Wikipedia

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 40

< Talk:Ulysses S. Grant
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Cmguy777 in topic Wikipedia's US Grant article: Unstable, and forever growing
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Grant the "expansionist"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

We should be taking exception to this opening sentence in the Dominican Republic annexation attempt section: — "Grant was an expansionist despite the strong tradition in the Republican Party against it." "Tradition"? It was Jefferson, the definitive Republican, who promoted the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the existing U.S.. The opening language in this section needs to be rewritten, esp the first sentence, as it smacks of modern day hyper-speak. Chernow, p.661, per the citation, doesn't refer to Grant as an "expansionist" -- a term that has negative connotations, esp among the young, naive and ignorant. Grant's only concern here was diplomacy with Haiti and the prospect of a haven for freed Blacks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a great topic sentence, I agree. In the version of this article that passed FA review, this was the first sentence of the DR section: "Grant believed in peaceful expansion of the nation's borders, and thought acquisition of the majority-black island nation would allow new economic opportunities for African Americans in the United States while increasing American naval power in the Caribbean." with a cite to Brands, pp. 455-456. I think something more along those lines would be much better. Maybe "Grant believed in peaceful expansion of the nation's borders, and thought acquisition of the majority-black island nation of Santo Domingo would allow new economic opportunities for African Americans in the United States while increasing American naval power in the Caribbean." --Coemgenus (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We should also go back to having that as one big section. The introductory part of the Foreign affairs section could be largely cut. And the Hawaii part is a whole subsection with one sentence, which is generally discouraged. I'm not sure why the long endnote about Otto von Bismarck is there, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The "expansionist" edit was made back in May of this year. Going a little further back, annexation isn't even mention. Then of course when the article became a FA it was. During this time the section has morphed to one version after another it seems. I support the idea of restoring the opening (and other) language in the section to the version it was when it became a FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Sumner was an expansionist. He fully approved and advocated the annexation of Alaska. He gave a speech in the Senate fully endorsing Alaska annexation. Sumner even advocated Canada annexation to be reparation for the Alabama Claims. Why opposition to Santo Domingo by Senators ? Maybe there was a mix of racism, not wanting to have more blacks in the Senate and Congress. There was the Hatch incident too of being imprisoned by Báez. Babcock, rather than Fish, being used to negotiate the two treaties, policical unrest, and lack of concern for blacks in the United States. Santo Domingo seems to be a diplomatic anomaly. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the narration and added a context note. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Aside from being an national expansionist, Sumner had other good qualities. He was wise to make attempts to secure Alaska, lest it fall into the hands of another foreign power. No one was displaced when Alaska was finally acquired, and the relatively few inhabitants scattered across that desolate part of the world were better off being under the protectorate of the United States. As for "racism", and that sort of thing, I hardly think any representatives in Santo Domingo would have made any difference in tipping the racial balance in government, so let's not start envisioning issues where there are none. After Spain gave up Santo Domingo it was one of the few Islands free of European control, and whose inhabitants, mostly Spanish descendants and mulattoes, welcomed an American protectorate. We were discussing Grant and the opening language. You didn't mention Grant once in your reply, btw. "expansionist impulse" is hardly an improvement. There was great concern about various European powers violating the Monroe Doctrine, taking advantage of the instability of the aftermath of the Civil War, with designs on American interests. That was the driving concern. Also, Kahan is a short book about Reconstruction, yet it is used as the primary source in the section, and isn't viewable, so I'm having some doubts about its use and some of the language it supports. i.e.Chernow didn't use the term "expansionist impulse", nor did he mention the Monroe Doctrine on p.661. Will have to examine statements cited by Kahan and compare them with Calhoun's account, an extensive work about Grant's presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
What other countries or territories did Grant want to annex-lease other than Santo Domingo and Samaná Bay? The Hawaiian treaty was a free-trade-treaty, not an annexation treaty. Apparently, the two Santo Domingo treaties were the only annexation-lease treaties Grant offered Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Without getting into semantics, and deliberations over terms, i.e.territories, etc, there was a great concern over European, esp British, intervention into American interests after the Civil War, and rightly so in the eyes of American interests -- esp in light of the fact that Britain worked earnestly to supply the Confederacy and split (i.e.divided and conquer) America during the war. There was not exactly an element of trust where Europe was concerned. It still sort of amazes me that Grant, during his world tour, was so 'polite' with Britain, but diplomacy and stability among world powers is what prompted his diplomatic compliance. Efforts to secure the Caribbean, ala Santo Domingo, were justified, as Spain was just as 'enthusiastic' about their interests. Ditto where Alaska and Hawaii were concerned. It seems Grant was not so naive to this overall post war vulnerablity, esp with Fish, Sumter and other advisers behind him. At any rate, the section, imo, reads better. Is there something specific you'd like to add and/or omit? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I had asked what other territories or nations did Grant desire to acquire ? So far not answered. We can't put that (those) edit(s) in the narration without naming any specific nations or territories. I have read no sources that say Grant attempted to acquire other territories or nations other than Santo Domingo or to lease Samaná Bay. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This is what should be omitted: "and other territories". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
If there is a source that nails the idea that Grant, and his advisors, had absolutely no concern over Alaska and Hawaii, by all means, omit that phrase. Chernoiw, p. 661, says there was such a concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Chernow says Seward desired to acquire Hawaii. Alaska territory was acquired in 1867, before Grant was President. Grant's treaty with Hawaii was only a free-trade-treaty, not an annexation treaty. Chernow does not say Grant acquired Alaska or Hawaii. Hawaii was annexed in 1898. Grant only presented Congress with one annexation treaty, Santo Domingo, and a Treaty to lease Samaná Bay. The statement should be removed. Alaska and Hawaii are covered in the note. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
We can still say Grant desired other territories as a general statement for reasons of national security and commerce/trade after the war. However, if this is going to be an issue, then we can remove or reword the 'other territories' phrase. I thought it was consistent with the "expansionist" idea. Now you seem to be saying Grant was not an expansionist, he only had eyes on Santo Domingo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to make a big deal of this, but Chernow says: "It is important to note that after the Civil War, territorial expansion and imperialism were very much in the air, William Seward having bought Alaska for $7.2 million and begun maneuvers to acquire Hawaii." Grant is not directly mentioned. Grant wanted Santo Domingo and lease Samaná Bay, but beyond those, there was no other annexation annexation-lease treaties proposals by Grant. It is safe to say Grant was an expansionist along with Sumner. In this case Grant was apparently betrayed by Sumner, who full heartedly endorsed the Alaska annexation. We could that: "In the aftermath of the 1867 Alaska annexation...", to give more perspective on Santo Domingo. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We should stay away from obtuse labels and other distortions that play on modern day, media-induced, stigmas, as was explained, and just state the facts. After the Civil War, there was more concern for European encroachment and violations against the Monroe Doctrine<Chernow, p.555> than there was for "expansion" or anything to do with the KKK. Chernow doesn't even mention the KKK here. Nothing becomes a big deal unless someone chooses to make it so, and given your last edits, it seems you have. The opening Language should mention the post war concern for violations against the Monroe Doctrine, and post-war instability and vulnerability, which you removed, and not give the KKK center stage and undue weight coverage over these major factors. National security was the main issue. The KKK was just a national embarrassment, hyped by the newspapers and the 'friends of America' crowd, and doesn't deserve to be reverse-idolized by any editor with perpetual racial issues, in the opening language, giving them more significance than they actually had. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Grant was concerned about the Carribean protection. No need to mention Monroe Doctrine specifically. You can spout all you want about your politics Gwillhickers, but this is not about politics. My version was better. "The KKK was just a national embarrassment". Not true for blacks in the South or any white Republican who supported Reconstruction. I put in the neutrality tag because what does safe haven mean other than protection from the Klan. This was before the Ku Klux Klan Act. I don't believe we are working together on this so I don't want a continual edit war in the talk page. Chernow does not mention Grant had other designs on other territories. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Chernow doesn't mention the Klan. Chernow mentions Grant's concern about violations of the Monroe doctrine after the war, volunteer colonization, diplomacy and good relations with President Baez. This is not about the Klan in the capacity you seem to think/want, but Grant's concerns about the Dominican Republic, trade agreements, an island not controlled by European powers and a safe haven for blacks. Grant did not have an "expansionist impulse". Please don't speak to me about spouting politics while you get up on a soapbox and reverse-idolize the Klan, making them out to be this army that permeated the entire south. There's no neutrality issued by mentioning the Monroe Doctrine, and a safe haven, as does Chernow, and not giving specific emphasis to the klan, which Chernow does not. Once again, you use Wikipedia articles and talk pages to vent your anger. Thanx Cm. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Chernow mentions the Ku Klux Klan: 588, 613, 621, 623, 662, 686, 702-703, 704, 705-710, 711, 712. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Chernow mentions Lincoln on dozens of pages. Chernow mentions Appomattox on many pages. So what? Show us where Chernow ties in the Klan specifically with affairs about Santo Domingo, rather than reciting page numbers out of an index. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Are we reading the same book ? Chernow said Grant was a racial visionary concerning Santo Domingo. Please read page 662. Grant himself said: "the crime of Klu Kluxism". Are you disputing the General's own words ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Grant uses that phrase regarding prejudice, but his emphasis is on a colony set up for blacks, maintaining that Santo Domingo was "capable of supporting the entire colored population of the U.S.". I had made reference to southern prejudice in general. Mentioning the klan only at this juncture suggests that prejudice was only a problem where the klan was concerned. Certainly the klan was a factor. We can make reference to southern prejudice using Grant's words, but I would leave the opening language, per Chernow in place. Santo Domingo was in the works before Grant assumed office. Johnson wanted to annex all of Hispanola. Seward "worked tirelessly" for annexation. There was concern from everyone about European encroachment in violation of the Monroe Doctrine, which certainly factored into matters. Grant was just going along with the program when he finally assumed office. Chernow refers to him as a "passive spectator". Annexation "was a proposition from the Santo Domingo people".<Chernow pp.661-662> There was no "expansionist impulse" on Grant's account, and the klan is only mentioned figuratively in reference to prejudice. In any event, the neutrality tag is not called for. Could you please remove it so we can move on without a black eye on the article?

