Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Christmas holiday Ron White article

Not trying to bring back any controversy, I believe Ron White, the same author of Grant's 2016 Grant biography says that Grant made Christmas a legal holiday. I am not advocating admitting to the article unless there is editor concensus. Here is the article in the Opinion section: Remember it was a President, Ulysses S. Grant, who made Christmas a national holiday Ron White (December 23, 2017) New York Daily News. If editors believe this has enough historical weight to be in the article I do not object to inclusion in the article. Please, let us not argue like last year. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Since this is sourced by White, and since making Christmas a national holiday was largely done to reunite the states, perhaps this would work well in the Reconstruction section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I would put it in the Presidency introduction. It was not a direct measure of Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
While Christmas per se was not necessarily written into any Reconstruction code, it was still conceived and promoted largely in that light. According to White: Grant’s commitment to making Christmas a legal holiday needs to be understood as part of his drive to unite the North and the South after the war.  If we're going to present this topic contextually we need to do more than just say 'Grant made Christmas a holiday' in the introduction of the main section. White presented the idea nicely with one sentence so we should be able to also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be agreement in putting the sentence into the article. Coemgenus has not responded. It is just a question of where. What you are saying is true, but Grant's motivation for signing this into law, was not written into the law, so it really was not an official Reconstruction document. Also, White says that Christmas was just beginning to be popular in American society. I had watched the CMA Country Music Christmas, and it seems Christmas is a big deal in the South. Reba is from Oklahoma. She hosted the show. Alan Jackson is from Georgia. He was on the show. The show was in Nashville Tennessee. It is ironic that the person who officially started Christmas in America, was so poor he had to sell his gold watch to pay for Christmas. These are just my opinions. I don't think it belongs in the Reconstruction section. The Holiday only applied to federal workers. But for its time, and there were other holidays Grant made official, that workers got to go home and be with their families, it was a progressive law. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an official holidaty for Federal workers, but it still was largely an effort to reunite the states. Grant very well couldn't mandate that everyone 'not work' on Christmas. Talk later. Good will towards all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It's sourced, but I still think it's undue weight for an article of this size. I mean, White didn't even put it in his book! --Coemgenus (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
White does not offer any evidence that Christmas united both the North and South, such as Southerner participation in Christmas. I had mentioned the CMA Country Christmas 2017. It would give more weight to his view Grant desired to unite the North and South. I think it has enough weight to mention in the Presidency introduction section. It was not a Reconstruction law. The law was progressive in terms of labor, a federal worker had four holidays to take off work and be with family, Christmas, Thanksgiving, The Fourth of July, and New Year's Day. I am not sure right now there is enough editor concensus for admission in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
According to McCarthy (2000) Southerners had accepted Christmas before the 1870 law Grant had signed. The North possibly was accepting Southern tradition more than the South accepting a Northern tradition. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
White, 2016, is a major source used extensively throughout the biography, which mentions many bills signed by Grant, yet we mention these things for the sake of the history buff and/or student of history. There's no content issues here, so we should mention this, along with the other holidays that officially became federal holidays. i.e.4th of July, Thanksgiving and New Years day. White doesn't mention the holidays in his book, among a number of other things, but this major biographer thought it fit to soon published coverage of this topic in an editorial in a major and recognized newspaper, par with its historical weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Coemgenus - feel free to see if it fits in the presidency article and in the various holiday articles. As we know, this is something that the press occasionally highlights at the holiday or in holiday books - it's not highlighted in biography. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be no editor concensus on this topic. Grant's "Christmas" law created four legal holidays for federal workers. That is four days off work regardless of a persons faith or beliefs. I will agree with Gwillhickers that White is a solid source reference outside of his biography on Grant. It is not that we are promoting Christmas in itself, it is more that federal workers don't have to come to work. White says that Grant wanted Christmas to unite the nation. Would the article be more neutral by adding the "Christmas" holiday to balance say Grant's prosecution of the Klan ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Last year when we debated the issue the main reason it was blocked from the article was because the source was not considered good enough. Now that that's been solved there's no reason to keep the statement from the article. White also ties this topic in with uniting the formally divided states, giving the topic historical context, allowing further insights into this unstable time period. More than a dozen Bills are mentioned here in the main biography, involving topics most readers have never heard (or care much) about, while dozens of topics here are cited by sources that are not Grant biographers. The topic deserves at least a couple of sentences of coverage, perhaps in the reconstruction section, but we could however just make a simple statement, somewhere, and if anyone's so inclined, cover the topic in greater depth in the presidency article. Given the split consensus this would be a fair compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know this is still an active law. I think in this case less is more. How about just a simple statement, "Grant signed a proclamation making Christmas a national holiday on June 24, 1870." No mention of Reconstruction, just a statement of fact. I would put this in the Presidency introduction. No interpretations. I don't think the sentence can be reduced any more. Is that a compromise ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to say anything at all we should do it with a statement that belongs in a Featured Article. We should say what White says in regards to Grant's hopes of uniting the country, which is not at all a reaching or bizarre interpretation. Mention of all four holidays would be best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but I was only trying to get editor consensus. Right now I don't think there is any. I think Grant was trying to bind the nation culturally, yet from a labor view, Grant is giving federal workers, four days off. That in itself is groundbreaking. I think the main contention is that the Christmas holiday does not have enough weight to be in the article. Grant seemed to be more liberal in his first administration and more conservative in his second administration. Probably because of his reliance on Fish. I think that the addition would make the article more neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Charles Dickens may have had some influence on Christmas becoming a holiday when he visited Boston in 1867. America was evolving culturally. Charles Dickens once gave an epic reading of ‘A Christmas Carol’ in Boston. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a neutrality issue. It would seem that the establishment of the national holidays had/has more weight in the eye of the average American than most of the other bills we already cover. Grant realized it was going to take more than Reconstruction laws to bring the country together. Recognition of the four holidays was something almost everyone shared, regardless of politics or race. The effort to reunite the country is part of Grant's legacy. White covered the topic in a national news forum, giving the topic as much weight as many of the other topics in his biography, save Appomattox, etc. We need a proposal that mentions the holidays in context with Grant's hopes for the country. Chernow says Grant's great hope for uniting the country was demonstrated at Appomattox, when he let the Confederate's return home with their horses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you Gwillhickers, except on that there is a neutrality issue. It is just that two editors do not think there is enough historical weight for inclusion. Grant is viewed as the uncaring President who vetoed the inflation bill and established a de facto gold standard. That Grant established a holiday or holidays as law takes some of the rough edges of Grant. Yes. Grant wanted to unite the nation. Chernow and White are solid sources. It is a matter of getting editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning the establishment of the four holidays in the context proposed poses no neutrality issues. Are you interested in a compromise proposal, per policy?" Mentioning any established and sourced fact will pose no neutrality issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I never said it would propose a neutrality issue. I said that the addition of Grant starting Christmas holiday, would make the article more neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not really a neutrality issue. The article is neutral with or without the statement. When there is a split consensus, is it fair to let just one side have their way? Several times you raved about "editor control" when consensus was against you. Here we are with a perfectly even consensus and you don't seem very concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Not concerned? I am the editor who started this discussion. The concensus is 2 to 2. I was trying to reach a compromise. The other editors have not really responded concerning a compromise. Four holidays where given to federal workers. Grant looked pretty cold when he vetoed the deflation bill. That is the neutrality issue. There is enough weight for inclusion in my opinion. Is there a way to reach a compromise with the other editors ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
We should mention all four holidays, starting with New Year's day, etc, in the context of Grant's attempts to reunite the country, with a statement. While we're at it, we should emphasize Grant's hopes to reunite the country, which, according to sources, was strong even while he was a Commanding General. I too am reluctant to push this through with a marginal consensus, but at the same time am not pleased with the idea of no compromise. Lately all of us have made compromises. Hopefully we can continue to do so here in a manner that's not going to cause anyone to pull their hair out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I have been watching but I have not seen anything that changes my judgement, against, and I don't really have anything more to add to what I said previously. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree. That White didn't mention this in his entire book makes the case for undue weight, in my opinion. In the Presidency sub-article, it's more of a borderline case. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
White, a recognized biographer, devoted an editorial to this particular topic, which gives it weight in terms of reliable sources. It also has weight to the general reader, history buffs and inquiring students, more so than various other bills covered here. There's much that could be said about the bill and the events that led up to its signing during reconstruction. The four holidays were one of the few things that the north and south shared. Details like this would do well in the Presidency article. Cm's simple proposal has good historical context and would fit nicely into this biography, though I would mention all four holidays. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the compromise then is to put the "Christmas" holiday in the Grant Presidency article. In my opinion, White's opinion has the same weight as his book on Grant. White wrote the article, probably without "book editor" input. I have no idea how book publishing works or how any editors change the text or possibly direct the author in writing the text of the book. Any objections of putting this information in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

