Talk:James A. Garfield/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Final review for GA

I believe the article can be nominated for GA. The Doenecke source filled in some gaps in Garfield's presidency. I believe the photos in the article are in line with Wikipedia's policy and add content to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

James A. Garfield article nominated for GA. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I will copy edit the last bits of new material and keep an eye out for developments. Good luck :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa! Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation

The lead section of this article does a fine job introducing the article; however, I don't think it's up to a Good article standard just yet. I think at least a brief mention of his assassination should be made at the end of the section (as I can see that it was already mentioned at the beginning). This could be written as a part of the third paragraph, or a fourth paragraph could be written about it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call Utahraptor. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation error

I am getting a cite error with the following commands. Any explainations or suggestions?

• Rutkow, Ira (2006). James A. Garfield. New York, New York: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 9780805069501. OCLC 255885600.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed Garfield 1882 $20.00 Gold Certificate sentence and source.

The following was removed due to a dead link.

James Garfield was featured on the series 1882 $20 Gold Certificate, a currency note considered to be of moderate rarity and quite valuable to collectors.

Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Removed unsourced material from article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Garfield, NJ was created from the former East Passaic.

Garfield Avenue in the suburb of Five Dock, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia is named after James A. Garfield, as is Garfield Street in Phoenix, Arizona, Chelsea, Michigan, and the suburb of Brooklyn, Wellington, New Zealand.

Garfield County in Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and Washington are named after James A. Garfield. Garfield City is now known as Garfield, Kansas and had a population of under two hundred people at the 2000 census.

Removed unsourced material from article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Garfield is one of only three presidents to have predeceased their mothers. The other two presidents were James K. Polk and John F. Kennedy.

In contrast, the first Lincoln stamp was issued in 1866, a year after his death, while Grant would not receive posthumous honors from the Post Office until 1890, five years after his death.

Are stamp images sufficiently significant to be included

This issue has been the subject of lengthy discussion at Lincoln. The consensus has been reached there that stamps are not of sufficient significance and do not inform the reader to the degree appropriate for inclusion. Space limitations need to be considered here as well. I have deleted the image inserted here, and a link to the stamps is provided. User Gwillhickers disagrees. Please comment. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your edits, for all the reasons cited in Lincoln and here. --Coemgenus 05:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:James Garfield2 1882 Issue-5c.jpg|thumb|right|165px||The first Garfield stamp issue of 1882

As all Presidents are honored on US postage after they pass away, including one, usually the first stamp to honor the given President, is an ideal item for the legacy section. As this involves only one image there are no page length or space considerations to speak of. The postage stamp to the right, a memorial stamp, was issued only seven months after Garfield's assassination, a record. Lincoln's first stamp was issued one year after he was assassinated. The item is noteworthy as it is a national honor given to the president by the US government/Post Office department, and involves other history surrounding the president, reflecting the president's legacy quite uniquely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted previously by a number of editors on other pages, 1) there are indeed space limitations which preclude inclusion of these images; and, 2) the quicker issuance of the stamp may arguably be a significant tribute to the post office, but not to the president. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an opinion that ignores the legacy that is (solely) responsible for Garfield appearing on the nation's postage. Garfield didn't appear on US postage simply because of some whim at the Post Office. -- Someone once recently mentioned to me (RfC) that the only reason the PO puts anyone's image on a stamp is to make money. Unfortunately that is largely true today. When I saw Bart Simpson (not even a real person) on a postage stamp I almost... However in the late 1800's (and early 1900's) the role of the PO department was just as important for people and business as are the telephone and internet today, and postage was almost as important (and was often used) as currency and is why the Post Master General was a presidential cabinet member. While the PO of late may be putting out frivolous stamp issues, still, no one can appear on US Postage unless they were great in some capacity (esp true in Garfield's time) and not until after they die. In any event, if space permits, it would be nice to see the item return to the page, or at least a mention of this item/event with a File:James Garfield2 1882 Issue-5c.jpg|link to the imageGwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Replaced estate marker with pic of Salmon Chase

I have replaced the following image of Garfield's estate marker with a pic of his close ally, Salmon Chase. Carmarg4 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC) File:07-04-2008 02;05;27PM.JPG|left|thumb|left|A cylindrical marker with a sun dial on top sits on a patio surrounded by benches|Marker of James A. Garfield's Lawnfield estate in Mentor, Ohio, east of Cleveland, Ohio|Cleveland

