Talk:Chester A. Arthur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Chester A. Arthur is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Chester A. Arthur at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
WikiProject Biography / Military / Politics and Government (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject New York (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Civil War / Military history / Presidential elections / Presidents / Vermont (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Presidents (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Featured article Chester A. Arthur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Pejorative? Republican Political Machine[edit]

What is a Democratic Political Machine? What is a Republican Political Machine? Carmelmount (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Political machine. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

TFA?[edit]

With the upcoming presidential election, wouldn't this be a good candidate to run on the main page for Arthur's birthday (October 5th)?--Chimino (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical reputation.[edit]

I believe a "Historical reputation" section would be appropriate for the Chester A. Arthur article, particularly since historians seem to be impressed with his civil service record as an under rated President. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You already know how much I hate legacy sections, however they're named. But "I think they're stupid" is not a reason to keep it out, as far as I can tell. So, sure, I'll help come up with one. Let's hash it out here on the talk page first so we can get it in apple-pie order before adding it to the article. I've actually found few, if any, reviews of CAA's reputation, but I'd be glad to hear whatever you dig up. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Coemgenus. I believe that any U.S. President who has been in office long enough to affect Government policy needs some sort of historical evalutation, although, in a Wikipedia article this needs to be as brief as possible. Interestingly the author, James Greene Jr., just published today an analysis of Chester A. Arthur as President Here is the source: Greene Jr., James (October 17, 2012). "Gravespotting Chester A. Arthur". All Over Albany. Retrieved 10-17-2012.  . I used this source once for the description of Arthur's memorial tomb, however, I believe Greene could be useful for historical analysis, in addition, the article gives information on Arthur's grandchild, Gavin Arthur. Greene's article is written really well and I believe is the most up to date writing on Arthur's historical reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I would focus on Arthur assuming the office of Presidency underated, and having left the Presidential office highly respected by historians in terms of civil service and postal reform. In addition, Arthur created the modern Navy. Arthur was in general a quiet unassuming President and that this factor has signifigantly affected his popularity as President, according to Greene. Arthur did not have that "big ticket draw" type of personality. This could be a good starting point. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that James Greene, Jr. is a blog writer. I believe his article Gravespotting Chester A. Arthur is well written. I do have another source, John G. Sproat, that can back up Greene's assessments of Arthur. However, if Greene does not have enough historical weight then I do not object to Greene not being used as historical assessment. Can Greene's article Gravespotting Chester A. Arthur be used to describe Arthur's memorial tomb? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Unless Greene is a noted authority on the subject, or his blogging is overseen by a trusted publisher, I don't believe his blog-written comments are suitable as a source on Wikipedia, per WP:BLOGS. —ADavidB 08:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the blogs. They usually fail to satisfy WP:RS. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean removing Greene's description of Arthur's tomb at Albany Rural Cemetary? His article was documented with photos of Arthur's tomb. I believe Greene would be an appropriate source for this description. However, if other editors disapprove Greene as a source for the description of Arthurs tomb, that is fine. I do not believe that the description of Arthur's tomb requires historical analysis. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good book source for Chester A. Arthur historical reputation by Paul F. Boller, Jr (2007) The Leisurely Chester A. Arthur. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Fixed Removed Greene blog source and replaced with reliable New York Times source. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In terms of Arthur's historical reputation I believe there could be three areas of discussion. One is that Arthur was a man of high tastes and standards even as President of the United States. The other was that Arthur was under rated as President, yet he surprised his critics by advocating and enforcing Civil Service Reform. A third area, I suppose, would be Arthur's signing of the Chinese exclusion act, that I believe remained in effect until the 1940's. I know much of this is covered in the lede section, but possibly can be viewed from other historical perspectives in the historical reputation section. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this?
Chester A. Arthur was a man of impeccable taste and enjoyed the finer things in life, even while President of the United States. Prior to becoming President, Arthur was known as a classic Gilded Age politician who was a strong advocate of the patronage system. Having assumed the Presidential Office after President James A. Garfield's assassination by the hands of a deranged office seeker, President Arthur became a champion of civil service reform by signing, enforcing, and expanding the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. President Arthur also prosecuted and shut down corruption in the Postal Service known as the Star Route Scandal. President Arthur's signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese U.S. citizenship up until 1948. President Arthur realized the importance of a modern Navy reforming and strengthening U.S. naval presense around the world. Arthur was an extremely private man and desired that his personal life be kept from the public. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not about his historical legacy, though, it's just a condensed version of the article. We already have that in the lead paragraph. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

