Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

African(-)American

In the lede the linked term African-American is spelled with a hyphen, however the title for this page is not hyphenated. Also, the two other occurrences of A.A. in the lede are not hyphenated. Btw, as we can see A.A. occurs three times in the lede, suggesting we might want to come up with more of a summary statement for this lede section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's hyphenated as an adjective, not hyphenated as a noun. Or that's how it's supposed to be, anyway. Things may have shifted around during various rewrites. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realize there was some grammatical rule(?) that says such terms get hyphenated when used as an adjective. Was that actually the thinking when the lede was authored? In any event, the linked term is not consistent with the title page. (Not a big deal but something to think about) Btw, the lede seems a bit long, i.e.five paragraphs. Realizing Grant's history is quite long and involved, we still might want to take a second look at it with this in mind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that was the thinking. We originally had them all the same (no hyphen, consistent with the article it links to), but someone along the way said it should be otherwise, so we changed it. And yes, the lede is long. It is the result of tons of give-and-take consensus building, which makes me reluctant to tinker with it. Surprisingly, no one at FAC thought that part was too long. So maybe it's OK? I don't know. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can well appreciate the pause here. If it were up to me there would be no limits for anything, just so long as the content is definitive, well covered, not redundant and has consensus. These ideas would automatically determine length -- not some 'one-size-suits-all' number for all the millions of diverse articles here at WP. Anyways, along with renewed evaluation for using A.A. three times in the lede below is another suggestion to help curb lede length.

Proposal to condense two statements

In the lede historical/critical analysis occurs in both the second and final paragraphs. Below are the two statements respectively.

• Historians have hailed Grant's military genius, and his strategies are featured in military history textbooks, but a minority contend that he won by brute force rather than superior strategy.[1]

• Grant's critics take a negative view of his economic mismanagement and his failed Dominican Republic annexation treaty, while admirers emphasize his concern for Native Americans and enforcement of civil and voting rights.[2]

Suggest we condense the two statements and place the resultant statement at the end of the lede.

Proposal :

• Historians have hailed Grant's military genius, but a minority contend that he won by brute force rather than superior strategy,[1] while his presidency was criticized for its economic mismanagement, corruption while praised for its concerns for minorities and voting rights.

{Add : If the condensed proposal is too lean then we still could take both the existing statements and place them at the end, which is typically the practice. i.e.Commentary usually comes last.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Gwillhickers. How about this modification ? :

• "Historians have hailed Grant's military genius, but a minority contend he won by brute force rather than superior strategy,[1] while critical of his presidency for economic mismanagement and corruption, his concern for Indians and enforcement of African American civil rights has received praise." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the statement by itself looks good, but it introduces yet a fourth occurrence of African American to the lede. As ledes go, can't we just say minorities and let the body of text cover the separate details? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks Gwillhickers. Here is a second modification:

• Historians have hailed Grant's military genius, but a minority contend he won by brute force rather than superior strategy,[1] while critical of his presidency for economic mismanagement and corruption his concern for minorities and voting rights has received praise." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, though we might want to say ...concern for minorities and voting rights for all has received praise.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As one run-on sentence, it's confusing. The passive voice is also creeping in too much. I'd say "Historians have hailed Grant's military genius, but a minority contend he won by brute force rather than superior strategy. Critics note his administration's economic mismanagement and corruption, while others praise his concern for Indians and freedmen." --Coemgenus (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comegenus' version is acceptable... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I second that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Department and Army of the Tennessee

Grant's offical department name was The Department and Army of the Tennessee commander from October 16, 1862 to October 24, 1863. Source: The Civil War Home Page Cmguy777 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shiloh section clean up

I have cleaned up some of the Shiloh section information adding Bonekemper (2012) Grant and Lee and Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union. The number of Union soldiers fighting and Grant's divisions were added for clarifiation. Since the Shiloh section is controversial I recommend putting references after every sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)