edit-break

Covering this topic in depth in the Presidency article wasn't the issue. Concern for reliable sources has been solved, we have White's account, giving the topic much weight, which in this case should be sort of self evident, given the four major holidays involved. A short statement, in context, is called for:

In an effort to reunite North and South Grant signed a proclamation on June 24, 1870, making New Year's Day, 4th of July, Thanksgiving and Christmas national holidays..

Also lacking in the Reconstruction section is any mention of Grant's strong hopes and ideas for reuniting the country. We mention Reconstruction efforts, politicians, civil rights and such, but no mention of the social rift between many of the people in the North and South that Grant as President was faced with, which the federal holidays were intended to alleviate. This context would greatly improve the Reconstruction section and we have the latest scholarship on Grant with which to accomplish it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is true Gwillhickers, but I don't think there is enough editor concensus to put in the bio article. I started this discussion to see if editors could have concensus on this issue. It's 2 to 2. More editor input is needed. For now there does not seem to be objection to putting Grant and the Christmas Holiday in the Presidency article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
So any time two editors say 'nay', and two say 'yea', the opposing editors get their way, completely? That's not how it works. According to policy we're supposed to work at a compromise. No one but you or I has even mentioned that word. This is not a controversial topic, so I don't understand this apparent unwillingness to work together. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
A compromise would be best. Yes. That is why I tried to go with the simplest wording that Grant started the Christmas Holiday. I think first it should be put in the Grant Presidency article using the White source. Probably to reach a compromise one more source would be needed for the Grant Bio article, most likely a reliable book source. I think it is signifigant. Dickens return to Boston and his dramatic reading of his Christmas Carol in 1868, really is what started the Christmas popularity in the North. It was already popular in the South, but maybe not as formalized. I think a simple sentence, not a section, on the subject is signifigant enough, for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is an op-ed article: How Christmas Got Its Start Paul H. Belz (December 25, 2017) Two sources White and Belz. No book sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the effort but Paul H. Belz is a relative nobody and could not stand as a Reliable Source on his own, as White can. Having said that, reliable sources are not always in book form, as White and other historians have often published via editorials and such. The name of the historian is the most important factor. i.e.Is he or she a recognized authority on the subject? The source and weight of the topic is not the real problem. Editor cooperation and following policy in situations like this is now the only issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Assuming you have read our comments, you must know, the source and its weight is the problem - arguing the same thing over and over, which has already been rejected has nothing to do with compromise. You have not carried your WP:ONUS, that's all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The source is White. Not a problem. As definitively explained by White, the onus here is quite obvious: Four federal holidays to reunite the country -- a major detail in Grant's presidency and Reconstruction efforts, giving it more onus than some of the other bills Grant signed. Otoh, no one has demonstrated that the topic "does not improve an article", not even a claim. Only a comment about the source not being in book form and published during the holiday season has been offered, a source that also covered the other three holidays. There is only partial rejection here -- we have a split consensus. In such cases policy demands we seek a compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
No. It does not improve the article, which is why it has been opposed. It's not included in Grant's biography, by White or anyone else. So White supports not including it in Grant's biography. And as I have mentioned before, we should have multiple high-quality biography sources including a topic before we give it any weight - because the alternative is a practically limitless biography article (source words on Grant easily run in the millions), included, here, solely based on the peculiarities and whatever catches the fancy of Wikipedia editors' in those millions and millions of words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's nothing 'peculiar' about this national event. The holidays were embraced by most if not nearly all Americans. That alone gives passage of the bill much historical weight. The four national holidays were proposed in an effort to reunite the North and South, reflecting Grant's hopes for the country. That too, all by itself, gives it much weight, so much so that White devoted an entire article to this one particular topic, giving it further weight. Thus far, your only argument against it is that White and other biographers didn't mention it in their books, suggesting that all sources/citations must be from Grant biographers, which as you should know is far from the case in this biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
No. It's extremely peculiar - it's not covered in multiple high quality biography. Not even by White. It's not covered because it just does not have weight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Nothing has been added to the article. This is only a discussion. It's not a repeat because two recent articles by White (December 23, 2017) and Belz (December 25, 2017) have been cited. It can be argued that White's article has more weight than his book on Grant (2016) free from Random House publisher interference or bias. All I was looking for is concensus on the matter, not to have editors going at it with each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree. The topic was/is non controversial, the proposal was fair, and the compromise was/is brief, contextual and more than fair, so I too don't quite understand this rigid opposition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Also cited in this discussion: Charles Dickens once gave an epic reading of ‘A Christmas Carol’ in Boston Dialynn Dwyer (December 15, 2017) Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that was only a proclamation. What Grant signed on June 24, 1870 was an actual law making Christmas and the three other holidays legal days off. That is four holidays when federal workers don't have to go to work and have free time for themselves and/or family. It appears that unless it is in a book it does not have enough weight. I think what is being argued is that Christmas holiday and the other holidays do not have enough weight to be in the Grant bio article, as compared to Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussed in multiple high quality bio, actually. (And no, there is no reason whatsoever to even begin to think Random House prevented White from discussing it, sorry, the idea makes no sense.) Also, no one has said you are to blame for anything, you brought that here, and we responded. I assume you wanted us to give you our honest thoughts. That we do not agree, just means we do not agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the claim was made that because it is not in a book it does not have weight such as an editorial article by the same author. I don't speak for White, but he believed the subject important enough to discuss in his opinion article. As for Random House, there is no way to know how their books are published or what content is chosen for the books. The book is a Random House book. Did White just hand in his book and Random House put it in print without any editing or suggestions ? I only attempted to respond to the claim that articles do not have enough weight to be in a Wikipedia article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Grant biographer covers Grant and the Christmas holiday

Samuel Willard Crompton in his book, Ulysses S. Grant, 2009 mentions Grant and passage of the holiday. It's a "juvenille" book, but that doesn't mean it's not reliable with what information it offers. We now have two Grant biographers who cover this topic. The book on line has limited preview with no page numbers available, but it does tell us that at least two Grant's biographers mention this event. I just purchased the book on eBay. Should have it in about a week. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Another source

In yet another editorial Bill O'Riley, who has written books on the Civil War, and Lincoln, covers the event fairly well, mentioning that ... Ulysses S. Grant, believing he finally had a slam-dunk issue in which to unite a fractured country.." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I said high quality sources

