the scope of the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC) I agree with Cmguy here. Too much confusion, even the biographers aren't sure what the facts are. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, it's sort of confusing. I have no problem with putting this topic off for a while. Hopefully we can at least mention baptism in 1885, while Grant was unconscious, as there are a couple of modern sources that mention it, but again, lets wait on this one until we can be more certain on matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Environment

Since Waugh was used as the one single source to assert that Grant was less than conscientious in terms of the environment, (the door to this topic thus opened) we should add a balancing statement if there are RS's that cover such matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe mentioning Grant protecting northern fur seals would add neutrality to the article...keeping in mind that Gilded Age environmentalism included the monopoly of the fur seal trade, except in lower seal harvest numbers... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This "unbalanced" issue probably stems from the fact that none of Grant's biographers discuss it, except for a couple sentences in Waugh. On an issue more relevant to his presidency, they all would have studied it and presented more comprehensive views, which we could then distill down to a section of the article. But sense nearly all Grant scholars ignored it, it's kind of a mess, as editors have resorted to using primary sources to make their point. That's why I still think the enviro thing should be cut altogether. That certainly would solve the "balance" issue Cmguy brings up! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I had given two secondary/tertiary sources and one primary source:

• Charles C. Chester (2006), Conservation Across Borders: Biodiversity in an Interdependent World, page 19
• Nelson H. H. Graburn, Molley Lee, Jean-Loup Rousselot (1996) Catalogue Raisonné of the Alaska Commercial Company Collection, pages 27-28
• Statues at Large, 41st Congress, 2nd Session Vol. XVI (1871) An act to prevent the Extermination of Fur-bearing Animals in Alaska pages 180-182, Signed into law and approved by Grant on July 1, 1870 Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe Waugh's assessment should be discounted...There was massive destruction of the Buffalo and Grant failed to sign the Buffalo Act to prevent this destruction in 1874 under pressure of preserving his Indian policy of keeping Indians on the reservation. It was not until after the Indian Wars ended did Cleveland finally protect the Buffalo. Only a small herd remained in Grant's Yellowstone Park where killing Buffalo was illegal and considered poaching ... Grant's Fur Seal protection act respresents Gilded Age environmentalism; a fur seal monopoly in exchange for lower harvesting of fur seals. Why McFeely, Smith, and Brands ignored environmental issues is unknown. I believe a brief discussion of envirnonmental issues is signifigant for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Waugh's existing statement is typically presentist and quite naive. She sounds like she just arrived on the planet. -- he (Grant) approved of projects that took great swaths of land and opened them to timber, cattle, land speculators, and millions of settlers . So? What's wrong with opening land to settlers, people, human beings trying to establish their lives and livelihood? Another modern day distortion. Btw, timber is used to build homes, for people. Which is more important? Humans or trees? She more than suggests that settlers completely ruined the land for all time, which they didn't -- not even close. I wonder if her home is built with wood -- and did the land she lives on once 'belong' to Indians? Modern day 'feel good' hypocrisy. Enough. If there is anything else we can add to put Waugh's rather narrow view in perspective we should do it. Btw, was it Grant's intention to decimate the buffalo? Could any legislation to protect the buffalo actually have been enforced on the frontier? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure there are concrete explanations, but, I believe stating his policies or mentioning his pocket veto on the Buffalo Bill would let the reader decide...Concerning the Buffalo I believe Waugh statements are correct...the bison were decimated...The Buffalo Bill could have reduced the number of Bison killed...again that is speculation since Grant pocket vetoed the bill. Yes obviously Grant would not have had the men to enforce the law...He had to contend with Reconstruction and Indian Wars...Congress only increased the number of troops after the Battle of the Little Big Horn Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Grant's pocket veto is consistent with all the other things going on at the time. He simply didn't have the time, and apparently the resources, to enact and enforce such a bill. Maybe we should consider Coemgenus' suggestion and cut the environment topic altogether, as Waugh's narrow estimation is all we really have here, however we still should mention Yellowstone. Grant could have been criticized for not opening up the west for development, as there were millions of citizens who wanted to become farmers, ranchers and the country needed the resources the frontier provided, esp since the United States was still recovering from the war financially. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Private schools

The topic deserves to be covered with at least two sentences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be more than most of Grant's biographers spend on the topic in heir entire books (a sentence in Longacre, two in McFeely, one in Smith). Maybe a sentence in the Early life subarticle would make sense, but not here. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would state that depends...Do any reliable sources state the actual private schools Grant attended? The article does state Grant was well educated in his primary years in addition to being educated at West Point...In some ways this highly contrasts with Lincoln's rudimentary self education...I don't believe Lincoln ever attended college either. Lincoln seemed to have a better command of public speaking then Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Simpson and Waugh cover boarding school, as do several older sources, and tie it in with other items. Grant's father, abolition, etc. This is what I had in mind:

Ulysses did not share his father's political aspirations, nor did he have any desire to follow his footsteps in business and expressed a distinct dislike for the tanning trade, wanting instead the life of a simple farmer or riverworker. His father, Jesse, who often spoke of "my Ulysses" as a boy with great potential, had other ideas for his son and sent him to the private school of 'Richeson and Rand's Academy', just across the Ohio River in Maysville, Kentucky. Here he joined a debating club where he expressed his strong abolitionist sentiments. After a brief return home, Ulysses was again sent off to another private school, run by the famous abolitionist John Rankin in Ripley, also on the Ohio River, in Ohio. <Simpson, 2000, pp.3, 9><Waugh, 2009, pp.18-19>
(Was life in private schools where Grant developed his impetus for abolition? If there are RS's that nail this down we might want to mention it also.)

