Talk:Grover Cleveland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleGrover Cleveland 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 23, 2009.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 28, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 2, 2012, June 2, 2015, June 2, 2018, June 2, 2020, June 2, 2021, and June 2, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Restrictive / Non-Restrictive Clause[edit]

[...] the only president in American history to serve two nonconsecutive terms in office from 1885 to 1889 and from 1893 to 1897.

A COMMA (or a colon) SHOULD BE INSERTED - AFTER THE WORD "OFFICE." Otherwise, the sentence appears to be claiming that Cleveland was the only president to serve two nonconsecutive terms IN THOSE PERIODS OF TIME.

Andrew Johnson[edit]

I notice that the article says that Cleveland “was one of two Democrat presidents, followed by Woodrow Wilson in 1912, in an era when Republicans dominated the presidency between 1861 and 1933”. Why doesn’t Andrew Johnson count? He was registered with the Democratic Party while he was president. Opportunity Rover (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson was elected with the National Union Party. Dimadick (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he was still a registered Democrat, as he had been for decades. When he was President, he was seen as a Democrat president. He fought the Republicans, which culminated in the Republican Congress impeaching him. Also, he tried to get nominated by the Democratic Party for reelection.
I suppose from a certain perspective, the sentence in the article is true, but it seems misleading. Opportunity Rover (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they had party registration then, that's more of a 20th-century concept. He did spend most of his life in that party, though. If you want to be precise, though, you could change the "1861" to "1869" and the sentence works. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I should have used a different word. Changing the year seems like a good idea. I’ll do that. Opportunity Rover (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]