And again you give me none. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, but we'll need more than that if you are still hoping we don't mention this event altogether, and you forgot to mention what constitutes a "high quality" source. White is among the best sources. Your other opinion, that because White didn't publish this information in a book, is reaching and by itself doesn't amount to anything, unless you can provide us with a source that says well known biographers can only be used as sources if their information is printed in a book. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No. We have been over what high quality bio sources are, and there is no point in going over it again. Give me multiple scholars writing scholarly work in biography. I whole heartedly agree with Coemgenus, last comment way above, so none of this should be new to you. White did not put it in his biography, so he does not even support putting it in 100's of pages of detailed biography, let alone general summary tertiary biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion again, but we'll need to see a policy that says well known biographers can not be used as a source unless it's printed in book form. We'll also need to see a policy that defines what a "high quality" source is, one that specifically mentions that good sources only come in one type of physical condition. i.e.a book. Again, White gives this topic more attention than he does numerous other topics mentioned in his book. And if you insist on using 'books only' as sources are you prepared to remove any topic that is not sourced by books? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

White gives it no attention in his biography, neither should we. And I assume CmGuy, opened this section to get our judgments. Scholars write in scholarly formats in books and journals with footnotes and endnotes even, everyone knows that. And both Coemgenus and I have given you our policy rationales. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
White is a scholar. His opinion is reliable. From what I read on book publishing is that authors submit three chapters to the publisher, an author has a book agent. The author writes a query letter to the publisher, "the market or audience your book is meant for", and a bio about the author. Then these publishers pay the author for the right to sell the book and make money. I would call that a business. Whether White did this I have no idea. We have no idea why White left it out of his book but put it in an opinion article. Here is a link. How to Publish a Book: An Overview of Traditional & Self-Publishing All I wanted to do is try to achieve concensus. I believe an opinion article by White is just as valid as a book by White. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
And as you know, I agree with Coemgenus, that he did not write it in his full biography makes the case that it is undue for Grant's full biography. And as I have implied, even if White had put it in the context of his full biography, his would be a singular voice, among the multiple biography we are to distill. I'd even accept multiple scholarly encyclopedia biography mentions, as we are writing a summary encyclopedia biography. (As an aside, White's books is hundreds of pages, he could have easily fitted it in -- but let's assume your worst case that it was edited out - that would just be evidence that it should be edited out of full biography).Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No double standards

You're asking demanding that the sourcing for this simple non controversial statement be held to a higher standard then the rest of the statements in the biography, many of which are not cited by Grant biographers, or with non-book sources, i.e.a double standard. That White didn't mention it in his biography means little by itself, esp since White, a recognized authority, devoted a dedicated article for this one single topic, giving it as much or more weight than many of the other topics he mentions. Grant's efforts in reuniting the people of the nation needs to be articulated in the Reconstruction section, which is totally lacking on that note. As explained, we mention civil rights, politicians, the kkk, etc, but nothing about Grant's hopes towards reuniting the people, which is an important perspective and a major detail. This has been explained several times now, but you keep falling back on your double standard, not supported by any policy -- not even a guideline. What policy does tell us is that statements must be backed up by a reliable source. It doesn't say, more than one RS, or RS's in book form. Can you show us any policy to back up your opinion? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No. It is you who are not listening. We do have hierarchy of sourcing in WP:V and we are to "base" articles, accordingly - everything in this historical biography article can be, should be, and is, to the extent I have anything to do with it, based on high quality sourcing because there is so much of it (so much of it that we cannot even include all we find in high quality sourcing). Your 'simple statement' is not found in such sourcing, it simply has no weight -- as White's biography shows, it does not belong in full biography. See also, WP:Tertiary (It is a totally different matter, when multiple high quality biography sources discuss something but we use a lesser source for convenience or otherwise, because then we know, that information actually has significant weight). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Wrong again. I have addressed every contention that you've made, often more than once.. You have yet to cite policy backing up your contention that we should reject sources from recognized authorities when they publish items other than in book form, or anything about your opinion about what constitutes a "high quality" source. Are you saying White's editorial is not a high quality source? There are currently 17 cite-web sources and 6 cite news sources used in this biography. Are we ready to apply the same standard to all the topics cited with these? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No. You have merely repeated the same rejected arguments over and over again. For example, I have cited policy for my judgement - and you are not listening. As for White, I am relying on White biography, and the other high quality sources -- they do not include it -- White does not include it in full biography -- we should not include it. (There are hundreds of cites in this article, which shows how your focus on 17 is nonsense, and I explained when it's fine to use them, as I also explained to you the last time we had this discussion). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Wrong yet again. Please don't attempt to speak for everyone. This is the second time you've pulled that number. We have a split consensus. You have not cited policy that supports the idea that White's editorial is not a "high quality" source. The author and publisher are the major factors that determine a RS. Your attempt to dismiss White, a recognized authority on Grant, simply on the grounds that he published further info not in his book is not supported by policy. You were insisting that RS's come in book form. I gave you more than 20 examples that say it doesn't, hence my "focus" on these sources. Please do not invent double standards, again, and please stop making general and erroneous claims not supported by policy. When there is a split or marginal consensus a compromise must be reached. This is policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No. It is perfectly fine for me to speak for us. Coemgenus and are, we. The policy does tell us to rely on high quality sources, especially in history, read it again. The only one who is making erroneous claims is you. And don't misrepresent, I never limited to just scholarly books, re-read the several types of sources I listed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Show us the policy that says editorials from persons like White are not "high quality" sources. Author and publisher are the major considerations, both of which we have satisfied. Please show us the policy that specifically says otherwise. And again, are you advocating that we remove all content and citations not cited by Grant biographers?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
You are the only one who has not cited policy. Show us the policy that insists we must use your singular (and thus extremely unsupported by any breadth of sourcing) Christmas op-ed, that's not found in any biography scholarship or in RS encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Policy says reliable sources must come from recognized authorities and be reputably published. White is a widely recognized authority. No way around that. We are not violating any policy and we have consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No. You do not have consensus. You are just POV pushing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolution

Since discussion has failed we apparently need to call in another editor who is familiar with Grant and break the split consensus, as there apparently is no desire by the opposing editors to compromise.

Proposal:   In an effort to reunite North and South President Grant signed a proclamation on June 24, 1870, making New Year's Day, 4th of July, Thanksgiving and Christmas national holidays., <White, 2017> [failed verification]

Two editors have rejected White and claim that the above proposal doesn't carry weight because White doesn't cover the topic in his book. Two other editors support the proposal and have cited White when he later covered and published this topic in a prominent newspaper. Would editors here agree to let @Rjensen: break the deadlock so we all can move on? I will be happy to abide by the resulting consensus. Rjensen, would you help us here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would include the episode--citing White. We all agree White is a top expert and in my opinion that covers his writing in books and other standard outlets designed to reach a large audience such as newspapers and magazines. [what would be problematic is a statement White chose NOT to publish--but that is not at issue here.] Rjensen (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
As Rjensen alluded to it is all who the author is, whether its Chernow, White, or Reconstruction authority Foner. It is published by New York Daily News. I would not go beyond what White said though. Interviews, however, I would be weary of because the author's response might be summarized by the interviewer. But this was no interview. It was an article on Grant signing Christmas as a national holiday. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Revision: On June 24, 1870, Grant signed a proclamation that made Christmas a national holiday, in an effort to unite the North and South. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct, if we're going to use White only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No to both. The first proposal is not even supported by the source, at all. @Rjensen: our objections have little or nothing to do with who White is. Even if White, had put it in full biography, which he did not, so it does not belong in full biography, it would still not belong. It's not in White, it's not in Chernow, it's not in Brands, it's not in Simpson, it's not in Smith, and the list of scholars goes on, it's not even in Grant RS encyclopedia biography, which we are suppose to look at to determine what is undue. It has no weight in Grant biography, and it is not to be added because all these scholars do not add it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