This is more than a couple of sentences, but again, it ties in well with other things. This is an entire chapter in Grant's life. Seems the least we can do is cover it with a small paragraph. If page length concerns is what is, once again, preventing us from closing the gaps in this biography we can trim a couple of the sections, esp Foreign affairs, which seems to be given more weight than anything else in Grant's presidency, even his entire life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Emphasising that he went to private school is a mistake -- most schools were private when Grant was a boy. But it's true that he received more education than many western kids. The current sentence is "Young Grant regularly attended school." Maybe it could be expanded to "Grant attended school at several nearby academies." Anything beyond that, I think, should stay in the Early Life subarticle. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, first off The early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant article, which I know you started, is only read about 20-30 times a day, compared to the Grant main article, which is read around 3000 times a day, seems like a hastily conceived title, as 'Early life' is just that, while Grant's career began well after his early life i.e.at West Point and extended all the way through most of his adult life, which is covered by this article, the Grant' Civil War article and the Presidency article. Imo, the Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant article is woefully redundant and needs to be nominated for deletion. I would not add a thing to this article. The Grant biography should cover well all aspects of Grant's life with more than just one or two sentences. His time spent at private schools ties in with his abolitionist inclinations and with his father's desire to put Ulysses on the road to prominence. This Featured Article should cover this period with more than a sentence, and Grant's debating over abolition and John Rankin should be mentioned, as this ties in with Grant's reconstruction efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You mention the featured article status as a reason why the article should include this, yet it was just featured without it. Doesn't that undermine your point? In fact, the only major complaint at FAC was that it's too long, which you would have us make worse by adding more minor details. The "Early life" article is "woefully redundant" because editors insist on adding everything here, instead of expanding that sub-article to cover such details as his birth, schooling, and upbringing. That's what it's for! If you want it seen by more people, give them a reason to look at it. By all means, make it better. Get it featured, even, if that appeals to you. I had considered doing just that, once, but (for reasons you might guess) I don't anymore. So I won't interfere. Have at it!- --Coemgenus (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The lesser article aside, (didn't mean to come down so heavy, on retrospect) we simply need to focus a bit more on "my Ulysses", the person, the young man. This is the person that evolved and stepped into the real world, and I suppose arguably, came to save the Union. To really present this entity of the 19th century to the readers, I believe we need to squeeze in more than a couple of sentences about this person when he was young. Yes, the article passed FA. This doesn't mean there isn't room for more inclusiveness, more insights into the subject of this article. Ulysses was more than a soldier and a President. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bloat this article with more detail! Please let's refrain from editing at least until after the 9th. Please leave further details for daughter articles.

What's your source from Grant being an abolitionist? He himself wrote, "I never was an Abolitionest, [sic] [n]ot even what could be called anti slavery . . ." YoPienso (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• The term 'abolitionist' was used in passing. Grant wasn't 'officially' an abolitionist as compared to John Rankin, but I think given his father and upbringing this was his inclination. He once referred to it as a greater evil than war. Many slave holders, in America, struggled with this dilemma. Or are you trying to say, at this late date, Grant was pro slavery? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Yopienso's point was that the sources don't say. Him having abolitionist leanings is something you came up with on your own, and it doesn't square with the historical record of Grant owning a slave, supporting Stephen Douglas, etc. This is why we stick to the mainstream sources, both in their emphasis and their conclusions. Modern scholarship barely notes Grant's schooling. We must do the same. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As we can plainly see from the above draft, no one wants to refer to Grant as an abolitionist per se, though he did oppose slavery in debate forums while attending private school and elsewhere during his life. Let's not dismiss these inclinations so flatly. The years in private school is a segment of Grant's life. As demonstrated with the cites in the draft, there is modern scholarship that covers this topic. Yes, we cover the issue in proportion to the scholarship, such that it is sometimes, which is why we are only adding a few senteces here. The topic doesn't warrant its own subsection. If page length is still your primary concern, we can trim the Foreign relations section. It's bloated with many political details not germane to a biography of Grant, as are some other subsections under Presidency.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

World traveler vs world tour

Any objections to adding that Grant served as a world diplomat in the article on his world tour ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "world diplomat" means. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant circumnavigated the world and he was a diplomat between China and Japan convincing the two countries not to go to war over Japanese annexation of the Ryukyu Islands...Brands (2012a) states that Grant was an "Elder statesman and world traveler" on the photo pages between pages 340 and 341... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be to controversial to change "World tour" to "World traveler" ? ... Grant was not on any organized world tour by some tourist company...he met with Queen Victoria and Bismark... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

