Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Grant quote

I just added a revealing quote that pegs Grant's feelings about assuming the presidency, hitherto missing in the biography. It's cited by White, 2016. Hope it sits well with all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's good, and not too long. Nice addition. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New(er) source

There's a somewhat new source for Grant (and Lee), Davis, 2014, that editors might want to look into. Added it to the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant.

  • Davis, William C. (2014). Crucible of Command. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-82245-2. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Grant's second term

DYK, that the date Grant was sworn in for his second term, March 4, 1873, was not mentioned? There was no account of this event. e.g. Being sworn in by Salmon Chase, etc. Just added a brief account of this, per White, 2016. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I returned coverage of the second term ceremony at the beginning where it chronologically belongs, which is consistent with coverage of Grant's first swearing in ceremony -- mentioned at the beginning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No. That's not chronological and no in 1868 we discuss the election before the swearing in, so this would have to go at the end. I have taken it out, so we can discuss it, beginning with why we really need it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Grant was sworn in for the second time in 1873. Where are you getting 1868 from? Also, there is no need to discuss a simple and major fact, like that of Grant being sworn in as president. We don't have to discuss the reason for mentioning the date of inauguration anymore than we would have to discuss his date of birth. Mention of the date of 2nd inauguration was missing. Also, a few words from Grant that set the tone for his second term should be welcomed. We're writing a biography, not an outline of events. As a compromise I'll put the passage back where you last placed it and we can go from there if there are issues that need to be discussed. Please don't revert unless necessary. Inclusion of this major and important date and fact certainly did not actually make the article worse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up the first swearing in. I was pointing out that there, we discuss the election (1868) before the swearing in. So following that, that would place the second swearing in after the discussion of the 2nd election - so, at the end of that section (chronologically). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. There are some other issues regarding coverage of the election and the beginning of Grant's second term, but that would involve discussion, and it seems we should get present issues ironed out before we go there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much it adds, which in an article this oversized is argument enough for its exclusion. Why talk about speeches when we can (and already do) talk about what Grant actually did? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Grant's own words, as highlighted in mainstream scholarship, (White, 2016) say plenty about his objectives at the onset of his second term. Grant's feelings and definitive quotes on major topics, like his presidency, are very important to a biography and get top priority. You thought the first quote I added was good, as it pegged Grant's feelings on the onset of his first term. His second term has been treated the same. Thought this would be welcomed by you especially. While the date of inauguration is imperative, the quote in question is only a sentence long. Are you suggesting that from now on nothing else be added to this article because of page length? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Cm', in your last edit you changed gold to "coin". The lede in the Public Credit Act of 1869 says The Public Credit Act of 1869 in the USA states that bondholders who purchased bonds to help finance the Civil War (1861 – 1865) would be paid back in gold. The phrase originally said "...bondholders would be repaid in "gold or its equivalent" . Coin is the equivalent. I would change coin back to gold. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, the law says "coin or its equivalent" not "gold or its equivalent". Here is the source: An Act to strengthen the public credit March 18, 1869 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Well hey, chalk one up for primary sources! The article was wrong. Good leg-work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
White (2016) mentioned "gold or its equivalent" Practically speaking he was correct since Boutwell paid off the Treasury bonds by selling gold. The law was not specific on what type of coin, gold or silver. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Economic primary sources

These primary sources might give better understanding of what these laws actually did. I could not find the primary source for the "Resumption of Specie Act 1875". Cmguy777 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources are great for deepening your own understanding, but for this article we should continue to use secondary sources and mainstream scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Even though primary sources are allowed sometimes, and as much as I love them, we should opt for mainstream scholarship whenever possible. What did you have in mind Cm'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Not if the secondary sources or "scholarship" is inaccurate or misleading, such as Simpson's review of McFeely's biography on Grant. White (2016) on page 478 misquoted the 1869 Public Credit Act...The Act said "coin or its equivalent" not "gold or its equivalent". Primary sources will help the article become neutral. Obviously Boutwell redeemed the treasury bonds in gold. Was that gold bars or gold coins ? Primary sources can help the reader and editors. Wikipedia does not forbid primary sources in its articles. Primary sources can be used to verify the scholarship, not just for "personal" understanding. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, any source can have bias, even primary sources. The concern however should be, is the bias misleading? Anyway, I don't think anyone wants to stonewall you here Cm', at least not me. I can't speak for Coemgenus, but his words simply appear to be cautionary. If there comes a time where a primary source may be able to correct a secondary source, at least we should make an inquiry into the matter. Having said that, another good way to check on the neutrality or correctness of a secondary source is simply to compare it to other secondary sources. Article improvement. Did you have something from a primary source that may improve the article specifically? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not saying the scholarship is faulty concerning the Gold Standard. But primary sources can verify the secondary sources. The Credit Act of 1869 says coin which could mean either gold or silver coinage. Obviously from Boutwell's actions gold was meant. White (2016) quoted the law as saying "gold or its equivalent. Equivalent means "stamped bars" rather then "coin". Cmguy777 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Fine by me Cm'. Right now we have unfinished business to attend to. Trying to stay focused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Another great primary source

Summary of involved editors positions

@Coemgenus, Alanscottwalker, Cmguy777, and Gwillhickers: I am thankful that this discussion, though protracted, shows signs of remaining civil and even improving in that department. I am also thankful that involved editors invited outsiders to help reach a consensus (see next section). I hereby return the favor, and invite the involved editors to summarize their point of view here. Specifically, (1) Should this information be included? (2) What is the best wording for it? and (3) Where to put it? and (4) What are the best references to use? I suggest the following templates might be helpful

  • Support inclusion of (describe) because (give reason). I believe the best wording is "(write it out)". I think it should go (state where). The sources I'd include are (list/describe). I would exclude these sources: (list/describe). ~~~~
  • Oppose inclusion of (describe) because (give reason). But if were included, the wording (give an example or list specific must-includes or must-not-includes). If it were to appear, it should go (state where). The sources I'd include are (list/describe). I would exclude these sources: (list/describe). ~~~~

These are just examples, I hope they are helpful, but you aren't required to follow them. But I will insist on this ground rule: No threaded discussions. State your best case briefly and succinctly so that it stands on its own without reference to others. I also humbly suggest that you cease the protracted discussions elsewhere on this page. You are unlikely to sway each other. But if you put your best foot forward here, it is your best chance to influence the previously uninvolved editors. Thank you for your passion to make this encyclopedia great! YBG (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions

YBG Why do you support use of the Time magazine article, when it has been shown to be incorrect and contain nonsense, above? Also, why do you support use of the second source when it does not support the sentence and refers to a "national holiday" but there is no national holiday in the law? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see my comment above and respect my desire to avoid extended argumentation. Thank you. YBG (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This section head, question and answer was moved back to its original location in an attempt to undo unwarranted talk page refactoring. The section head was promoted to ==level 2== as it was not in the scope of the section it was originally inserted into nor was it in the scope of the section it was moved into. YBG (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

More about sources

beginning of section moved
end of section moved
The above four bullets were moved here as they did not appear to be in the scope of the section into which they had been added. I added a ==level 2== header to separate it from the material before and after. I have added these comments to document what I have done. As all the information is by Gwillhickers, it is really up to that editor to decide the fate of this information -- e.g., stay here or move someplace else or deleted entirely. If it is deleted or moved someplace else, my surrounding comments should be removed. If it stays here, Gwillhickers is free to remove my surrounding comments. Thank you! YBG (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Please do not refactor my talk page comments without my permission. Thank you. YBG (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_25&oldid=767993500"