White is a biographer, among the best, while there are many citations here that don't refer to Grant biographers. Sorry, we've been through this more than once. And why did you make a non specific piped link to NPOV? Weight is the issue here, not NPOV. Your contention that because a topic isn't mentioned in a biography it has no business being in our biography still needs to be supported by policy, specifically, and in no uncertain terms. You've been asked to do this several times now. (btw, thanks for removing the link to OR, but you've obviously been reaching for, misconstruing and inventing policy from the start.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Almost all the cites are to biography. White, the biographer, did not put it in his biography, none of the biographers do (and neither should we) and none of the scholarly encycopedia's which we are to look to for things that are undue (so neither should we). You want to use a singular Christmas article, when it's not in any of the scholarly sources, to push undue POV -- weight is an NPOV issue. Pushing content (that, btw, does not even support your misleading proposal) relying on a singular, and relatively poor source is contrary to policy, policy says, just because something is in a source does not mean it goes in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, most of the cites are to biographers. Many are not. Thank you. The cite we are using is to a biographer and is among the best sources. Author and publisher are the major consideration, and once again ASW, we have satisfied both. And there is nothing misleading about the proposal. If so you would have said so long before now. Apparently you're just piling on with whatever pops into your head. Again, you've been reaching from the start. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Just what do you think, "not in citation" means, it means your proposal misrepresents the cite. You are using a singular op-ed. It is wholly outside the stream of all the scholarship. White, the biographer, did not put it in his biography, none of them do, and neither do RS encyclopedia - your just POV pushing on single stray piece of popular press, because it catches your fancy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
"stray piece of popular press"? More of your weasel talk. How many of the sources here are not in the RS encyclopedia? Where is the policy that says all sources must be listed here? And now you get to show us how we have misrepresented White -- you've avoided that little item also. And what POV is being pushed? That's yet another accusation you've yet to explain. In any case, we have your opinion, again. Please abide by policy. You've ignored compromise policy, and now you're ignoring consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
(e/c)Yes it's stray (no one uses it in biography) and yes it's just Christmas popular press (the only thing weasily, is your POV pushing). We don't have any agreement whatsoever on a proposal - the one you proposed, the First Proposal, absolutely misrepresents the cite. As for encyclopedias, it's not whether the sources are in the RS encyclopedia, its whether the information in the proposal is in the encyclopedia biographies. POV pushing is when you take a very minor thing not covered in the breadth of scholarship and try to insert it, that's what undue is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to butt in, but I was curious about this, so I looked at June/July 1870 newspapers to see if I could find the text of the "proclamation". Instead, it says that a bill passed the senate making those days official holidays in DC and went to the president to sign (for instance). I don't know if such a bill would apply to federal employees who didn't work in DC (customs collectors, postal workers, or whatever), but some papers seem a bit derisive in their reporting, saying the holidays are already celebrated and a bill doesn't matter. All that said, I don't see any mention of a proclamation. Some papers do say "legal holiday" without mentioning DC, but none say "national holiday". I am pointing this out because it does suggest there is something fishy with White's article. I don't have any broader opinion about the matter, and I hope I'm don't add to the tension, I just found the results of my search odd and wanted to present them here. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, you have every right to "butt in". Yes, we tend to stay away from 'news reports' to cite facts. From my experience "proclamation" and "bill" are one in the same if they are something that is signed into law. In any case, we are using information offered by a recognized and leading authority, Ronald C. White, whose article appears in a newspaper, but it's not news per se. Thanks for wading through all the huff and puff and weighing in. Perhaps after further consideration you might want to offer your consensus here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Thanks, it is fishy as you say, but I would say undue because it's just not represented in the scholarship or the encyclopedias or in any way representative of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I definitely recognize the OR nature of a newspaper in a case like this and I also recognize that the main argument is not whether or not it is true, but whether or not it is interesting enough to include in an encyclopedia article about Grant in spite of its getting only limited mention in reliable sources. In spite of your kind invitation, I don't think it is fair for me to add a !vote about this argument since there is no RFC and since I think there is some responsibility when building consensus that one will be there to deal with the consequences. I do feel comfortable pointing out that in my opinion, the closest White comes to saying in the article what this proposal says is, "Second, Grant’s commitment to making Christmas a legal holiday needs to be understood as part of his drive to unite the North and the South after the war." and later, "Yet his public passion to unite North and South in making Christmas a national holiday can inform and inspire attempts to hold up light amid darkness at the end of 2017." The second sentence is at the very end and isn't supported by the rest of the article. Even if we buy both sentences, I think the wording of this resolution is more appropriate if we want to write an op-ed about how holidays should be uniting and not dividing, but it might be a bit too strongly worded if we want to reflect White's article. But I recommend you continue to discuss whether or not a sentence of this sort should be in the article before thinking about how exactly to word the sentence. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
there is a discussion here on "undue weight" and I have two cents to add. WP:UNDUE = articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.' ' That is "undue weight" is a Wiki rule that in my opinion applies to controversial historical interpretations that are mostly REJECTED by the RS--it does not apply to ideas or events that have NOT been rejected by any scholars. It does not apply to XYZ when only one RS mentions XYZ. Rjensen (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE = Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. . . . . So, it does require to fairly represent and it does require due proportion when only one author has said it, and when it's not significantly in the scholarship, it is undue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I may have a solution to this debate about Christmas. All the biographers knew that Grant had signed legislation making Christmas etc. into Holidays for government workers. That was not an interesting point in the left it out. However White a month ago came up with a new idea for the first time, the Grant's motivation was national unity, setting up national holidays that every state would be celebrating (at least for federal government workers). White did not included it in his biography because he had not yet thought of that clever idea. As Wikipedia editors, we should keep in mind that Historiography changes-- the documents are discovered but, much more often, fresh ideas allow the historian to look at old events in a new way. And I think that is what happened here. Christmas is especially important to Ronald C. White--he began his career as a Protestant minister (Princeton Theological Seminary), and later turned to writing history. Rjensen (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen:: How do you know this is a change in scholarship? Should we represent this new White Christmas theory that's not represented in scholarship as true? Should we represent this new theory, as if it has been accepted in scholarship, when it's not even published and tested in scholarship? Should we emphasize a fact, at all, that none of the scholarship has deemed to place in Grant's biography?