Image review via mos images

Carmarg4 asked me for help working with MOS:Images. Before I do I would like to know what direction the article is headed for. Eventual FAC or will it remain at GA? Brad (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had recalled your comment (I can't remember where) that Garfield was not up to standard image wise for the GA; that prompted me to give it a go. I didn't have anything else in mind myself. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some simple steps are:

• Photo relevancy: Photos must be relevant to the section they're placed in. For example the Garfield family painting has nothing to do with the section it's in.
• Image crowding: Too many pics in a small area that could sandwich text between them. I see much crowding in the assassination section and state funeral areas.
• Photo captions should be at the bare minimum; just enough to explain what's going on.

I've only given you examples of what is wrong. There could be other areas that need attention as well. Brad (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Images removed and others adjusted per the above. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There are still too many pics in the article. The area listing judicial appointments has photos crashing into the tables and overlapping into sections. They really should be removed. Otherwise for a GA article everything seems ok. Brad (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Medical malpractice

"Biographer Peskin stated that medical malpractice did not contribute to Garfield's death; the inevitable infection and blood posoning that would ensue from a deep bullet wound resulted in multiple organ damage and spinal bone fragmentation" This interestingly contradicts the recent book Candice Millard, "destiny of the republic" which makes the case that the infection was the larget part of the fatality. Anybody read both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgmiller (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Millard's account. As I understand it, bullets are more or less sterile due to the heat generated by the gunpowder charge. Moreover, the bullet in Garfield's back did not puncture the intestines and therefore would not have caused an infection. --PROSA (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The infection came from the surgeons' habit of NOT washing their hands before trying to find and remove the bullet. In all actuality, the doctors killed Garfield, not the so called assassin. Garfield would have lived as the bullet was no where near vital organs to cause any damage and actually was growing a harmelss cyst around it. Garfield shouldn't even be considered "assasinated" as he would have lived if it weren't for the doctors not washing their hands. Teddy Roosevelt was shot and so was Reagan and both lived and later died yet they weren't considered "assaninated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.54.35 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved external links

Moved external links to talk page to be sorted out and/or deleted from article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• James Garfield: A Resource Guide from the Library of Congress
• Garfield, Harding, and Arthur
• Official whitehouse.gov biography
• Inaugural Address
• Encarta (Archived October 31, 2009)
• An image of Garfield's Civil War Pension File from the National Archives
• Raw Deal
• Biography from John T. Brown's Churches of Christ (1904)
• James A Garfield National Historic Site
• James A. Garfield Birthplace
• James A. Garfield at Findagrave
• [http://www.deadohio.com/garfieldmonument.htm Garfield

Monument]

• United States Congress. "James A. Garfield/Archive 2 (id: G000063)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Retrieved on February 12, 2008
• Extensive essay on James Garfield and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs
• Photo of Bodie, California memorial dedicated to President James A. Garfield. Retrieved 08-07-2011.

Sewer gas, Garfield death, and porcelein toliets

If anyone can verify this [1], it might be worth to add to the article or to the assanation article. Remember (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The article seems to be more concerning "sewer gas" rather then Garfield. Unless there was a source that Garfield himself believed in the "sewer gas" theory, I do not believe this belongs in the JAG article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian policy

I propose adding an Indian policy section. I am not attempting to cause controversy. Garfield's Sec. Kirkwood did establish an Indian policy. I know this information is useful in Kirkwood's biography article. Donecke (1981) discusses Garfield's views on Indians. Kirkwood had a stern but compassionate view towards Indians. He stated Indians were men. Kirkwood had a two day conference with the Ute Indians in Washington D.C. his first days in office. My source is Dan Elbert Clark (1917), Samuel Jordan Kirkwood. Kirkwood, interestingly, was in favor of keeping Indian identity just as whites kept their own identity. The reformers apparently did not believe there was much worth keeping in Indian identity. I know there are limited sources on the subject and Garfield was assassinated on July 2. Kirkwood did submit an Indian report in November 1881 advocating money for Indian education. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem proof

Why is there no mention of Garfield's proof of the Pythagorean theorem? When did he publish it? Was he ever a mathematician? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a (sourced) mention in the last section, before "See also". It occurred in 1876. Garfield was not a mathematician. —ADavidB 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Descent/Genealogy