Chernow says Grant "portrayed" himself as a "passive spectator". That is not saying he was. Grant said "the proposition came up for the admission of Santo Domingo as a territory of the Union." I did use Grant's words "the crime of Klu Kluxism" in the article. I can drop the neutrality tag. I suggest we let the article settle. Let other editors have time to make changes or give opinions. Kahan said Grant had an "expansionist impulse." We have to go by what the sources say, as I have been told a billion times. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If Chernow says that's how Grant portrayed himself, then that's what he was, a passive spectator. Grant did not initiate the move to secure Santo Domingo. It was already on his plate when he assumed office and he went along with the program, fond of the idea of a safe haven for blacks, and national security in the Caribbean. That hardly amounts to an "expansionist impulse", esp in the way it was used as the opening sentence, regardless of what Kahan says, who, btw, is contrary to what Chernow is saying, and fully explains for us. What does Kahan offer to substantiate this "expansionist impulse"? No one is stopping other editors from chiming in or making edits, regardless if you and I are still in dispute on any given point. Thanks for removing the tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Kahan used the term "expansionist impulse" for Grant explained on pages 75-76. I have no reason to disagree. I don't think Chernow and Kahan are in disagreement per say. Grant lobbied Senators including Sumner. I would call that pro-active. Portraying yourself who you want to be is not the same as who you actually are. I don't want to go into endless arguementation. Grant wanted to prepare for war. Annexing Santo Domingo was a way of doing that. Grant believed correctly America would become the envy of the nations. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Grant didn't portray himself here, Chernow did, and explained it in full, i.e.Grant wanting a safe haven, and a stable US port in the Caribbean – ideas already in the works before he was president. To go so far as to say Grant had an obsession, or "impluse", as an "expansionist" is misleading, bordering on falsehood, to say the least, esp for a young and often naive readership. Currently, the section states only the facts, and stays away from opinionated and subjective labels. Between you and I, and the other editors who also contributed here, the section looks fine, and no longer provokes content disputes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Confederate nationalism