I think you told me, elsewhere, that most of this presidential info should be moved to the presidency article or other sub articles, I agree (and have said so from the beginning of this discussion) including this. Can we agree not to to put it, here, in the bio? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smmurphy: Thanks. I agree that the White op-ed source does not and cannot support the proposals. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. One reason to prefer book sources to newspaper op-eds is that the former get far more thoroughly researched, while the latter are rarely even fact-checked when they're not about a living person. White did emphasize Grant's Christianity in his biography far more than other authors, and backed up his points with citations and keen analysis. But Smmurphy's point is a good one, and also shows how we risk applying to the past our modern-day idea of "national holiday". This was a day off for federal workers, a very small segment of the country. It did not change the way people in America thought of Christmas, which had been a holiday in the original sense of the word since long before the republic was founded. I'd agree, as a compromise, that it could be placed in the Presidency sub-article, but only if it's made clear that the theory of Grant's motivations is attributed to White, not stated as fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Insert : We don't need a compromise to write about this, even at length, in the Presidency article. The compromise was to cover the topic here with one well recognized source. Also, there are multiple sources, including White, that say the holidays were conceived with the idea to reunite the nation. This is nothing amazing or weird. You're suggesting that we say (e.g.) 'White sez' after every statement concerning Grant's feelings or motivations. e.g. 'Grant hated working at the tannery', is presented as fact, not theory, because the sources say so. I could see challenging any such statement if it was highly unlikely or bazzar, but that's hardly the case here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The "op-ed" supports the proposal to the letter. Also, there are several op-ed's already used as sources here, including several from Foner and ones by Stiles, Zimmerman, Sarna, etc. Again, we can't insist on double standards. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It is obvious there is no agreement on this issue. Rjensen is correct. White is a scholar in a book or an op ed opinion article. If White's op-ed article is not scholarship, then that reflects badly on his book, that his opinion means nothing. White's opinion does matter whether in his book or his op-ed article. ''On June 24, 1870, Grant signed legislation that made Christmas a federal holiday. This would be the most neutral barebones statement using White as reference. It is a statement of fact that leaves out any passion to unite the North and South. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, including the context of Reconstruction is more neutral than simply saying Grant signed the Christmas holiday into law all by itself for no reason. Other than that I am in agreement.
  • Agree with Cm' and RJ. Arguing by label, comparing White's writing to the average "op-ed" is sort of a narrow and selective assertion because in reality, White's writing here is no more or less an opinion than what he, or any biographer, has written in their books. Since it is White, his "op-ed" is also just as scholarly as what he wrote in his book. Also, no one is applying present day perspectives to the past simply by citing White's editorial. Most of the biographies we refer to were written in the 21st century. This doesn't translate into an effort by anyone here to apply modern day thinking to the past.
    -- We need to keep the discussion centered around policy, and policy allows us to make such a statement and cite White. There is no policy that says we can't, regardless of how many general and non specific links one sticks into the discussion. We also can't apply double standards, as many of the citations here are not from Grant biographers, and many of them are not in book form.
    -- The event has great historical significance and was a national first that occurred while Grant was President. Trying to block this information simply because White, a leading authority, wrote about it in a newspaper will beg that we remove all content not cited by a book. We need to embrace the same standards of sourcing throughout the article and not snipe at and treat any particular topic differently. Again, there are a number of cites that refer to op-eds in this biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in again, but while I still haven't found the text of any proclamation, I have discovered that as a bill it was called HR 2224, and as a law was 16 Stat. 168 and was signed March 28 (not 24 or 25). A discussion of the law can be found here on pages 5 and 6 and elsewhere. Congressional discussion of the bill is in the Congressional Globe and can be read here (and on the next page), here, and possibly elsewhere. Searching google for HR 2224 and 16 Stat. 168 gives a lot of different discussions of it. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
On June 28, 1870, Grant signed legislation that made Christmas a national holiday in Washington D.C. hoping to unite the North and South. White would be referenced. That would be the most correct and neutral statement. Here is a link to the law: [1] Cmguy777 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the line belongs at all, I'm not sure "national" is a good adjective to describe it. In spite of the White article, it seems to me from the text of the bill, the Congressional Globe discussion, and other articles that the law was DC focused and was written to match laws in states around DC. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Amended statement: On June 28, 1870, Grant signed legislation that made Christmas a Holiday within Washington D.C. hoping to unite the nation. Grant was then attempting to unify the States, as other states around Washington D.C. had already made Christmas a holiday. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, we should stick to what the sources say. Bear in mind that federal workers existed (and exist) in every state, so simply saying "...a Holiday within Washington D.C...." in all probability is not entirely correct. Geographic parameters aside, the main point is Grant and his hopes to unite the country via the holidays. If the official holidays were just limited to DC they would not be shared by all the states and this would defeat the purpose of trying to reunite them, esp the states in the South. We should just say what White says, which is consistent with this idea and with what several other sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
How does a government workers' holiday in Washington unite the nation? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Because DC had/has representatives from all the states. It wasn't so much the 'days off' that served to unite, but the idea that all the states embraced these holidays. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, that part can be deleted. White contends Grant signed it into law because he had a passion to unite the nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Amended statement II: On June 28, 1870, Grant signed legislation that made Christmas a Holiday within Washington D.C. This statement is opinion free, just a fact. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Not quite--it's important primarily because of its motivation. Grant worked very hard to emphasize national unity. [eg Grand Army of the Republic. Department of Pennsylvania - stated in 1879 "It is because Grant's name is symbolical of national unity, power, and greatness"] We have one very new RS making that very new point about motivation. It's not controversial--all RS agree Grant was keen on unity. -- and this episode works much better in the presidency article, for it is an explicitly presidential action Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, the law specifically says Washington D.C. I am only trying to make the statement a fact without opinion to possibly find a compromise. White would be referenced along with possibly the law itself. White only talks about Christmas, not the other Holidays. The discussion has been helpful. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, yes it does say that specifically. Also, on retrospect, what Coemgenus mentions is reasonable, that it is only theory, however likely, that the holidays were conceived to promote national unity, so we should mention national unity in that light, per sources.
'On June 28, 1870, Grant signed legislation that made Christmas a Holiday within Washington D.C., which some historians believe was enacted to reunite the nation.
This is consistent with the language White and Olivia B. Waxman uses. O'rielly maintains, ...the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen and Coemgenus, this topic should go in the presidency article, not here and with Coemgenus that it should attribute opinion in some way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rjensen about Grant's desire to reunite the country. Whether we add this proposal or not, we should emphasize that Grant was passionate about reuniting the country in this article, since this is what historians generally maintain. Since this was Grant's passion we still need to make the summary statement here, which would further serve to get readers to the Presidency article where it is covered in depth. Any topic that gets coverage elsewhere needs a summary statement in this article, as is almost always the practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • On June 28, 1870, Grant signed legislation that made Christmas a Holiday within Washington D.C., which historian Ronald White said was done by Grant because of his passion to unify the nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
yes the last version works for me. i think it fits better in the Presidency article Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