People talked of "world tours" and "grand tours" long before there were tour companies providing vacations for the masses. "Tour" is the most appropriate word, and the word used most in the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Brands (2012a) is Grant's biographer and he used the term "world traveler" and "elder statesman"...Did people on the grand tours meet with heads of states, dine with the Queen of England, talk with Bismark, and settle an annexation dispute between Japan and China...Grant did... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the title of World diplomat a bit over stated? Grant only functioned in this capacity in an incidental manner -- while he was on vacation no less. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant was chosen by Chinese and Japanese governments to settle the annexation dispute...I would call that a diplomat...my request was world traveler a term Brands (2012a) uses...Brands (2012a) is one of Grant's main biographers... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gwillhickers here. We already describe the Ryukyu diplomacy. To call Grant a "world diplomat" is a stretch. And "world tour" is more what people called it then, and now. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going by a reliabe Grant biographer Brands (2012a) source that stated Grant was a "world traveler" and an "elder statesmen"...yes Grant toured Europe...Why is Brands (2012a) being discounted as a reference ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's generally given that Grant's tour was a vacation, and while 'he was at it', assumed a diplomatic role at a couple stops along the way. Technically, yes, he was acting as a diplomat, but I don't think it got anymore official than that. Esp since he was no longer a President. Mention is perhaps due that he resolved matters for China and Japan, and what ever else that may be worth mentioning, but I wouldn't attempt to attach any sort of official heading to his capacity in any such instance. He was more of a friendly and familiar guest of these countries during these visits. Grant would have still made his vacation tour regardless of the China-Japan issue. I think we all agree that Grant helped, but it would be misleading to garnish this brief event with any sort of official heading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant's discussions with Prince Gong, Li Hongzhang, and the Emperor Meiji are already covered in the article; no need to do anything further. YoPienso (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

By these arguments then this was more then a vacation tour but less then an official U.S. diplomatic tour. Calling Grant a "statesman" as Brands (2012a) would be appropriate...although Grant was an (ex) president he was meeting with active foriegn dignitaries... Cmguy777 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that we need to call him anything. What we should do is what we have done: describe the events and let the readers draw their own conclusions. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not stating Grant acted a dignitary all the time...McFeely describes Grant getting drunk and frolicking the ladies...but that is not in the article...however, this was more then just a tour or vacation... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant's tour was a long deserved vacation. Grant would have still made his vacation tour regardless of the China-Japan issue. According to McFeely, p. 474, Grant had no idea that General Chang of China, who was very impressed with Grant's legacy, would ask him to carry a message to the Emperor of Japan concerning the Ryukyu Islands territorial dispute. Grant was doing Chang a favor and was more of a friendly presence and didn't act in any official capacity, wasn't involved with the finer details, nor was he representing the United States anymore, so referring to the event with any sort of official overage would not imo give us a very accurate picture of Grant in this instance. The article as it is mentions Grant's involvement more than adequately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant was viewed as a dignitary that is why he got state dinners or meetings with heads of states...that is more then tour...I know I don't have much support for this and I don't want to go around in circles...Grant was not on some "Carnival Cruize" since he was officially meeting with heads of states...he may have road on a U.S. Navy ship, not always a private steam ship...President Hayes may have been keeping track of him too...Yes...I agree this was a much need vacation for Grant...but I believe the tour had signifigance since he met with heads of states... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Grant was viewed as a dignitary, not a diplomat representing the United States, and of course he was received by kings and emperors, but only in a ceremonial capacity. This doesn't mean he was 'not' on a vacation. Grant didn't set out on a political or diplomatic mission, and he had no such objectives in mind, regardless of what sort of ship he was cruising around in. What exactly would you like the article to say that it doesn't already? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

In the last paragraph before "Election of 1876", I find this excerpt (the "[235]" is a footnote indicator, left in to help you locate what I am referring to)

"who supported Bristow's investigations [235]"

Please insert missing period (it belongs just after "investigations").

128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Coemgenus (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

Permission to edit((True}) 71.169.184.199 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant dragged a howitzer into a church steeple?

This seems like an overstatement. A single man could never haul such a heavy piece alone, especially likely hauling it up stairs into a church steeple. Surely he must have had some help.

I think this sentence needs to be amended. It should probably say "Grant, with help from some other soldiers, dragged a howitzer into a church steeple." Or perhaps: "Grant, leading a group of other soldiers, dragged a howitzer into a church steeple." --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Good catch; I've aligned it with what the source says; feel free to improve it stylistically. YoPienso (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful edit YoPienso! Absolutely perfect. I could not improve on your work even if I tried all night.  :-)--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Michael W. Parker and Yopienso: That one had me wondering also when I first read it, assuming the stairway going up into the steeple was very narrow. I'll have to double check (not that I want to edit this item any further) but they removed the cannon barrel and along with the actual cannon mount brought it up into the steeple, but not the wheels, which I guess makes sense. When one of Grant's superiors commended him for his quick thinking he also suggested that he get another cannon up there. Not wanting to correct or contradict his superior, Grant did not tell him that there was not enough room for a second gun. I wonder if the bells rang (vibrated) when the gun was fired. :-) Interesting stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

For the 1876 election section, I find

"Ultimately, Grant did not run, but neither was Bristow the nominee, ..."