Latest comment: 5 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

* Shifting Grounds: Nationalism and the American South, 1848-1865, Paul Quigley (2011), New York: Oxford University Press Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the standard work is Drew Gilpin Faust's The Creation of Confederate Nationalism. Yes, it existed, but no, this is not the place to debate it. Why not split the difference and say "...the vestiges of secession and slavery." ? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
There was infact a Confederate nation-state or republic from 1861 to 1865. The British gave the Confederacy ships to fight the North ie Alabama Claims that Grant settled. The Confederacy had a Consititution; Congress; President; Capital. It even had an army that did terrible damage to the Northern Army. Remember General Robert E. Lee. The Southerners did not accept blacks (former slaves) citizens after the war and were hostile to blacks, although racism was prominent in the North. Whites took over the governments in the South. We are not here to debate the subject, but the term "Confederate nationalism" is used by Faust. Why was there seccession ? Answer: Confederate nationalism. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I used the term "Southern nationalism" in the lede to replace "Confederate nationalism" previously used. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that's worse! Why not just say "secession" or "separatism"? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The Confederacy, that ended in 1865 was an actual functioning government. It was nationalism. Did any nothern states suceed from the Union ? The South remained after the Confederacy failed or was defeated. The most accurate wording would be white nationalism. I feel politics is getting into this conversation. Making the Confederacy a sucession movement, rather than a nationalist movement to preserve slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I hope we can work together. I removed "Southern". I got more to the point. There was national racism and the vestiges of slavery during Reconstruction. Neither the South or Confederacy is mentioned. Racism was national, not just the South. Feel free to make improvements. The term "national" could be replaced by "sectional". Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the term "national". Neither national, Confederate nationalism, nor Southern nationalism is mentioned in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I added: "secessionism". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
'Confederate Nationalism' is an oxymoron, as the rebels sought to divide the 'nation', the likes of which Washington, Jefferson, et al, praised by both the north and south, sacrificed to establish. Secessionism was abolished after the Civil War. Once again, we seem to be attempting to improve the mouse trap. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The Confederacy had a Constitution and President, etc... It had an army and very limited navy. It had unofficial recognition from Great Britain and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. On July 9, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The freedmen were citizens before Grant took office. From July 1, 1863 to July 9, 1868 time period would be appropriate to call blacks freemen. After July 9, 1868 black men were citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The above links would imply that the Confederacy or Confederate Nationalism was more than just an idea, an "oxymoron", or hyperbole. It was in fact a nation or a mirror national-state in rebellion against the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Then the term is academically redundant. The Confederacy was an off shoot, a split, from the nation of which it was formed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The links are evidence the Confederacy was a nation, not an off shoot, or a split. The Confederacy even had the Confederate States Congress. The Confederacy was a mirror nation of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be in agreement regardless of the terms we prefer. "Off shoot", or "a minor nation of the U.S.". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

overlap

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

My apologies to Dimadick -- We were editing simultaneously and I think I deleted some of his good material. Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

and I'm done for today--- I think the discussion on this pages been very useful for me at least.Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions and for clearing a few things up, even though I sort of disagree on one point, Grant saving the Union. At least we don't say that in the article. If you're still of mind, we'd like to hear from you about what belongs in the 1st paragraph of the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Slaves v African Americans

Latest comment: 5 years ago47 comments6 people in discussion

The (divisive) term, 'African American', is not exactly neutral, regardless of media attempts to make the term common place. Blacks are Americans, period, more so than many others at this late date – no different than Italians, Poles and Irish who don't hyphenate their national identity, btw. It was not a term used during the time in question. Blacks were largely viewed by the south as former slaves, not "African Americans", a term invented by latter day white politicians, prodded by activists in front of the press, and a term many (most?) Blacks are not exactly comfortable with. A term used today mostly by Whites. Any discrimination was aimed at former slaves. Before and after the Civil War most common folk whites, esp Christians, the greater populace, objected to slavery, even in the south. Woman's church groups in the south frequently marched against slavery. i.e. A reality that mad at the world activists and the 'Friends of America' crowd would rather sweep under the historical rug. We should refer to Blacks, in this instance, in terms of what the prejudice was actually aimed at. 'Former slaves'. WP should not be sugar coated in this regard because of a largely naive and (media) stigmatized readership, or because of various individuals who simply refuse to see the greater perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please leave politics out of the discussion. This is pushing the envelope. Now editors can't use the term "African American" in the article. Don't force politics on other editors or into the talk page. After the Fourteenth Amendment passed the freedmen were citizens. But racism was against blacks for their race, not for being former slaves, in both the North and South. That is why African American is neutral and appropriate for the article. Segregation was because of the color of their skin, not because they were former slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment applied to all blacks who were born after slavery. Involuntary servitude was abolished, except for any persons convicted of felonies. Racism is against a race, not a former condition of servitude. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It was and is my intention to keep politics out of the article on that note by using a historically appropriate term for the time. i.e.Former slaves. You pushed politics when you reverted my edit and re-added African America, with a link. And now, you're reciting the 14th Amendment, but of course are keeping politics out of the discussion. (?) Politics is the basic fabric of most the sections, save those about battles perhaps. Last, while keeping racism and prejudice in check, the main objective of reconstruction was to bring the south back into the fold of the Union, which is not mentioned in the lede. Instead we have your socio-political modern-day statement with its focus on African Americans and racism in the first paragraph of the lede of the Grant biography, again, without a word about the main objective of reconstruction .– National unity. Reconstruction is mentioned even before Grant's childhood and family in the lede. Aside from due weight concerns, the lede begs the neutrality tag, but I'm willing to work on a compromise alternative here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I moved the sentence about Reconstruction and African Americans to a more appropriate place in the lede, combining it with the paragraph about Grant's presidency, keeping the wording as you left it, for the time being. The main focus of Reconstruction still needs to be highlighted in that statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Please stop with the "former slave" phraseology. The term for them is freedmen, we do not need a longer description. As for discrimination, are you claiming that Free Negroes were not subject to discrimination during Reconstruction? Dimadick (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)  Actually, Freedmen is even better. We can pipe link it to African American. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The original edit said African Americans. It was changed to former slaves. I have no issues calling the former slaves or freedmen up until July 9, 1868, afterwards the "former slaves" or "freedmen" were naturalized citizens. When Grant was elected in 1869, blacks were citizens of the United States. The neutrality issue is the Fourteenth Amendment. We can't say blacks are former slaves without saying blacks were citizens on July 9, 1868. Let's not sweep the 14 under the historical rug. It's was a constitutional law. The racism of Reconstruction was against African Americans. This could be a compromise: "...racism against freedmen, made citizens, by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It was the 13th Amendment.  In any case political details like this are and should be mentioned in the body of the text, not in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative

  • Here is the existing sentence:

During the Reconstruction Era, President Grant led the Republicans in their efforts to remove the vestiges of slavery, and racism against African Americans.