With all do respect, I thought this was suppose to be a cooperative effort. No one except myself has made any effort on Arthur's historical reputation and all I get is criticism. I have improved his memorial section and no one seemed to have any interest in that either. I was expecting more enthusiam in Arthur's historical reputation and his memorials. Maybe people don't care about Chester A. Arthur, but I do. He was President of the United States, kept the U.S. out of war, a fiscal conservative, and he established civil service reform. Even if this has been stated in the article, I believe this information belongs in his historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

When I rewrote this entire article last year, this question came up at the FA nomination. Here's what I wrote then:

I would like to avoid a Legacy section, if possible. The sources don't really provide much information on a legacy, possibly because most Americans know almost nothing of Arthur or his works, so anything I wrote would verge on original research. There's not much legacy to speak of. Those sections usually end up being just lists of non-notable stuff named after him. Among the FAs of Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes has no legacy section. Coolidge has a legacy section without the name here, and it's not good. Cleveland has an "honors and memorials" section that is also mediocre. I'd just as soon do without. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The reviewers agreed with me. I think it still holds true today, unless you know of some scholar who's written an new analysis of Arthur in American memory since then. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Gilded Age politicians -- and I share that enthusiasm -- but it doesn't create an historical reputation where none exists. Whether we believe he should have greater renown is immaterial; he doesn't, and Wikipedia articles only report the scholarship as it is, not as we wish it would be. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I respect your sentiment Coemgenus. Arthurs historical reputation is one of an honest President, who had a somewhat lax work ethic, extremely private, and who knew how to throw parties. I gave the Boller link as an example. Boller refers to Arthur as the leisure President. Arthur looked like a President. I would say expansion of the U.S. Navy, Civil Service Reform, and the Chinese Exclusion Act that kept Chinese from gaining U.S. citizenship until 1948 are worth repeating. However, I am not going to push the Legacy section. In the meantime, I can work on finding appropriate sourced information if any that addresses Arthur's historical reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Zachary Karabell (2004), Chester A. Arthur, does specifically address Arthur's reputation in the Epilogue section starting on page 139. Karabell states that Arthur's reputation did not decline or fall, rather "disappeared". Historians have ignored Arthur as President. Karabell states that Arthur among all Presidents transended party politics, "Physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." I believe Karabell's assessment of Arthur would be a good place to start for a historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Potential edit[edit]