OK, but the wording is better if "but neither was Bristow the nominee" is changed to "but Bristow was not the nominee either". Please try that.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tolerating corruption vs corrupt associates

Should the lede state "tolerating corrupt associates" rather then "tolerating corruption" ? Grant released money into the market to stop the Gold Ring and his administration prosecuted and shut down the Whiskey Ring...Grant also ended the moiety system...Yes...Grant sheltered Belknap, Babcock, and Robeson...his associates... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Any objections or comments ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the same thing, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand -- a "presidency tolerating corrupt associates" does not make much sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"A president who tolerated corrupt associates" not "presidency"...Grant as far as we know was not involved directly with corruption, but, his associates were...Belknap, Babcock, and Robeson were close associates to Grant whom Grant protected and defended..."tolerating corruption" implies that Grant did not implement any reforms in his administration or that Grant did not appoint reformers: Bristow, Pierrepont, Fish, Cox, Creswell...when in reality he did both...this is about clarification... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in the article is "His presidency has often come under criticism for tolerating corruption . . .". That's true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That implies there were no reforms such as ending the moiety system, the franking privilege (one full year), destroying the Ku Klux Klan, thwarting the Gold Ring, and prosecuting and shutting down the Whiskey Ring...the statement in my opinion needs better neutrality... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention of Grant implementing Civil Service Reform for the first time in American history either...That counters the claim of tolerating corruption...Grant cleaned up the Interior (Chandler) and Justice Department (Pierrepont) too...Many of his appointees implemented Civil Service Reform including Fish, Cox, and Creswell... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest adding this phrase, "Although Grant implemented Civil Service Reform, his administration is critisized for tolerating corruption..." 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the current language is better. Your wording makes it seem like the Grant administration was equal parts corruption and reform. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The current language in my opinion makes it look like the Grant administration was all corrupt...Civil Service Reform was all Grant by excutive order...even McFeely noted that a few historians have stated unbridled corruption did not take place during Grant's tenor and that Grant implemented Civil Service Reform...this is a fact since his Executive Order is on record...In other words an Executive Order puts the responsibility on the President rather then a peice of legislation created by Congress...Couldn't the wording be changed to reflect that Civil Service Reform was implemented...McFeely is a reliable source... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of items in the section that makes it sort of clear that not everyone in Grant's administration was all corrupt and that Grant made a number of efforts to tackle the corruption problem:

• In 1874, on becoming Treasury Secretary, Benjamin H. Bristow began a series of reforms ...
• Grant's Civil Service Commission reforms had limited success ...
• Grant appointed reformers Edwards Pierrepont and Marshall Jewell as Attorney General and Postmaster General, respectively, who supported Bristow's investigations.

Could you give us a specific statement that you'd like to add that sheds 'needed' light on Grant's position regarding curruption? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy, we've been discussing this stuff for years now. Will you ever accept the editors' consensus on Grant and civil service reform? We've bent over backwards already. If anything, the article stresses the (completely ineffective) civil service reform *too* much, to my mind. Let's just accept the compromise language we've laboriously crafted and have done with it, eh? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus and Gwillhickers...I appreciate the discussion...I would not state Civil Service Reform was completely ineffective...Grant did get reelected...but Congress refused to cooperate on Civil Service Reform...Why because Grant's Civil Service Reform measures decreased their recommendation powers...This was also the first time in American history there was Civil Service Reform...All Grant by executive order...Grant was doing things about corruption...not tolerating...Then there is the Department of Justice...a branch of goverment to prosecute and reduce corruption...still in existence today prosecuting corruption or criminal activity...Grant signed the Department of Justice into existence......Hoogenboom was the one who stated Grant was actually doing things to stop corruption according to McFeely...I am using McFeely (1974) as a source reference... As far as the lede goes is there anyway to rephrase the statement that could include Grant's efforts at reform? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

How about this phrase, " Although the Grant administration initiated reform efforts his presidency..." ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess this gives the idea a (needed?) boost somewhat. Let's see what the others say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

McFeely (1974) quote

This is not my idea or original research...Here is the quote from McFeely (1974) on pages 133-134:

"Historians H. Wayne Morgan, Ari Hoogenboom, and others reevaluating the Grant administration find its reputation for unbridled, unprecedented, and unsurpassed corruption exaggerated. Hoogenboon suggests that one of the reasons there was so much talk about corruption at the time was that at last some people, including Ulysses S. Grant, wanted to to something about it. He stresses, for example, abolition of the moiety system during Grant's administration rather then the notorious abuse of it by one of its last practitioners, John Sanborn...He credits Grant with appointing the first Civil Service Commission rather then blaming him for abuses that made later civil service reform essential." 23:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that there was a Civil Service Commission, and no one accused you of doing original research. The problem is undue weight and some exaggeration. It was not, as you say "All Grant by executive order". Reformers agitated for it, Congress passed it. Only then did Grant get involved. Were there reforms? Yes. Does any historian call Grant a "reformer"? No. Let's not make this into a false equivalency here. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is Grant's executive order: Ulysses S. Grant Executive Order April 16, 1872 Yes Grant was prodded to get civil service reform and he responded to Congressional authorization to create the Civil Service Commission. These reforms were implemented by Grant in 1872 by executive order...I gave a Mcfeely source...Editors are suppose to go by reliable sources on wikipedia...Making an article more neutral is not undo weight in my opinion...Hoogenboom states that Grant "wanted to do something about corruption" and then gives two examples of what Grant did to stop corruption...Gwillhickers seemed open to the issue...Shouldn't the article reflect the views of Hoogenboom, an established historian? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, two examples of reform "balanced" against myriad scandals is exactly what a false equivalency would look like. Your POV-pushing is exhausting and inaccurate -- no historian says that Grant was a reformer. His administration was full of scandal, with some reforms in some areas. That's what the article says, that's what is should continue to say. Please stop trying to undo this recent consensus unless some new scholarship emerges that shifts historical opinion. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please, Cmguy, desist; had Grant reformed the Civil Service in 1872, Chester A. Arthur wouldn't have had to do it in 1883. YoPienso (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I sighted (McFeely, Hoogenboom, and Morgon) and then get accused of POV pushing. The lede does not state any reforms were made during his administration...no one is denying the corruption...reforms are signifigant...Gwillhickers was open to this discussion...Out of respect for Coemgenus and Yopensio I will desist from further discussion of this topic... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Trimming of Foreign affairs section

• @Coemgenus:, Thanks for making the correction. I believe Lincoln also made attempts to acquire the West Indies but failed before Johnson, but I'll have to check again. In any case, the opening statement to Foreign affairs contains a lot content with nothing to do with Grant. Why aren't we putting these details that are not germane to Grant into a lesser article? This is what you usually do, right? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Coemgenus: I revised the trimming, mentioning Johnson, but getting rid of several political details not involving Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I was happy to compromise on the other cuts, but the section I restored adds some useful background. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just trying to keep on top of article size, hoping we can add a few more details soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Page views

Well, the good news is, the number of views for April 9th was approximately 40,000 -- up from the daily average of approximately 3,000. Impressive. The not so good news however is that the lesser articles didn't receive an increase in views nearly in proportion to the main article:

• Early_life_and_career_of_Ulysses_S._Grant
• Ulysses_S._Grant_and_the_American_Civil_War
• Ulysses_S._Grant_as_commanding_general,_1865–1869
• Presidency_of_Ulysses_S._Grant

Out of 40,000 viewers there were only approximately 100 extra views for these articles, with the exception of the Grant'Civil War article which received only a couple of hundred extra views. IOW, we should not be so eager to sweep things under the rug to another article where by and large it will not be read. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not about sweeping things under the rug, as you well know, it's about abiding by the rules on page length. Let's keep things civil. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This metric seems rather irrelevant. None of those sub-articles were linked at the Main Page -- unlike, for example, Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, which was linked in the Main Page blurb, and which like the main biography article got a huge boost in readership (2600%).[1]. Moreover, those sub-article metrics are irrelevant to Wikipedia practice of summary style. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

ASW, every one of the above sub articles are linked on the main page, and all of these received very little increase in views in proportion to the main with the one exception you pointed out. Coemgenus, I was being civil, implying otherwise is less than civil. Again, page length is a guideline, the preoccupation of which has prevented many topics and important details from being included here. The Grant biography exceeded page length guidelines and was promoted to FA anyway -- just to maintain a realistic perspective here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No. None of the ones you mention were linked on the Wikipedia Main Page. [2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So what? They were linked in the main article which is where the viewers go to read the article. As such, the viewing of these lesser articles only resulted in marginal increases in proportion to the main article. As I maintained form the beginning, lesser articles are not read much. This is not an excuse to completely ignore guidelines, which I have not, but if you decide to put content there please be aware that it will not be read near as much as if it was included in the main article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No. If lesser articles are not read much - it simply does not matter to content of this article. Linking from the main page drives traffic, and not linking from the main page does not drive traffic - that's the most your numbers show. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Alan has the right of it. The rules are what they are, and they have nothing to do with pageviews. Anyone who wants to read more can do so; the link is very obvious in the main article. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As for right now there seems to be a higher viewing rate following the featured article on April 9, 2015. So far the article has maintained over 5000 views...Maybe that suggests the Featured article has created more interest in Ulysses S. Grant...My impression is that there are return viewers who are studying up on Ulysses S. Grant...Hopefully the article can keep above 5000 views...I believe the feature article has been a success for the main Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• April 8, 2015: 3343 views
• April 09, 2015: 40404 views Feature article
• April 10, 2015: 10,678 views
• April 11, 2015: 5,179 views
• April 12, 2015: 5,182 views Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cm', that's good to hear. The fact remains, on April 9th, some 40,000 viewers read/viewed the main article, and only a small fraction of them went to the lesser articles, even though these articles are linked at the top of respective sections. Once again, no one is saying we should ignore page length guidelines completely, only that we should not be so eager to dump content in lesser articles for the sake of a page length guideline alone. Please get a handle on any obsession with page length guidelines. It has caused some editors to ignore comprehensiveness, entire topics and many major details in too many cases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a popularity contest. It's expected general articles get more reads than detailed ones, regardless of article quality. There's nothing to fix here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No one said any article needed fixing, only the attitudes/obsessions with a guideline, the likes of which was waved when this article made it to FA. Reminder:, our first consideration is to the readers. Completely removing (often important) content to these lesser articles will often hide information from them, esp since only the main article is what comes up in Google searches when one does a search for Grant, not Early_life_and_career_of_Ulysses_S._Grant. e.g.Many students aren't even aware of judicial appointments, let alone where to look for this material, but at least a couple of editors were willing to remove this topic, completely, from the main article to a lesser article because of a page length guideline. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus here was to follow the guidelines of the encyclopedia. I don't think that consensus has changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides the point being stressed, just in case you're concerned. IMO, only a few editors were obsessed with a guideline, many supporters maintained a realistic perspective and didn't compromise article comprehensiveness and integrity over a guideline. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is in charge of editor concensus and how is editor concensus reached and decided? What wikipedia rules state articles must be a certain length ? When did editors decide what is the appropriate article length ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells us to be bold and break the rules...what page talks about editor concensus and article length ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Article size? --Coemgenus (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Concensus