There is no evidence of either Welsh, French or Huguenot descent for James Garfield, at least not to any notable extent. His father and mother were both descendants of colonial English families that settled in New England. I have removed the reference to Welsh ancestry which, in fact, does not appear in Peskin's biography. Perhaps someone more familiar with the use and care of categories could clean those up. Pjefts (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Garfield or Hayes was first to use telephone

I was looking online and saw other websites including whitehousehistory.org that Hayes had the first telephone installed and used in June of 1877. Under this article is says that Garfield was the first to use a telephone. Can someone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.71.204.146 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It was Hayes. I deleted the incorrect paragraph in this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Garfield or Hayes was first to use telephone

I was looking online and saw other websites including whitehousehistory.org that Hayes had the first telephone installed and used in June of 1877. Under this article is says that Garfield was the first to use a telephone. Can someone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.71.204.146 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It was Hayes. I deleted the incorrect paragraph in this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Images

I thought I'd do a couple restorations to celebrate this reaching FA, but what do you think of this one instead of the existing Civil War image? It has a lot more gravitas, I think. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpbh.00947/ I'm also somewhat eyeing http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpbh.03743/ for the lead, but think the current lead image isn't bad... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No opinion on the Civil War image, I will leave that for Coemgenus. I like the present lede image, you can see more of his face, and you get so tired of those Gilded Age profile shots.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of partial to the current lede image, too, but I do like that new Civil War picture. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I kind of like both possible lead images, so let's use the current lead and the new Civil War. Presuming there's not major issues I discover when I start them. Would you like any of the others as well? the Library of Congress has about 200 images that come up when you search him ( http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=James%20Garfield ) , but, of course, a number of those are false hits. Although that said, please see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2015645630/ and http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2015645629/ and, on a different tack, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/brh2003000492/PP/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpbh.04855/ - which might make interesting additions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If we could improve the picture of Lucretia, that would be great. I think there's room for one of Guiteau, too. I like the one of Garfield with his kid, if we can fit it in without crowding the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting on the Civil War one. Judgement: Annoying! But quite doable. It's one of the ones that has lots of minor damage, and a few more major challenges. If anyone wants to learn basic restoration, I could probably teach you using it, though - I could do the major challenges, then supervise you through the easy-but-repetitive part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Senator-elect in infobox

No question Garfield was senator elect, but I don't think it should be in the infobox as he was never sworn in. And the dates are wrong, he did not stay senator-elect until March, he resigned (renounced?) so the general assembly could elect John Sherman without loss of seniority.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd leave it out. It's not an actual office, and there are plenty of offices he did hold that make the infobox quite large already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Photograph of Eliza Garfield's portrait at Garfield Site's Visitor Center

There is a painted portrait of Eliza Garfield in the James A. Garfield National Historic Site's Visitor Center. I have placed a photograph request at Eliza's article & at the Center's articles but am also posting about my request here. Eliza died when she was only a toddler, I could find no photographs of her, just this one painting. I did find a photo of it on Flikr but that had too many restrictions. So far as I know the painting was done outside of any possible copyright restrictions since Eliza died in 1863, so if anyone could help out that would be great. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it is simply a reproduction of A two dimensional art work and therefore the photographer would not be able to place additional restrictions on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Colonization

I wonder how helpful the new addition is. Garfield's position regarding blacks was not unusual or racist for his time and yet it may come across that way. For example Lincoln supported colonization and also said things about blacks which would get him kicked out of politics today. Picking facts like these without context may not serve the reader well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of adding context rather than omitting the statement. This form of colonization doesn't appear to be covered much on Wikipedia, however. —ADavidB 14:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James A. Garfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401082257/http://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/files/Strategic_planning/SP_GarfieldTownshipStrategy_2002-08-19.pdf to http://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/files/Strategic_planning/SP_GarfieldTownshipStrategy_2002-08-19.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Presidential ranking - why so laudatory?

"Despite the effectiveness of his term, Garfield is little-remembered in the American cultural memory other than for his assassination; historians often forego listing him in rankings of U.S. presidents due to the short length of his presidency."