  • Here's an alternative:

During the Reconstruction Era, President Grant led the Republicans in their efforts to bring the southern states back into the Union and remove the vestiges of slavery, and racism against African Freedmen.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


Due weight issues

@Cmguy777: Grant's main legacy is his victory over the Confederacy, not his failed reconstruction efforts. Your edit, once again, failed to mention the main objective of Reconstruction. Please stop the edit warring so we can come up with the best alternative and hopefully reach a consensus. The statement in question does not belong in the first paragraph of the lede. And now you're dragging citizenship and dates into the lede. You say you want to keep politics out, but look at your focus, right in the middle of a discussion over a compromise approach. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Smith, Brands, White, Chernow, Calhoun focus on Grant's fight against racism during Reconstruction, just as important as the Civil War. Grant's reputation has improved because of more focus on fighting racism during his presidency. That is why it belongs in the first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying Gwillhickers that African Americans are not citizens of the United States ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I used your term "African freedmen". I removed information on African American citizenship. But the sentence belongs in the first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Regardless if some historians have improved on Grant's ratings, Grant's failed efforts at reconstruction don't belong in the first paragraph of the lede. You still didn't mention the main objective of reconstruction either, so I added that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

We should take a survey among past contributors, and anyone else who would like to chime in.
@Cmguy777, Coemgenus, Alanscottwalker, Rjensen, TheVirginiaHistorian, Dimadick, and Billmckern: Re:Due weight issue: Help is needed in resolving an issue. — Does the below statement belong in the first paragraph of the lede, or in the third lede paragraph which covers Grant's presidency?:

  • During the Reconstruction Era, President Grant led the Republicans in their efforts to reunite the Southern states with the Union and remove the vestiges of slavery and racism against African freedmen.
    (Please indicate 1st or 3rd)
  • 1st -- The sentence was in the first paragraph before it was moved to the third paragraph. Reconstruction followed the Civil War. Grant was President during Reconstruction. So it is appropriate to mention this information after the Civil War. There is no need to demote Grant's prosecution of the Klan, successful. The Election of 1872 was fair and successful. Smith, Brands, White, Chernow, Calhoun all discuss Grant and Civil Rights. This article should not demote an already embattled President by historians. "Noble but failed efforts" exhibits a bias of a certain editor imposed on this article. Editor bias should stay out of the lede. It also hides the racism imposed on blacks and white Republicans during Reconstruction. Let's leave politics out of the lede and go by the concensus of what the sources say. Calhoun said of the KKK Act, that Grant signed on April 20, 1871, the "law represented and extraodinary expansion of national executive authority to defend individuals' constitutional rights." (page 319) The sentence belongs in the first paragraph. Reconstruction is just as important as the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Reconstruction by all means should be mentioned, but again it was generally a failed effort, and only one chapter in Grant's presidency. Real reconstruction and civil rights victories took many years to materialize, long after Grant was gone. No bias there. That's the simple truth, and it isn't what Grant is famous for. By mentioning this in the third paragraph we are still putting it after mention of the Civil War. Placing it in the 1st paragraph lumps it in with his Civil War Victory and places it even before coverage of Grant's childhood and family. This is Grant's biography. Items concerning Grant's world wide fame belong in the first paragraph. i.e.Victory in the Civil War, and two terms as president. Selected details about the presidency go elsewhere. Yes, historians cover Reconstruction, but not nearly in the same capacity as they do Grant's victory in the Civil War. All biographies start out with coverage of Grant's childhood and military service, through the Civil War. None of them start off by putting a spot light on reconstruction in the opening language, as you're doing by covering this in the first paragraph in the lede. We should cover subjects in the same manner, and with the same weight, that the sources do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Grant did not "lead" the Republican effort to support blacks--the key leaders were Thaddeus Stevens (died 1868) & Charles Sumner, whom Grant destroyed. The leading specialist is Charles Calhoun (2017) who says Grant's first term was marked by benign neglect. "Benign neglect produced malignant results in the South. Violence and intimidation had a telling impact in several states....The lesson of the 1870 election was clear: without adequate federal action blacks’ right to vote remained in jeopardy and the Republican Party’s prospects in the region were dim.... Grant conceded that after nearly two years this major goal of his domestic program remained far from fulfilled." [Calhoun pp 106-7] The second term showed many reverses as well. Calhoun says in the summer of 1874, "despite the administration’s conciliatory overtures, conservative whites grew increasingly defiant. Indeed, Grant’s seeming reluctance to intervene may have emboldened them." [Calhoun p 458] The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Blacks were worse off when Grant left office in 1877 compared to when he was inaugurated in 1869. Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Rjensen. I'm wondering if Reconstruction should be mentioned at all in the lede, esp in light of the error that has been pointed out. Grant tried to help, but he certainly did not lead the Republican effort, and he certainly was not famous for failed reconstruction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
To say Reconstruction is not as important as the Civil War is biased. Calhoun devotes a whole chapter (4) to Reconstruction pages 95 to 107. Smith, Brands, White, and Chernow cover reconstruction/Reconstruction in their respected biographies. "In appointing Akerman and Bristow, Grant chose men committed to the legal protection for African Americans in the South." (Calhoun, page 106) Chernow called the Civil Rights Act of 1875 "revolutionary in its principles of equal treatment for all." (Chernow, page 795). Let's not ignore Grant's accomplishments while President, as his critics did. Grant felt alone in his battle to defeat racism against blacks. Grant's prosecution of the Klan is what has raised his reputation among historians. Once Akerman was in charge, the Justice Department was used to defeat the Klan. That was a success, maybe too successful. Remember Grant received criticism for going after racist whites. He did too much too little. Let's just say what he did. Reconstruction failed because conservative whites did not accept blacks were citizens. Grant did. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Chapter 4 and Chapter 18 of Calhoun cover Reconstruction and it should be kept in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes I strongly agree with Cmguy777 I will add a sentence on the KKK. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Congress did pass the civil rights law of 1875 (it was primarily written by Charles Sumner), however Calhoun is pessimistic about it. He states on p 479 a) Grant did not make it a legislative priority; b) “the impact of the law was slight” because federal judges immediately emasculated it c) It provided little protection for blacks. d) the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1883 Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Chernow said the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was revolutionary. It is what Grant did. How is slight defined ? Did it help anyone ? It was legal until 1883 so it was in effect from 1875 to 1888, a period that extended beyond Grant's life. It was an effort to give blacks equality. Conservative judges and a conervative Supreme Court defeated it. It shows that Grant tried to reconcile with the Sumner. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 is a noteworthy political detail in Grant's presidency, but it doesn't compare to his Civil War victory in terms of a lede statement in the first paragraph. No one is disputing that Grant's heart was in the right place regarding reconstruction and civil rights for Blacks. The question remains, that, is coverage about Reconstruction due in the opening paragraph, of the lede, in the Grant Biography, even before mention of his childhood, and family? We still have a statement in the lede, the first paragraph, that Grant led (?) the Republicans in the reconstruction effort, right along side mention of his world famous efforts at winning the Civil War and preserving and stabilizing the Union, which benefited all races. The last edits are welcomed, but we still need to resolve the lede, due weight, issue. Now that we have Rjensen's last edits in the closing paragraph of the lede, we should remove the somewhat erroneous statement in the opening language, the 1st paragraph in the lede. This is a due weight issue. None of the sources treat this with the same weight in their prefaces and opening chapters of their biographies. Not only do we say what the sources say, but we ascribe the same weight to the issues as they do. The 1st paragraph needs to be fixed in that regard, esp since the last edits nail the idea of Grant and Reconstruction quite well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think people at the time and historians every since see the 1875 law as a symbolic honor for the dead senator Sumner but it was of near-zero effect. Biographer White never mentions the law. Grant had very little to do with the 1875 law--except he did sign it. His judges & Justice dept did not enforce it. Chernow says the goal was revolutionary but adds it was "toothless." Chernow exaggerates white "fear" by citing one anonymous hate letter [note 102 p 795---but gives no scholarly sources. That's the typical problem with Chernow--clever anonymous quotes but he does not cite or use the published scholarship. For that better use Calhoun. Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. As a history buff, I am once again reminded of how much more there is to learn. Cmguy777, we should let Doctor Rjensen make the call here. Should the statement in question remain in the first paragraph of the lede, or be modified and incorporated into the lede (third) paragraph about Grant's presidency? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion for lede: As head of the army during President Johnson’s term (1865-69) he sided with the Radical Republicans in Congress which used the army to give civil rights and political power to the freedmen. As president he used his new Justice Department to try to suppress violence against blacks. He used his army to prop up Republican state governments in the South, but they all collapsed. In foreign policy he settled major disputes with Britain and tried and failed to annex the Dominican Republic. Rjensen (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