Thanks Coemgenus for the links . Consensus is not permanent and can change:

• "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise"

How long has concensus been reached on this article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Although there is consensus editors can propose a change to consensus and make edits to the article:

• "''Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive."

• "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing " Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Article size

Wikipedia states : "Articles over a certain size may not cover their topic in a way that is easy to find or read. Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up."

Does Wikipedia's Rule of thumb apply for every article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, consensus can change. But isn't it a little absurd to rehash the same arguments over and over again when none of the facts have changed? Why would the consensus change this time? The editors are the same. The rules are the same. We had this exact conversation about page length a month ago. Why take everyone's time away from productive editing to re-argue the same point?

I'm glad you read the rules on consensus, but did you miss this part? "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." (emphasis added) --Coemgenus (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am glad I read the rules too...This gives me a better understanding how Wikipedia works. I am not refuting consensus, an ongoing process, but I believe stating when this concensus occured would be helpful...what date was concensus reached on limiting the article size and where can this consensus be found ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying you never agreed to abide by any limit on page size? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Page length is a guideline and while we should not ignore it completely, it shouldn't be something, by itself, that determines whether we include entire topics and definitive details. I had to ask more times than I care to count just to get the term 'volunteered' into a statement. Why? Over concern for page length and apparently editor inertia. Again, only a couple of reviewers expressed concern about page length, none of them said they 'would not' promote over this idea alone, while most supporting editors didn't even mention page length. The article passed FAC regardless of the article's page length and there was no defining consensus regarding the article's appropriate size. Let's hope we don't have to go through this every time we add a sentence or two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus:...I am asking what is the page size limit in words and when was this consensus reached ? I had agreed that the page should not be reduced any more but had proposed a word cap on the article...No I don't want to see the article get out of control...I just want to know what the limit on the page size is either in words or bytes...If we are going to abide by concensus we need to know what the limit is on the page size... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the proposal here? Just that the article should be bigger? That's not helpful. That sub-articles should be merged in this one? Why? What are we fixing? Without specifics, this discussion is vague and pointless. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I did ask a specific question what is the size limit of this article ? Why not set a number ? If there was a size cap editors could know how much to edit... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As can be viewed in the discussions above, there were a number of topics and major details proposed for the article where page length was the big reason for not permitting their inclusion. Entire topics and definitive details should at least get mention in the main article. There are a number of them still missing from this narrative. e.g.Grant's youthful and exceptional experiences with horses; Grant's naming at a family gathering; His experience in private schools just before he entered West Point; Grant's last public appearance at Ocean Grove in 1884 after it was learned he was dying of cancer - a major event, to name a few. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777:, after the cuts Gwhillickers made to the foreign policy section, the article now weighs in at a portly 13,613 words or readable prose (or 135,635 bytes, though the word count is a more meaningful measure, I think). For my part, that's big enough. Certainly it should not grow beyond 13,800 or 14,000 at the most. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the numbers Coemgenus...This would mean that an allowance of only under 400 words could be added to the article...in my opinion that is not a lot of room to work with, especially if there is any new information found on Grant...Did other editors have consensus on the 14,000 word cap? If so, when ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 and Coemgenus: -- There was never a definitive consensus for any given number -- general concern for page length was expressed by a couple of reviewers not familiar with Grant at FAC. Still, we should try to keep a handle on page length. I've omitted a few political details not involving Grant yesterday. I'd recommend doing this is a few of the other sections, esp in the Presidency subsections, as they're filled with a fair number of minor details not near as important to Grant's life/biography as are some of the still missing topics and major details. As I recall, at least one reviewer at FAC expressed concern for the size of some of the sections. It might go more smoothly if the contributing editors for this material made the deletions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant's last public appearance

This biography doesn't mention a very important event in the life of Grant, his last public appearance. Since the event should be covered with more than a couple of sentences, I'm running it by here first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

After news broke of Grant's terminal illness, George H. Stuart invited him to attend a service at Ocean Grove, a Methodist institution for war veterans. Grant accepted the offer and was widely received by a standing ovation by more than ten thousand veterans, dignitaries and friends. After a prayer and a hymn a Methodist preacher, once a private under Grant, approached, saluted him and said, "I was one of a million of your soldiers". Grant slowly rose and expressed thanks, only speaking briefly and then broke down in tears. His attendance there would prove to be his last public appearance. <McFeely, 1981, pp.495-496>

The prose is a little purple, but something along those lines would be an excellent addition to Post-presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. We don't have space for it here. That's why we made the sub-articles. Before you got here, we made a lot of hard choices about what to cut. It took years. Seriously.