Actually, most of the historian rankings do give Garfield a ranking, and they are generally fairly bad rankings. How does this square with the beginning of the article which seems to put him in a uniformly positive light?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.11.172 (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that, while Garfield had progressive agenda and was successful in the things he did do, many historians rate him as one of the lower presidents because of the things he did not do, as he could not, because of his shortened presidency. A lover of James Garfield, math, and communism (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James A. Garfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160930170240/http://www.deltau.org/aboutus/notablealumni to http://www.deltau.org/aboutus/notablealumni

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James A. Garfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170422034613/http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race to http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Academic ability

I have read that as well as providing a new proof of Pythagoras's theorem, Garfield was able to write Greek with one hand and Latin with the other, simultaneously. Does anyone have a reference for this, and, if so, should it be included in the article? Seadowns (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I found many web sources that say Garfield had this highly ambidextrous ability, though none of them struck me as particularly reliable. Additional hunting produced a C-SPAN video clip of biographer Peskin speaking in 1999 about the lack of evidence. —ADavidB 17:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

date error?

Funeral, memorials and commemorations Garfield's funeral train left Long Branch on the same special track that brought him there, traveling over tracks blanketed with flowers and past houses adorned with flags. His body was transported to the Capitol and then continued on to Cleveland for burial.[195] More than 70,000 citizens, some waiting over three hours, passed by Garfield's coffin as his body lay in state in Washington; later, on September 25, 1881,

At the end of this statement, isn't it the 26th? 2602:306:374A:8F70:6DF7:A1BB:49BF:BE4F (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In a September 2012 posting by a Garfield National Historic Site NPS guide (who also cites Peskin as a source), the time of the later observance in Cleveland is described as "all day, through the night and into the morning of Monday, September 26" (and it gives an estimate of 250,000 mourners there). —ADavidB 04:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

External links

Would someone look at the "External links" for possible integrating or trimming? It seems over time these sections swell from 1-3, up to the 10 in this article, and there are some with far more. Otr500 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Middle Creek

If I'm not mistaken, Garfield was the only US president other than Grant to have won a battle during the Civil War. If anybody can verify it, it would make a nice addition to the article. JDZeff (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Masonry

Another editor has removed note of his involvement in Freemasonry here. According to the sources I read he was not only a member but took on a leading and titled role in the group. I have no idea why we would censor his involvement or what is meant by it "plays no role in his legacy". Don't we normally include key membership roles in social and religious groups in biographical articles? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm dubious of using such early sources, which are effectively primary sources. Do any of Garfield's biographies discuss Garfield's involvement in Freemasonry? That would better show the significance to his career.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• As for the legacy bit from my edit summary, you put it in the legacy section, thus my comment. It was out of place if nothing else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Presidency

I don't know about you, but it's very irritating to not have a separate page for Garfield's presidency. It really breaks up the flow if you're looking at the other presidency articles. (i.e., going from Hayes to Garfield and then to Arthur is a mess.) I think it would be nice to have a separate "Presidency of James A. Garfield" page. SnowballEffect (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Garfield_(disambiguation)

A Requested Move discussion that affects disambiguation of the name Garfield and therefore affects this article is open at Talk:Garfield_(disambiguation). Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Albert Gallatin Riddle was probably Garfield's mentor

Garfield succeeded Riddle in congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_G._Riddle

Garfield apprenticed under Riddle http://memory.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2008/ms008147.pdf

Riddle probably wrote a biography of Garfield https://www.worldcat.org/title/life-character-and-public-services-of-jas-a-garfield/oclc/5640685

Geo8rge (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Freemasonry

According to the Grand Orient of Italy, Garfield was a Grand Master (Masonic) of the U.S. Freemasonry (source: [2]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.69.46 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

File:GARFIELD, James A-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:GARFIELD, James A-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 19, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-19. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

James A. Garfield (November 19, 1831 – September 19, 1881) was the 20th president of the United States, serving from March 4, 1881, until his death by assassination six and a half months later. He had been shot at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington, D.C., on July 2 that year by Charles J. Guiteau, a disgruntled office seeker. According to some historians, Garfield might have survived his wounds had the doctors attending him had at their disposal today's medical research and techniques. Instead, they probed the wound with unsterilized fingers and equipment, trying to locate the bullet, and the resulting infection was a significant factor in his death.

This picture is a line engraving of Garfield, produced around 1902 by the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) as part of a BEP presentation album of the first 26 presidents, which was reportedly given to Treasury Secretary Lyman J. Gage.