3rd -- That would make Reconstruction chronological within Grant's career. He's best known for the Civil War, so having that in the first paragraph makes sense. He's lesser known for Reconstruction, which is still important enough to be included, so in my view, including it after the Civil War within the third paragraph. In addition, Grant wasn't the only leader of Reconstruction and the efforts of the Republicans who did lead it, including Grant, were ultimately unsuccessful. As an example, I recently worked on the article for Marshall H. Twitchell. Many of his family and his African American political supporters in Louisiana were killed during the Coushatta massacre (1874) and Twitchell himself was the target of an assassination attempt (1876) -- both during Grant's term as president. Billmckern (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Billmckern:, Thanks for your insightful input. Indeed, Grant is not widely known for his efforts in Reconstruction, even if he was due this notoriety in certain aspects. — @Rjensen: Your submission presents quite a lot of coverage for the lede, esp for the first paragraph there, if that was what you were proposing. I'm hoping we can resolve what should be stated in the first paragraph of the lede in the Grant Biography. Everything of what you've presented is welcomed in the Biography, imo - The first paragraph of the lede, however, should be presented in the same manner, and priority, of which this subject, Grant, the person, is treated in virtually all the Grant Biographies, again, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I reject this notion of somehow making Grant the "Robert E. Lee" of the North and his Presidency did not amount to much. The article needs to note Grant's accomplishments and failures while President and be neutral. Grant did not retire after the Civil War, he served under Johnson, as Rjensen mentioned. Grant was elected President twice. He was popular. Grant's presidency was modern; he wanted justice for blacks and Indians; he established Yellowstone, he aided women's rights, he established the Surgeon General, and the preceptor to the Weather Bureau. Other Union Generals fought in the war: Sherman, Meade, Sheridan, George Thomas; and Oliver Howard. Don't forget it was Lincoln and Johnson who promoted Grant. They have some responsibility for Grant's success in the military. It was Lincoln who did not fire Grant after Grant purged Jewish people from his district. This is not a Civil War article. It is a presidency article. His two year Presidency should get the primary focus. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Grant saving the Union is the primary focus, not his efforts at Reconstruction. Yet, no one said Grant's presidency didn't amount to much. He opened the door to national unity after a war that split the Union, deeply. Was Grant elected twice because of his sympathies to reconstruction? Hardly. It was his efforts in saving the Union. Repeat: Saving the Union. Even you said racism was present in the North and South. Again, this business needs to be treated in the same priority as all the source cover the topic. Putting this stuff in the first paragraph of the lede is historically and academically without basis in terms of historical due weight, and not in line with how all the sources, past and present, treat this topic. Please come to terms with this and not digress any further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Grant did not "save" the Union. Lincoln gets that honor. The war was decided before Grant took overall command in March 1864. As to importance--I counted pages in bios by White, Brands and Chernow. They are quite similar: they devote 41% of their text to Civil War and 31% to Reconstruction--I think that's a useful target for us. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly the Civil War and Grant are interchangable and highly signifigant. But this is a Presidential article and should focus on his presidency. Let's not turn Grant into a "Confederate" war hero to be worshipped. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Rjensen — It was Grant who defeated the Confederacy in the west and the one who brought Lee to the surrender table, so in that context, Grant saved the Union. There's even a book out entitled "The Man who Saved the Union", by H. W. Brands, 2012. Certainly Grant couldn't have done it via his own command, but still he was and is widely considered the one to win the war and save the Union.
  • Cmguy777 — This is not the Grant President's article. It's 'the' Grant biography, so please don't assume that we should "focus" on Grant's presidency in this article, esp the lede, as you have done. Currently the lede gives more coverage to his presidency than the war. This needs to be corrected. Lets not assume. also, that other editors are trying to do a "hero worship" number on the article and try to have a little more faith in the discussions. Grant is famous for his Civil War victories, by far, and this is what won him the presidency. You wouldn't get that by reading the lede the way it has been handled. President Grant was more of a figure head who largely depended on Fish and others for advice. As you should know, Grant was often duped and taken advantage of, coming and going. Grant was among the most honest of presidents, but he certainly wasn't among the best statesmen. He assumed the presidency with great reluctance. Also, the word tour  is  was mentioned in two different paragraphs in the lede -- and in the opening paragraph in the lede, and after all that was discussed about this paragraph. This is getting a little reckless. So overall, we still have another mess and due weight issues to clean up in the lede. This survey was set up to decide how the first paragraph should read, and as usual, you ignore discussions and went off and edited as you pleased regardless. This survey is not over, and you have no consensus for the way the 1st paragraph still reads, not to mention your idea that this is the Presidency article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Last I checked Grant was the Eighteenth President of the United States. Therefore this is a presidential article. When you type in : Eighteenth President of the United States in the search column you get Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I had removed the word "racism" from the first paragraph. I had thought that was an appropriate edit. I had replace that word with the phrase: "justice for African freedmen..." I had thought better context. I read discussions. I make edits based on what I read and what I believe is appropriate. Editors can edit at anytime in the article regardless of a "survey". Please stop ordering me around like a lackey. At least I am editing to make improvements, not just endless arguementation in the talk pages. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Grant was the 18th president, but that doesn't make this the Presidential article, regardless if the redirect takes one here. There wouldn't be half the argumentation if you didn't make such claims. We have a dedicated article for Grant's Presidency. This article isn't it. That redirect needs to be fixed, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I should know. I started that article: Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (January 12, 2010) . That is a presidential article that focuses on his Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the main Grant biography, where all important aspects of Grant's life are covered in the order of due weight. Grant is famous for his Civil War victories, far more than his presidency. If this is the "presidential article", why did you start the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Every article on Grant is a presidential article because Grant was President. Are you saying Grant was not President ? The President can overule generals and give Executive orders. It is the highest office of the land. This is Grant's presidential biography. Oh yeah. I started Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War article on December 18, 2010. Please stop treating me like a subordinate editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's like you're saying that every article on Grant is about the Civil War because Grant was a general in that war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't force your opinions on me. This conversation is going nowhere. We should go onto to other things. Drop the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
This is an article on Ulysses Grant, the man. It should be a reasonable survey of his life, without an undue focus on any part of it. Rjensen's rough guide to weight seems like a good one to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Coemgenus, I agree, this is an article about Grant, the man. i.e.A biography. That this sort of thing has to be recited for some individuals is sort of disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777, you were the one who said this is a presidential article and went so far as to say Grant's presidency should be our focus, in an apparent effort to justify your selective treatment of the 1st lede paragraph, per Reconstruction. No one forces anything on anyone around here. Please refrain from making accusations in the future. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Palo Duro