I know, you're going to say you don't think the guideline on length is important, and you're going to italicize guideline, in case we miss the point. Then I'm going to say that the other editors here have agreed to abide by the rules of the encyclopedia. And I'm going to say "rule", in case you missed the point. And nothing gets improved. It's tiresome. Why don't we just leave it be? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Coemgenus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The latest research on Grant seems to be on his enforcement of Civil Rights (Brands 2012a) (Brands 2012b)...in my opinion...if there were any additions I think that is where this article could expand somewhat...I agree with Coemgenus...Gwillhickers edit is good but belongs in a sub article... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Careful. That yard-stick you're waving around can be used to remove the bulk of the content in this article to sub-articles. Sub-articles are for in depth coverage. The main article should at least mention entire topics and major events in Grant's life and should overlap with all lesser articles. This is not only reasonable, but makes good sense. There are sub-articles for virtually everything about Grant. Why do we even bother with the main article? Why don't we just turn the main article into a glorified TOC for all the lesser articles? Again, only a couple of reviewers at FAC mentioned page length. Below is a compromise and a condensed version of Grant's last appearance. This is one of the few major episodes in the final days of Grant -- an important part of a closing to a wonderful narrative. If we omit a few tangential/political details we can include it while keeping the article size the same, perhaps even smaller. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

After news broke of Grant's terminal illness, he was invited to attend a service at Ocean Grove, a Methodist institution for war veterans. Grant accepted and was widely received by a standing ovation by more than ten thousand attendees. Grant in his feeble condition only spoke briefly and then broke down in tears. This was his last public appearance.

Does the above statement have to do more with crowd reaction then Grant's actual speech ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The crowd was already cheering as Grant came onto the stage. Even though he was retired it was a culminating moment in Grant's military and political career. A notable and historic celebration and honor. Major events such as this should all be covered, at least mentioned, even in a Good Article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I favor tacking "His last public appearance was at a Methodist service for Civil War veterans in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, on August 4, 1884," onto the 4th para. of the memoirs and death section. Cite to McFeely--who doesn't give the precise date, or this bibliography. To counterbalance the addition of two lines, a lot of tightening is possible in the Civil War section.

One suggestion: drastically trim the 2nd para. of the Chattanooga Campaign and promotion section:

On March 3, 1864 Lincoln promoted Grant to Lieutenant General, giving him command of all Union Armies.[89] Grant assigned Sherman the Division of the Mississippi and traveled east to Washington D.C., meeting with Lincoln to devise a strategy of total war against the Confederacy. After settling Julia into a house in Georgetown, Grant established his headquarters with Meade's Army of the Potomac in Culpeper, Virginia.[90] He devised a strategy of coordinated Union offensives, attacking the rebel armies at the same time to keep the Confederates from shifting reinforcements within their interior lines. Grant knew that Lee had limited manpower and that a war of attrition fought on a battlefield without entrenchments would lead to Lee's defeat.[93] YoPienso (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso: There are a lot of items here directly involving Grant. What exactly did you want to trim? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I already trimmed it; compare with the article as it stands. YoPienso (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That looks good to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually the deletion was a little hasty. Restored a couple of items directly involving Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Finishing touches

After a little trimming, condensing and a couple of additions made by several editors including myself the article imo looks better than it ever has. I am happy for the inclusion of a couple important events. At this point, I can even forego mention of boarding school, Grant's exceptional and youthful experience with horses, but if room permits it, maybe we can include this sometime in the future. Excellent article, excellent editorship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Lesser articles need to be filled

Given the number of times we've been told to put (even major) details in the lesser articles, I have just done so with a few political and minor details not involving Grant directly or at all. Hopefully this trend will put an end to the page length issue that has prevented the inclusion of many topics and major details directly involving Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your additions are mostly fine. I'm happy to leave things as they are, if that's what you mean. I'd be glad to see the subarticles expanded. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, generally, but as I said, when space allows for a less stressful inclusion, we should 'mention' some of the topics which are still missing. i.e.Boarding School; Grant's naming at a family gathering; exceptional experience with horses; Crippling hip injury; Grant and Lee marching together from Vera Cruz to Mexico City during the Mexican War. As I said, I am happy that some more important topics were finally included. i.e.Grant's last public appearance and the historical black turnout during the election -- both very important to Grant's biography imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Some questionable items