Credit: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; restored by Andrew Shiva

Recently featured:

• Mount Stuart House
• Microorganism
• Graziella

Cabinet infobox

The cabinet infobox needs to moved up further. It should be directly under the header of Presidency. --The Vital One (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the infobox up a line. —ADavidB 17:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Earlier it was well below the other content under its own subheader. I moved it up and now it looks fine. Thank you for your assistance. --The Vital One (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Garfield comic strip

Should info about the comic strip Garfield be added to the legacy section? Sources say the title character of the comic strip is in some way named after the president. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The cat may be named for him, but I don't see how it really relates to him. A namesake really isn't legacy in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See Garfield#History for the answer to this question. Downsize43 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"I cannot change the laws of physics, Captain!" --Montgomery Scott (Scotty), Chief Engineer, USS Enterprise

The article currently says:

"One means of keeping the president comfortable in Washington's summer heat was one of the first successful air conditioning units: air propelled by fans over ice and then dried had reduced the temperature in the sickroom by 20 degrees Fahrenheit (11 degrees Celsius)... [which] immensely increased the humidity in Garfield's room".

No matter what the source claims, the above breaks the laws of physics. I have personal experience using the cooling system described as part of a aerospace test system, using both water ice and dry ice (which wasn't available in bulk until the 1920s) versions. Such systems lower the humidity. As the air passes over the ice and/or ice-cold water, the water vapor in the air condenses out. To raise the humidity, you blow air over water that is hotter than the air. Humidifiers have to have water added on a regular basis. Air conditioners and refrigerators (including the simple ones with blocks of ice inside) need to have a place to collect or dispose of the water they suck out of the air.

Yes, I realize that the above is WP:OR, but I am right. What is described in this article is physically impossible. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that was in the FAC version of the article. A lot of material on the assassination seems to have been added. I would suggest removing the anecdote if it cannot be supported.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No talk of Garfield in the Union Army

Why is there no section on Garfield's service in the military during the civil war, post-war (if he was still in the military then) and especially pre-war service by Garfield? Very confusing as someone who looked up the Union Army Generals.SwampFox556 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The article section entitled "Civil War" covers that in some detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As in this: Civil War. There are also quite a few wikilinks to associated Civil War subjects in the article's infobox. Shearonink (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

John Philip Sousa

Is the fact that Garfield was the only president Sousa dedicated marches to significant enough to include here? I just came across the information: <https://www.marineband.marines.mil/Audio-Resources/The-Complete-Marches-of-John-Philip-Sousa/President-Garfields-Inauguration-March/>, but couldn't find it anywhere in the article. Lonely Composer (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting but why did Sousa do that? I think I'd want to know that before opining.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

They both were members of the same Freemason Lodge I believe. In fact, when Sousa learnt of Garfield's death from the newspapers, he immediately began to write a piece of music for the martyred president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.98.176 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lonely Composer, @Wehwalt: Yes, I think it is significant enough to be included. I recently created a list "List of marches composed by John Philip Sousa" (which is currently a FLC). Shocked by Garfield's death, Sousa composed "In Memoriam: President Garfield's Funeral March" the immediate next day. The dirge was played by the Marine Band as the president's body was received in Washington, D.C. (Source – Bierley, Paul E (1984). The Works of John Philip Sousa. Columbus, Ohio: Integrity Press. pp. 63–64. ISBN 978-0-918048-04-2. LCCN 84080665. OL 2876313M. Retrieved June 29, 2021.) In-fact, Sousa also composed "President Garfield's Inauguration" march. The two marches marked beginning and end of Garfield's presidency! Would appreciate your comments on this. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds worth mentioning in the section on his death/funeral.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Occupation

Let's include his occupation of lawyer and politician in the lead section as done with both his predecessor and successor. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

107.116.93.60 (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Church needs to be low case c

 Not done: No valid reason given for changing whichever many uses of the word Church to church this user wants. Besides, the proper name of the various organizations is Church of Christ [or whatever]. Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy?