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The horses in question at the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon belonged to the Comanche Indians during the Indian war. Commander MacKenzie, who gave the order to kill the horses realized that he could fight the Comanche to the end of time and still not win. The horses at first were captured, but then later 1000 out of the 1200 were destroyed, and brought a speedy end to the war. It was a war. Allowing the Comanche to have their horses would have resulted in a prolonged war costing many more human lives, on both sides. Grant, thousands of miles away, didn't realize what had happened until news finally reached them. Implying that Grant didn't really love horses because of MacKenzie's tough decision is sort of reaching. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Three hundred of the horses were stolen and over 1,000 were slaughtered. Was Grant thrown in outrage at Mackenzie for the slaughter and horse theft and court martialled. No. MacKenzie was one of Grant's favorites, possibly under-rated soldiers. Chernow does not mention Palo Duro Canyon in his book. Why ? I am not questioning Chernow, but mentioning this slaughter would negate Grant's "love" of horses. One would think this important enough to mention in a biography. It was unmentioned in his book, from what I found. Nothing in his index on the battle. I have no issues with Grant "loving" top of the line thoroughbreds and spirited horses. Did Grant love the Buffalo when those animals were slaughtered almost to extinction? Let's not read to much into the General. But then Grant signed legistlation to protect baby seals and Yellowstone, that protected buffalo from being poached. It's complicated to accurately project people's motivations. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Stolen"? The horses were captured during a war. Yes, Chernow doesn't mention Palo Duro. What would you like this to amount to? Again, Grant did not know the details of the battle until sometime later. Again, horses were expendable when it came to ending a war that would cost many more human lives. Horses were killed throughout that war and the Civil War, as were humans. Grant loved them both. Unless there is some pressing content issue, contrary to the sources, it would be best if we just moved on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am just addressing the reality of Palo Duro Canyon. I am not against saying Grant "loved" thoroughbreds and spirited horses. That is irrefutable. I would just limit it to that. I am also saying Grant was complicated. As a miltary officer, he punished someone for beating a horse. Yet he did not blink when 1,000 horses were slaughtered. Is captured another way for saying stolen ? Let's keep focused on Grant. Just say "Grant admired thoroughbreds and spirited horses." I am not "saving-face". I believe Palo Duro Canyon is signifigant since so many horses were butchered during Grant's second term. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Grant wasn't aware of it, and I think we can assume that the loss of all those horses stuck his heart, but not near as much as the loss of human life. Grant loved horses. Unless there's more than one source that says otherwise, in no uncertain terms, we need to move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that none of Grant's biographers, including Calhoun's Presidential biography, discuss the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon or the slaughter of over 1,000 horses. Nothing is noted in Smith, Brands, White, Calhoun, Chernow, McFeely. This battle was a Grant victory. There maybe a few books that discuss the battle itself. Machenzie used total warfare on the Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's US Grant article: Unstable, and forever growing

Latest comment: 4 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

Just to help Bruce leverett or any other new editor who comes along to this article. The editing history of this article since this was made a Featured Article in 2015 suggests that this article will not at any-time reasonable, be stable, and it will continue and continue to grow in length.