• Mention of biographers is usually done when there is a unique or otherwise good reason to do so. Imo, expressing a singular opinion of one biographer is not a valid reason. Biographer Jean Edward Smith is mentioned by name three times in the text, twice to express a debatable opinion and presented once as a singular author who supposedly shifted modern day opinion of Grant all by himself, as if the average student and the academic world at large can't think for themselves. That's quite a claim for one modern author who finally came around long after the Civil War.
  • This is fairly common in articles where there is disagreement among biographers. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• In the Historical reputation section I've added a citation needed tag, as the source/cite used, (Smith, p.14) says nothing of the Lost Cause. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Instead of dropping a template, which essentially tasks another editor with answering your question, why not look for a source (unless you think the statement is in error, in which case you used the wrong template)? I found it in about five minutes in McFeely, which I think you have access to, based on some of your earlier edits. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Chron

[3] The "soon" is not needed and I believe the correct chron is sore throat in summer - while at Long Branch beach house - diagnosis of cancer in fall when he was back in NYC with his NYC doctors - for a time the cause of the illness was then hid from the public although they knew he was ill and then the NYC papers broke the story in the winter, but at any rate, it is not needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker:. If we can show for certain that the diagnosis came after the Ocean Grove event, then by all means, we can eliminate the "soon" pretext to the statement. Otherwise it serves to connect up the events. McFeely mentions the sore throat in the same paragraph just before the Ocean Grove event. Seems the one came before the other respectively. As for the objection of the "not needed" type, this is of course an opinion and best left out of the discussion as the chronological argument is valid enough without using a yardstick that could easily be applied to many other statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I just found our answer in an older source, Badeau, 1887, Grant in Peace, p.426. The diagnosis came after Ocean Grove. I'll remove the "soon" pretext. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Added mention that Grant put off seeing a doctor, and NYT's March'85 announcement that Grant was dying. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing topics and details

Would like to hear comments about what to include next, and what we might want to start trimming in some of the very large sections. There are still some topics missing. i.e.Private school and Grant's boyhood experience with horses, which was extraordinary. These topics should be covered with a couple of sentences in proportion to the scholarship. Let's remember that FA reviewers are not perfect, many of them are unfamiliar with Grant, and that FA doesn't mean the article can't change a bit for the better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Right now there is apparently a 14,000 word cap on the article...If this was done by editor concensus I am not sure how much additional information can be added...A topic I would add is on Grant's Postmaster-General John Creswell who appointed African Americans to the postal service in every state of the Union using his vast post office patronage powers... Cmguy777 (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus and Cmguy777:. Regarding this recent edit of mine you (Coemgenus) just reverted. "There was a noticeably large number of black citizens in Washington at this time." The reason for this was because of Grant. This is historical context, not a political detail that Grant had no hand in. If you like, we can add some pretext, sources permitting, which explains this statement. i.e.Having campaigned for reconstruction, there was a noticeably large number of black citizens in Washington at this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• • It was out of place and didn't add anything necessary to the article. If we don't have space to explain it fully—and we don't—minor detail like this are best left out. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • What is important is that African American voters voted for Grant to be President in 1869 and 1872...This should be in the article...Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 and Coemgenus: -- Agree with Cm'. Coemgenus, the statement you omitted had everything to do with Grant and needs little explaining, per the content on reconstruction, Grant's platform on voting rights, etc. Mentioning the high number of blacks at Grant's inauguration is important historical context and helps to solidify the narrative in terms of the role blacks played in the events that led up to and during his presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Because I am just now reading the article for the first time, I am able to spot something that people too close to it have missed--a serious lapse in the flow of information. Under "Overland Campaign and victory" the text starts out. "Sigel's and Butler's efforts sputtered, and Grant was left alone to fight Lee in a series of bloody battles known as the Overland Campaign." The reader is inclined to ask, "Who the hell were Siegel and Butler? And what were their efforts that we are now told sputtered?" The names of these two people and their "efforts" are mentioned nowhere else in this article.

• In order to find an answer I visited the separate "Overland Campaign" article. There it says:

Grant and President Abraham Lincoln devised a coordinated strategy that would strike at the heart of the Confederacy from multiple directions: Grant, Meade, and Benjamin Butler against Lee near Richmond, Virginia; Franz Sigel in the Shenandoah Valley; Sherman to invade Georgia, defeat Joseph E. Johnston, and capture Atlanta; George Crook and William W. Averell to operate against railroad supply lines in West Virginia; and Nathaniel Banks to capture Mobile, Alabama. This was the first time the Union armies would have a coordinated offensive strategy across a number of theaters.

References

• It is this sort of information that is needed at this point in the Grant article. Or it could be inserted in the paragraph immediately above in the previous section, where it says that Grant "devised a strategy of coordinated Union offensives, attacking the rebel armies at the same time to keep the Confederates from shifting reinforcements within their interior lines." Then everything would make sense and there would be no loose ends. I would have, myself, inserted a variation of the above at an appropriate point, but discovered that the article is locked. So I turned to this Talk page to share my recommendation. Fredwords (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Fredwords, you're right. Some of those details got deleted a few days ago. I restored them. The narration should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)