I'm tired of the slow edit warring between two editors of this article's first sentence. One wants to mention Garfield's being a lawyer and politician before becoming president. The other refuses inclusion of anything other than he was the 20th U.S. president. While 'politician' can be considered redundant with 'president' (as all of the latter are the former), the intention is to describe other political service, so I suggested a compromise with 'legislator'. This was promptly slapped away with "see MOS:REDUNDANCY". I did read that bit of guidance carefully. MOS:REDUNDANCY very clearly refers to redundancy with the title of the article. Nothing in "James A. Garfield" is redundant with legislating or lawyering. When reverting other's edits, please don't use non-applicable guidance as support. The refusal to allow additional description in the first sentence instead appears to go against WP:OWN. The infobox mentions lawyer and politician as Garfield's occupation. The third sentence mentions his immediately prior role of U.S. House representative, though he had other legislative service in the Ohio senate, and became a lawyer during that time. He was a legislator and lawyer for nearly 20 years before becoming president. —ADavidB 14:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It refers to redundancy in the first sentence. There is no point in repeating ourselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The formulaic "X was an American whatever" is widespread, but not universal, but some want it to be. If it should be, then have an RFC on making all articles comply with it. Doing it piecemeal benefits no one.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding entry into politics?

The second paragraph of the lead section says Garfield entered politics as a Republican in 1957. The article's only other mention of that year was his becoming president of Hiram College, and that he "began to consider politics as a career". He married the next year and then began reading/studying law. It was in Janury 1960 when he entered the Ohio senate after being "invited by local Republican leaders", nominated, and elected. Do the existing sources say more about this than is included in the article? Would it be better to change "1957" in the lead to "1959" regarding Garfield's actual entry into politics? —ADavidB 14:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I found a mention online about his campaigning for John Freemont in 1856 but lacking RS. Hoppyh (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Image query

In the Tariffs and finance section we have an image related to the Black Friday Gold Panic. I suggest it be omitted, as there is insufficient room for it, and it is not illustrative. Hoppyh (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Mathematician ref in lead and other

A reference in the first paragraph of the lead persists despite my attempts, that Garfield was an amateur mathematician. While interesting, the body of the article does not reflect such a prominent enterprise of the article's subject, as the lead should include, such as his military service. I am reluctant to pursue this further without input. Hoppyh (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point.....I dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's lead-worthy. Garfield made a clever proof of the Pythagorean theorem, showing his intellectual variety, but it's not lead-worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We have some back and forth now over which roles of Garfield’s lifetime should be included in the beginning of the lead. In my view, since the article is about Garfield generally, and not just the presidency, it is appropriate to reference his role as a lawyer, legislator, and military officer. This would be consistent with some other presidential FAs. I continue to prefer the mathematician be omitted, as the lead should reflect matters of substance in the article. Hoppyh (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Since one editor keeps adding it back, perhaps we can compromise the matter by mentioning the proof of the Pythagorean theorem at the end of the second paragraph? I'm not sure the article truly supports "amateur mathematician" (indeed, I'm not sure how to define that term) but we could mention his proof there, since he did it during his congressional service.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Hoppyh (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Done-see 2d paragraph of the lead. I have omitted mathematician from the lead’s first paragraph. Again, the presidency occupied 6 mos. of Garfield’s 25 yrs. of professional life, so I believe his other roles should be included in the first sentence of the lead. I don’t think it is appropriate for these roles to be in the 2d sentence, regarding his assasination-he was assasinated for being president, not because he was a legislator, lawyer etc. Hoppyh (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've rearranged a bit. I'm not sure we need legislator as we mention he was the only House member to be elected president, and while he's probably notable as a lawyer, he would be a bit obscure today simply for his legal role, ditto any fame as a general. But I'm OK with it if you are.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It needs work for readability. I’ll try to adjust. Hoppyh (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I went back and restored the version of the first paragraph of the lead from the FA promotion, and then I modified it. Feel free to revise as you wish. I think I will stand aside on that particular part of the article at this point, unless requested. Hoppyh (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Date style change revert

Hi. I used the date style 00 November 2022, replacing the style November 00, 2022. This was done to avoid too many commas in the lead that make reading less fluid. But said change was reverted by User:Adavidb with the edit summary, "script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM". This latter guideline makes acceptable the use of the format 00 November 2022. Therefore, I don't understand why I got the style reverted. Thinker78 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Because we can only have one style of dates in an article and commas are not a sufficiently strong reason for overriding the presumption that figures who are American and primarily civil, rather than military, take Month Day Year.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Civil Service Commission

please change ((Civil Service Commission)) to ((United States Civil Service Commission|Civil Service Commission)) 2601:541:4580:8500:6CA2:B765:4C97:C348 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Gold corner