" Although Chester A. Arthur was admired by the American public after his death in 1886, his historical reputation virtually disappeared. During his lifetime, Arthur had neither inspired great devotion nor great revulsion. Arthur had loyaly worked his way up through Republican ranks, and out of duty accepted the Vice President nomination in 1880. However, upon assuming the Presidential office in 1881, after the assassination of James A. Garfield, Arthur unexpectantly trascended party politics more then any other President. According historian Zachary Karabell, although President Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country. " Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not sure there's enough there. All we really have is Karabell saying that Arthur's reputation disappeared. So, the legacy section is one statement: there's no legacy. The rest is a slightly POV recitation of the facts stated in the lead and the article's body. You say in the first sentence that he was greatly admired (which, after reading Reeves and Howe, I can't agree with) and then in the next sentence say he "neither inspired great devotion nor great revulsion". Which is it? My own recollection from the sources was that Democrats mostly disliked him, and that much of his own party thought him corrupt and, by 1884, irrelevant. They denied him the nomination, after all. Real reformers like Edmunds and Schurz, found him insufficiently reformist, Stalwarts felt betrayed even by his half-hearted embrace of reform, and Half-Breeds were for Blaine, first, last, and only. Instead of saying that he "unexpectedly transcended party politics", it might be more accurate to say that party politics had no use for him after 1881. Just my opinion, of course. But, again, all we have is one statement by an historian, which is that the man was soon forgotten. I'll see if Reeves or Howe has more to say, if I have time this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there may be a start here. I suppose not having a historical reputation is having a historical reputation. At least Karabell attempted to make an assessment of Arthur. Karabell was stating both were true that Arthur was not expressly loved nor hated, somewhere in between. That is what made Arthur "irrelevant" after 1884. Karabell did make an astute statement, that Arthur, although physically ill, persisted in doing the right thing for the country. FDR is often praised for being paralyzed and being President. Arthur suffered from Brights disease and continued to be President of the United States. Boller emphasizes Arthur's taste for high living at the White House, a subject not addressed in the article. Schurz had critisized Arthur for not stopping William W. Dudley for claiming Civil War pensions would be expedited if veterans voted for Blaine and Logan in 1884 during an election year . Historian George F. Howe (1934) maintains that Arthur did not do anything against Dudley to keep the Republican Party from splitting. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Another point of view is that Arthur was a flamboyant Easterner, not in the same category as mid-western Republicans, who apparently were dominating the Republican Party, including Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Arthur's high tastes may have clashed with mid Western conservative lifestyles. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Gregory J. Dehler (2007), Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician And President may be a good source on Arthur's historical reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a modified version. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Prior to assuming the presidential office, Arthur was known as a well dressed, elegant, eastern Stalwart protégé spoils man of Roscoe Conkling. Arthur, as President, however, surprised his critics when he became a champion of Civil Service Reform signing into law, enforcing, and expanding the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. President Arthur distinguished himself from mid western Republicans who dominated the Republican Party by throwing extravagant parties at the White House and wearing expensive clothing. Arthur looked like a President; having cherished the leisure life his work hours were less then his predecessors. Arthur's reputation after leaving office virtually disappeared; reformers denounced him for not going far enough, while he had ostracized his Stalwart friends by vigorously prosecuting the corruption in the Star Route Scandal. During his lifetime, Arthur who had focused primarily on working within the ranks of the Republican Party, did not inspire great devotion. Historian Zachary Karabell maintains that although President Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of the same as the last one -- one sentence by an historian about Arthur's non-reputation, and the rest just restating facts from the article. There's no need for a high school book report-style conclusion paragraph. Between the lead and the body, much of this is already said -- twice! As for Dehler, I'd stay away from it. It appears to be a regurgitation of other scholars' wrok, published by a vanity press. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that repetition should be cut out from any historical assessment and that Dehler is unreliable as a source. I believe Karabell's assessment is accurate that Arthur's reputation disappeared and that Arthur overcame physical illness to serve as President. I do not believe those issues have been covered in the article nor Arthurs flamboyant lifestyle distinction from dominant mid western politians as Boller has pointed out. There is one more source that could help this discussion: Col. Crook (1910), Through Five Administrations, pp. 276-280. Crook pointed out that Arthur turned the White House into the Court of American diplomacy. This was unprecedented. Arthur looked like a president and he put "courtesy, tact, and skill" into White House social functions. Crook also contends that Arthur was a haughty President who stood over six foot tall most men straight as a rail. That is a different assessment that I do not believe is covered in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Refined edit:
Arthur, a former spoilsman politician, was not a popular President and his reputation after leaving office disappeared completely. However, during Arthur's tenor as President, important matters of the nation got done or were handled adeptly while his Administration remained free from major scandals. Arthur, in an unprecedented move, turned the White House into the Court of American diplomacy, and his eleborate Washington D.C. social functions were handled with "courtesy, tact, and skill". Arthur looked like a President standing tall above most men "straight as a rail" displaying a haughty appearance in the finest clothes that could be bought. This was different from previous mid western Presidents who had occupied the office. Although Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel like we're talking past each other. Other than Karabell's commentary, this is all a restatement of the article. Arthur's taste for high living is discussed in the section about his time as Collector. His health is discussed toward the end of the Presidency section. And whatever Crook thought of Arthur's diplomatic efforts (and is that Gen. George Crook?) what he says is at odds with the scholars' assessment of Arthur's foreign policy, which completely reversed Garfield's and Blaine's efforts at a greater international role for the country. What remains? That he was tall? I seem to recall reading that somewhere, so maybe we should add it to the article, I guess, but it's fairly trivial. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That is Col. William H. Crook who served on the White House staff through five administrations. I do not believe the article mentions Arthur's grand banquets or that his looks were different then that of his mid western predecesors. Crook stated that statecraft according to Arthur had to do with presentation in addition to politics. Arthur got things done. Crook stated that Arthur was not popular because he was haughty and believed he could do no wrong. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision 01:

Arthur was not a popular President and his reputation after leaving office disappeared completely. Standing "straight as a rail" above most men, Arthur took on a haughty regal appearance. Arthur believed that statecraft was dependent on fine living standards; taking extra efforts in his grand banquets at the White House. President Arthur reversed Secretary Blaine's and President Garfield's attempt at an active U.S. foriegn policy. Although Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to flesh this out with other suitable sources, though as discussed previously, they're scarce. Correct the policy spelling to "foreign", and change "; taking" to "; he took" or " and he took", and I think Revision 01 will suffice for now. —ADavidB 08:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Only the first and last sentences really add anything new. Are they both sourced to Karabell? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am open to using the first and last sentences. The first sentence is sourced to Karabell and Crook. The second sentence is Karabell. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative edit 01:
Arthur was not a popular President and his reputation after leaving office disappeared completely. Known for his regal appearance and haughty behavior, Arthur was an effective administrator. Although Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Segment added[edit]