Although, editors should be aware that multiple RS biographies have been written on Grant, multiple RS biographies have been written about other people, too. Nonetheless, perhaps unique among all Wikipedia article subjects, who are also people who have multiple RS biographies written about them, Wikipedia's Grant article looks like it is aiming to be the longest Wikipedia article ever, as well as the longest encyclopedia article ever in the world. This state of affairs has and will inevitably result in this article never being stable. In many ways, it is inexplicable, but just have an idea what you are walking into. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of article stability, I initiated a discussion, but my single edit was reverted twice anyways. As for the article growing in size, take a look at the edit history over the last month or so, and see where the major additions were made, and by whom. Last, article size is only an issue when someone decides to make it an issue. We agreed on a 100k limit, which I've gone along with, however, I try not get carried away should we go over a line, esp when guidelines allows for exceptions for exceptional articles. You seem to be caring on as if the article is at 120k. We are at 102k. This alarmist notice has only aggravated stability. What do you propose, that we start chopping away, all over again? Hardly a plan for stability. We were having a debate about a statement in the lede. Now this. Thanx-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Of course one remedy is good editing down - that is what good editors do - but this has all been gone over before multiple times with objections to the ever growing length and the length still manages to go up and up over time. Stability is not just editing over others, which is inevitable as long as content is added, it is the frequent adding of content itself, which means there is apparent no Wikipedia editor consensus on what a really good U.S. Grant encyclopedia article is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The history of the article since FA indicates that it has been the private kingdom of two editors the whole four and a half years. What is discouraging to me is that I don't know when it will end. When I started editing Bobby Fischer, the editor who had made it his private kingdom for several years had retired, and so, with the assistance of quite a few other knowledgeable editors, I was able to do fulfilling work and do some good. I don't know when the private kingdom era is going to be over for Grant. It's too bad, because the two biographies that I own have made me interested in the subject. But there are lots of fish in the sea. Thanks for your assistance. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. The problem, Bruce, is that editors accepted the consensus on certain issues in the past, but not in good faith. Instead, the same old fights are introduced again and again and most other editors--myself included--have moved on and found places on the encyclopedia where they can actually improve things. Adding 18kb of prose--nearly 3000 words!--to a featured article when new developments in scholarship justify, at most, one-tenth that amount is an incredible waste of effort that has in no way improved the article. As Alan said, above, good editing is very often removing words, not adding them. If you want to work with me to make this article better and more concise, I will join you, although my time on here is more limited than it was in 2015 owing to real-life concerns. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
ASW, yes we've been down this road before, so you should know where it goes -- in a circle, with the size going up and down, over and again. We are at 102k. We can chip away at it again and get it at or below 100k, but then what? Lock the article down? We've been over this. This is the inherent problem when one tries to rigidly enforce page length guidelines.
Bruce, you don't help matters by accusing two editors of owning the article. No one is stopping anyone from coming aboard and making edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Coemgenus, there is no pressing need to get a or below 100k, but as usual, I will go along with this ever repeating circumstance. The question still remains, what do we do when the article gets at or below 100k? Who is going to stand over the article and tell other editors that can't contribute? Who is going to decided how we play musical chairs with the narrative? These are the questions that have always been ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The musical chairs with the narrative is instability, itself, I'll repeat, there is no Wikipedia editor consensus on what a really good Grant article is, otherwise people would be fine with it, but people are not fine with it, so it keeps changing. For example, as you have conveyed over and over, you reject and attempt to ignore the well established position of other editors who think this topic is best served by summary style in keeping with tertiary purpose and editing guidelines, which is further demonstration lack of consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't own this article. There was push on Grant's personal character, related to his parent(s), put into the introduction, now at 6 paragraphs. My version in Paragraph 2 had removed this push and I had gotten the introduction back to 5 paragraphs. White, Chernow, Calhoun, and Kahan have been published, or conincided with, after FA was completed and published on Wikipedia. My editing has concerned the neutrality of the article. I agree the narration is bloated, even in the introduction of the article. All article paragraphs should be under 200 words. I believe that would reduce the prose and get the article back to 100K, the compromise number. Jesse Grant and Hannah Grant have their own articles. Let's not push Grant's character or imply that Grant's personality he got from his mother. It gets into genetics. Personality is connected to genetics, but that goes beyond the scope of the article. Just put in Grant's personality without mentioning his parents. I don't want a revovling door of editing. The introduction seems to to be the focus right now. It should be reduced. Not expanded. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ASW, yes, "The musical chairs with the narrative is instability, itself". Thank you. After all that was said and done, however, no one has said what we do if we bring the article back down to 100k. Editors can't make contributions without removing other prose if we are to maintain this rigid 100k level. Once again, we will have to remove text to get back down to this 100k line in the sand. This after much text has been added by Rjensen, Cmguy777 and myself. Musical chairs. There is no way around that and we can't continue ignoring that reality. Trying to maintain the 100k level is what has made the article unstable and is the cause of this perpetual debate. Ignoring the 'exception' and 'editor discretion' clauses allowed for all guidelines has also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777, we can say Grant's character more resembles his mother's because that's what the sources say. Even if character was a biological DNA affair, which has been disproven, i.e.two children from the same parents can have completely different characters, we still say what the sources say. Period. As Coemgenus recently said, this article is about Grant, the man. Rjensen once said we should concentrate more on Grant's associations with people. But not his parents? Leaving out 'character', parents, etc, esp in a biography, is ridiculous. You need to stop trying to invent rules about covering the character of a subject, and leave the unfounded notions about DNA out of the debate. None of the sources mention DNA or genetics. Psychologists roundly agree that upbringing, or lack of it, is primarily responsible for character. Not biology. We say what the sources say, whether you agree with them or not. If there are conflicting accounts from sources, that is another matter entirely. None of them say Grant got his character because of DNA. All that was said is that Grant's character more resembled that of his mother, which, btw, is obvious to anyone half familiar with Grant and his family. Grant was quiet, unpretentious and reserved. So was his mother. His father was outspoken, loud and overly opinionated. By all accounts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I cited an article that says there maybe DNA sequences that make up character in a person. Historians are not scientists. We just don't want to go the hereditary route in this article. But to say Grant got this trait from his mom but he did not get this trait from his father, is to close to saying DNA was involved. This is not a fiction book nor pop psychology. Are any of the biographers of Grant psychiatrists ? Why go there ? It just adds speculation to the already over narrated article. Grant could get angry like his father. Now you are saying Grant was his mother. We can say Grant was quiet, unpretentious, and reserved. But please don't compare him to his mother. Grant was Grant. He was neither his father or his mother. He was Grant. As far as narration goes, the paragraphs should be under 200 words or less. It is possible to say more with less words. That is the art of history writing. This article needs more on Grant and less on psychology of personality. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You say leave psychology out of it, then hand us this. More on Grant? Yet you want to suppress any associations he had with the people that brought him up. i.e.His parents. Sounds like you're just arguing, once again. Btw, personality and character are two different things. Character pertains to doing what's right and wrong, etc. Personality can pertain to things that have nothing to do with character. Loud, hyper active, goofy, etc. In any case, none of this goes into the narrative -- we say only what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We can say what the sources say, no "pop psychology" involved. Please stop trying to make up rules. Also, where is it written that a given paragraph should be under 200 words? We're not writing for grade schoolers. Please stop trying to make up rules. The "art of history writing" involves words. Sometimes many are required, sometimes not. There is no rule there. There was not many words involved in the first place, only that Grant 'resembled' his mother in terms of character. We are not saying she is soley responsible. Please stop trying to make up unfounded rules. Again, we cover Grant and his association with people, esp his parents. There is no rule, or reason, that says we can't. Otoh, there is a rule about saying what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The article is overwritten. It needs to be reduced. The source I provided said extraversion was genetic. You said Grant was quiet like his mother. That would mean Grant did not get the extraversion genes from his father. You said his father was outspoken. Only you Gwillhickers want to expand the article that needs to be reduced. You are going against the grain. It is not needed to put personality into the introduction section. Why is there a need to push this ? You expanded the introduction to 6 paragraphs. An FA article should be 5 paragraphs, One can say more with less words. The 200 word limit in a paragraph is for two reasons: readability; and to reduce the narration in article. All of this is common sense. I am not a perfect editor. I don't claim to be. But I want what is best for the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Insert : You and I were in the process of debating one sentence in the lede, so I don't really appreciate it when you jump to another track and drag article size into the picture in the same breath, accusing me of wanting to expand the article esp since you have made plenty of contributions in the last couple of months. Look at your own edit history for this article. You add to the article far more than you delete, so kindly knock off the finger pointing. Also, you are still trying to push one of your invented rules. Good writing isn't contingent on a paragraph word count i.e.200 words. This is determined by the subject and the details involved. This is an article about Grant, the man, yet you feel mention of his character, the essence of the man, in the lede is out of order or "not necessary". That's absurd. Last, you tell us that "We can't ignore new sources, especially White, Chernow, and Calhoun." and then you turn around here and complain to me about "expanding" the article. Don't know how you expect to carry on a discussion when we constantly get 'YES we have NO bananas' from you at every turn. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Coemgenus. Respectfully, for the record, I do not recall ever having participated in the FA discussion for this article. I don't recall ever being invited. Please don't infer that my edits were in bad faith. New information, research, and perspective, will and should change an FA article for the better. We can't ignore new sources, especially White, Chernow, and Calhoun. I am in agreement the article needs to be reduced. I think the introduction had become literarily stagnant and needed to be changed. I do not favor a six paragraph introduction. My policy of 200 word paragraph would reduce the article size. Say more with less words should be this article's montra. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No It's not the people who want a good summary article that cause instability, it's the continued adding to it, which is also the cause of its continued bloat, as it inexorably grows and grows. Either come to terms with other editors opinions that you are not serving this article well by adding and not editing, or it will remain bloated, as well as unstable. Because a fair summary of the editing history goes 'we need to add' and the adding is done, regardless of objection, and then rinse and repeat, except now the next adding is done to an already bloated article, and the next time to a more bloated article, and the next time to a even more bloated article, and it just continues and continues and continues to bloat in its instability. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that analysis It's not the contributions that make an unstable article, esp since guidelines allows exceptions for exceptional articles. The instability occurs when you plaster head lines on the talk page and start the process of removing text to satisfy a guideline number. This will be the '10th' time this has occurred, and after it does, editors come back and begin adding text all over again. I keep asking what is to be expected when the article is back down to 100k, but this question is routinely ignored. Instead we get lectures about instability and the so called problem repeats itself. Also, it's not so much the size, it's the constant rewording, and I'm not talking about tweaks and occasional edits. Treating the article like one's personal sketch pad on a daily basis is the biggest factor to instability. And so the question remains: what do we do if we reduce the prose to 100k? Lock the article down? Play musical chairs, removing some text to allow for new material? Still no answer. If we can't provide a solution to this ever reoccurring 'problem' then we are only fanning the flames of instability, once again. Got solutions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
No. Changes to the talk page are not article instability. I have said what the solutions are, let people edit it down so it is no longer bloated and is instead is actually a well written article (my first choice is @Coemgenus:, who got the article to FAC), and determine that the article is good, so that it is not continuously in claimed need of being added to. All of the things that would have prevented this article from becoming Featured in the FAC review have come to pass, it's over-length and its instability. I am chagrined that I actually contributed to that review by trying to assure someone the article is stable, it is not, and the history of the ever increasing additions shows it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to changes in the Talk page. And you're still avoiding the question. What happens when we "edit down" the article to 100k. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you refer to talk page sections. I have not avoided the question, the instability stems from no agreement on what the article should contain, thus it is constantly being added to. When people as a group are satisfied with the article, it has a real chance of being well written and stable. It is not now, otherwise it would not keep being added to and changing.
-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Where have I referred to Talk page sections in terms of 'article' stability? And yes, you have avoided the question. How do we treat the article now that it's at 100k. No more contributions? Musical chairs? Locking horns like this isn't going to help matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The article should reflect modern research. I am for the 100k limit. New research can replace older research, not just adding more information. And then there is the narration technique of saying more with less words. This article can't cover everything. Books are authored on Grant that cover additional information and detail. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_40&oldid=929341908"