Garfield was chairman of the investigation committee into the Gold corner that took place in New York in 1869. I can't find this in the article. Maybe a paragraph should be introduced into the article. Garfield actually had a White House conference with President Grant over the possible involvement of Grant's family. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes Garfield appear to be a reformer. I don't think there is any evidence Garfield was involved or invested in the Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Garfield and national debt

Is there more available on this from a better source? A casual search of the web says Jackson was the only president to retire the national debt. Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing the statement per this, which shows a public debt in 1881. It's possible part of the national debt was refinanced, but I'd really like to see a better source, say from a biography of Garfield. I've done a fair amount of internet searching on this. Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't understand how Weisberger, the author, and Graff, the editor, could make such a blatant error. The book source The President focuses on Garfield's presidency. From my understanding, Garfield saved taxpayers $10 million. I would call that a significant accomplishment. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Weisenberger uses the term "refund". That is not "retire". I think the edit should be readded with the term "refund". I apologize for the mistake. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This is Garfield's quote: “The refunding of the national debt at a lower rate of interest should be accomplished without compelling the withdrawal of the national-bank notes, and thus disturbing the business of the country.” Source: [3] Cmguy777 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is the second source: The Magazine of American History Volume 25, Page 261, 1891 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The above source says that Secretary Windom under President Garfield, ["successfully refunded the maturing national debt by methods so simple, so economical, and so masterful as to prove him a truly great financier, a worthy successor to Hamilton, Chase, and Sherman"]. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

What "refunded" in this context appears to mean is "refinanced". Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that is what refunded means refinanced at 3%, but this saved taxpayers $10 million. I am going by what the sources say. I am not sure why the term refinanced is not used. But I think the information should be readded to the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Readded. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious about the "only domestic achievement" bit. What was his defeat of Conkling if not that? Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that, but Conkling also defeated himself by retiring from office. Garfield was definitely the victor. Here is an article that uses the term "refinance". James Abram Garfield (Nov. 19, 1831 - Sept. 19, 1881) Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I reworded to "one financial domestic achievement" I hope that works. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Garfield's congressional career

I put Garfield's congressional career in list form because that is the way the source put the information. Also, it is easier to read. It can be incorporated into the text, but that would seem repetitive to me. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There are entire sections on Garfield's congressional career. Having a list of congresses in which Garfield was a member is unnecessarily. Garfield's dates of service are part of the infobox and the congresses follow from that. Are there other FAs in which there are similar lists of congresses appended to the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought a list would be helpful visually for the reader to know the Congress(es) Garfield served under. It is not necessary. I don't know whether other FA articles have lists of Congressional careers. The source is the U.S. House of Representatives and that article horizontally listed the Congress(es). That was why I listed the Congress(es) in the article. My list was vertical. The article also gave the dates Garfield lay in state in the Rotunda in Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Source: "Garfield, James Abram 1831–1881". history.house.gov. History, Arts, & Archives United States House of Representatives. Retrieved November 12, 2022. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The dates of lying in state are good. The list of congresses could serve as a basis of an electoral history, either on this page or its own page. Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I also found out on the third day the 23 his wife stayed with Garfield alone for an hour at the Rotunda. The 21 and 22 were for the public. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Garfield and Grant

Was there any personal animosity between Grant and Garfield during the Civil War? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Coemgenus wrote much of the Civil War portion of the article. He might know. Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall reading about any problem between the two. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• James Garfield in Color.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Garfield's affair

Currently the article states: "During this period of idleness, a rumor of an extramarital affair caused friction in the Garfield’s' marriage until Lucretia eventually chose to overlook it." I have two comments regarding this statement involving Garfield’s affair. First, the article uses the term "rumor", but it seems most reliable sources on the issue, including the National First Ladies' Library , U.S. National Park Service, and Encyclopedia Britannica state that he definitively did have an affair. Second, the sources all state the affair was with Lucia Calhoun. During the GA1 review in 2011, the statements read: "It was at this time, during the idleness in Washington waiting for an assignment, that Garfield had an affair with Lucia Calhoun. He later admitted the affair to his wife, who forgave him." These were accepted into the article. I feel that something to this effect should be added back to the article, rather than a "rumor" with an unnamed woman, when most of the WP:RS on the issue do not seem to align with this. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)