I finally added the Historical reputation segment. I used Boller (2007), Karabell (2004), and Crook (1910) as references. Please feel free to make any edits or add to any discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I tightened the language a bit. I'm still dubious about Crook as a source -- it's a memoir, not an historical source -- and I don't see what Arthur's height and manner of dress had to do with his historical reputation. I'll look in Reeves today to see if a more scholarly assessment can be added instead. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I put Crook (1910) in the article was that he was personally in the White House and had met Chester A. Arthur. Reeves, a great scholar, had never met Arthur or had known him on a daily encounter. I believe Crook is a valid historical source. Crook stated that Arthur was a good administrator and that that Arthur was not popular as President. I believe the part that Arthur's critics viewed him as a playboy needs to be kept in the reputation section. Boller (2007) and Karabell (2004) are recent sources. Please feel free to edit the historical reputation section Coemgenus. Thanks for the narration improvement. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Actually meeting the person doesn't necessarily give a more nuanced and measured view. As an historian, Reeves looks at many sources and writes about how the nation perceived Arthur. Crook looks at how Crook perceived Arthur. His impressions tell us more about Crook than they do about Arthur. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point of view Coemgenus. I believe if you actually meet someone and work under someone, first hand experience, you get a good sense of the person. I agree that Crook was writing from a White House staff position. I believe one can say for any historian, that their work(s) tends to tell something about the historian, in addition to giving an evaluation of historical perspective. If Reeves gives a better perspective then Crook on Arthur, then I have no issue with replacing the Crook source with the Reeves source. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I found some things in Reeves and Howe that I'll add pretty soon. Here's the larger point I wanted to make: if you were writing a book on Arthur, a secondary source, a primary source like Crook might show you something. All it would show you was what Crook thought, but that, combined with everything else, all the other research into Arthur's life and times, would give you the material to make a good secondary source. When writing an encyclopedia, however -- a tertiary source -- what we should be aiming at is not to do the work of professional historians (for which neither you nor I are qualified, and for which this encyclopedia is not a platform) but to combine the best secondary sources out there into a distilled article. Shorter version: the pros have already incorporated the primary sources in their work; it's our job to incorporate their works into a tertiary source. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe Crook might be somewhere in between a primary and secondary source since he was giving his own interpretation of each President he worked under. I am all for tertiary sources that are well researched with valid sources. With that said, I believe even tertiary sources can have bias in their approach to evaluating a historical figure such as Arthur, although I would expect that bias would be minimalized. Thomas Jefferson would be a good example of divergent tertiary interpretation; both pro Jefferson and anti Jefferson perspectives in terms of Jefferson's views on slavery and race in terms of whether Jefferson was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Yes. I have no issue with replacing Crook with any evaluation from Howe or Reeves. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If you're saying the Jefferson article is a freaking mess: I couldn't agree more. Thankfully, people don't get that excited over Chester Arthur! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I added the Howe and Reeves parts to show the full historiography and rearranged a few things. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good edit Coemgenus! I believe historical analysis offers some closure to the article. Thanks. The Jefferson article was extremely difficult to edit since their are so many various opinions on Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of Mark Twain quote[edit]

IP User 89.156.251.186 has decided to remove a cited quote twice ([11], [12]) from the lede of this page, "Mark Twain wrote of him, '[I]t would be hard indeed to better President Arthur's administration'" using the edit summary "Unneeded, anecdotal, and inappropriate for lede". I disagree with this removal and would like to discuss why the quote has been removed. IMHO, the quote represents a view held by an important opinion leader; this quote is evaluative, not anecdotal. I would urge the ip editor to make his or her case here. BusterD (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reinserted the quote, since no argument has been made here for removing it. While I concede the quote wasn't present in the FA version of this page, it has been a part of the introduction to this page for well over a year and hasn't been considered controversial or dubious until this one ip editor's action. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I could take it or leave it. I think it adds little, but it's sourced and doesn't make the article worse. <shrug> --Coemgenus (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As the person who put it in, I vote yes. I think it's interesting and relevant. IronDuke 19:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: 'political affiliation'[edit]

"Political party Republican (1854–1886) Other political affiliations Whig (Before 1856)"

Should the first line not read "..(1856-1886)? Harfarhs (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They should match now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)