Talk:James A. Garfield/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Final review for GA

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

James A. Garfield article nominated for GA. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I will copy edit the last bits of new material and keep an eye out for developments. Good luck :) --Diannaa (Talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa! Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Citation error

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

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

Removed Garfield 1882 $20.00 Gold Certificate sentence and source.

The following was removed due to a dead link.

James Garfield was featured on the series 1882 $20 Gold Certificate,[1] a currency note considered to be of moderate rarity and quite valuable to collectors.

  1. ^ Orzano, Michele. "Learning the language". Coin World. November 2, 2004. Retrieved May 9, 2007.

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

Unsourced material

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

Garfield, NJ was created from the former East Passaic.

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

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

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

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

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

Are stamp images sufficiently significant to be included

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

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

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

As all Presidents are honored on US postage after they pass away, including one, usually the first stamp to honor the given President, is an ideal item for the legacy section. As this involves only one image there are no page length or space considerations to speak of. The postage stamp to the right, a memorial stamp, was issued only seven months after Garfield's assassination, a record. Lincoln's first stamp was issued one year after he was assassinated. The item is noteworthy as it is a national honor given to the president by the US government/Post Office department, and involves other history surrounding the president, reflecting the president's legacy quite uniquely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
As noted previously by a number of editors on other pages, 1) there are indeed space limitations which preclude inclusion of these images; and, 2) the quicker issuance of the stamp may arguably be a significant tribute to the post office, but not to the president. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That's an opinion that ignores the legacy that is (solely) responsible for Garfield appearing on the nation's postage. Garfield didn't appear on US postage simply because of some whim at the Post Office. -- Someone once recently mentioned to me (RfC) that the only reason the PO puts anyone's image on a stamp is to make money. Unfortunately that is largely true today. When I saw Bart Simpson (not even a real person) on a postage stamp I almost... However in the late 1800's (and early 1900's) the role of the PO department was just as important for people and business as are the telephone and internet today, and postage was almost as important (and was often used) as currency and is why the Post Master General was a presidential cabinet member. While the PO of late may be putting out frivolous stamp issues, still, no one can appear on US Postage unless they were great in some capacity (esp true in Garfield's time) and not until after they die. In any event, if space permits, it would be nice to see the item return to the page, or at least a mention of this item/event with a File:James Garfield2 1882 Issue-5c.jpg|link to the imageGwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Replaced estate marker with pic of Salmon Chase

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

Image review via mos images

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

I had recalled your comment (I can't remember where) that Garfield was not up to standard image wise for the GA; that prompted me to give it a go. I didn't have anything else in mind myself. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Some simple steps are:
  • Photo relevancy: Photos must be relevant to the section they're placed in. For example the Garfield family painting has nothing to do with the section it's in.
  • Image crowding: Too many pics in a small area that could sandwich text between them. I see much crowding in the assassination section and state funeral areas.
  • Photo captions should be at the bare minimum; just enough to explain what's going on.
I've only given you examples of what is wrong. There could be other areas that need attention as well. Brad (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Images removed and others adjusted per the above. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There are still too many pics in the article. The area listing judicial appointments has photos crashing into the tables and overlapping into sections. They really should be removed. Otherwise for a GA article everything seems ok. Brad (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Medical malpractice

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

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

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

Moved external links

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


Sewer gas, Garfield death, and porcelein toliets

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

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

Indian policy

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

Pythagorean theorem proof

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

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


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

Garfield or Hayes was first to use telephone

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

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

Garfield or Hayes was first to use telephone

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

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