editbreak2

Following are various acts Grant signed as President, with links, in this article, that are not mentioned in the Presidency article.

Also, while this bio' mentions that Grant signed legislation creating the Justice Department, there's no mention of any such signing in the Presidency article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Those sound like serious deficiencies in the Presidency article. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
While we mention these mostly obscured acts in this article I still feel we should at least mention national holidays which virtually all readers are familiar with. The Presidency article is viewed about 250 times a day, while the main Grant bio here is viewed some 5,000 times a day. If we want to hide a topic from most of the viewers, we should only cover it in a dedicated article. (rib) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
If these acts can be verified as being signed by Grant then I have no objection to them being put into the bio article or presidency article, except that in the bio article they should be selected. The only issue for myself is verification. Grant pocket vetoed bills. Were some bills not signed by Grant that became law by the Constitution ? Did Congress ever overide a Grant veto ? I have yet to find any modern list of presidents and the laws they approved or signed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This link is helpful. Statutes at Large Project for Pre-1951 & Post-2010 Volumes (July 2014) Statues at Large uses the term Approved. That would validate Grant signed a bill into law. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I've never heard of a federal act/law/proclamation not being signed by a president. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
According to the Constitution laws can become laws without Presidential signatures as long as Congress is in session for 10 days and the bill is unsigned. I am not an attorney. But I have yet to find a list of laws signed by each individual President. It would help historically to have that list. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
That would be nice, but for purposes of this article I believe we can manage with what the sources say. White and others say Grant signed the federal holiday proclamation. I'll have to double check, but every act or bill we mention here was signed by Grant. There may be an exception out there somewhere, but in the mean time I think we're okay with our coverage with what bills are mentioned here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The laws you mention are all in the article because multiple biographers write about with them. None of them write about holidays for federal workers. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Insert : Since 'biographers' are being brought up again, this is not an absolute standard used in this article, as there are a variety of sources here that are not from Grant biographers, a fair number of which come from op-eds, etc. Yet, for some reason we are demanding that this non controversial bill be cited by more than one 'biographer'. I've no problem going along with consensus, so long as no one is pushing their opinion using a double standard, while ignoring compromise policy. White is a biographer, and a leading biographer at that. Yet he's dismissed based on an opinion that his words don't have weight if they're not found in his book. I agree, the topic works nicely in the Presidency article, and somewhat in depth. However, the simple summary statement also fits no less nicely here, in an article that's almost half devoted to Grant's presidency, where the vast majority of readers will learn about his presidency with coverage here that's far better than in the dedicated article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Are we still talking about the Christmas Holiday law ? I thought it was agreed to put it in the Presidency article. White wrote about Grant's Christmas Holiday law and he is a biographer of Grant. Grant's other biographers have not written on the Christmas Holiday law. I think we are going around in circles concerning the biography article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
A Holidays law section has been added to the Grant's presidency article. I appreciate all who participated in the discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree, because placing it attributed in the presidency article (not the bio) best accords with WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:PROPORTION and WP:BALANCE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Statues at Large says Approved, but does that mean it was Grant's signature, or that Congress approved the law ? White says Grant signed the law on June 24, 1870 but Statues at Large says Approved June 28. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but but the passage you've added needs a citation, and with more than one source, as White doesn't mention Thanksgiving, etc. Not trying to be difficult, but someone may delete or tag the passage. Also, while the bill was a national first, I don't think it quite merits its own section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
You work fast, while replying to you and Coemgenus I see you've cited most of the passage. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
One important matter is what day Grant actually signed the Christmas Holiday law. White says June 24 while Statues at Large says June 28 Approved. Either White or Statues at Large is correct, or possibly both are correct. Was it passed June 24 but signed on June 28 or was it signed June 24, but Congress reported it Approved on June 28 ? In my edit I only put "In June". Cmguy777 (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "Approved on June 28, Grant signed..." The only issue I have is White saying Grant signed the proclamation on June 24 whereas Statutes at Large says "Approved" June 28. Maybe both are right somehow. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. I don't think Grant would sign a bill he didn't approve of. Anyway, perhaps there's enough info there to merit a level three subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Gwillhickers. The law did affect over 5,000 federal workers in the District of Columbia. My concern is White's date for Grant's signing of the document, June 24 and what does "Approved" mean in the Statutes at Large. What is the actual day Grant signed the bill into law ? I can't find any other source to verify what date Grant signed the Holidays bill into law. Right now, level four subsection is alright. It possibly could be level three if there was a substantial book source on the matter or another biographer of Grant to weigh in on the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Cmguy has a good point. This is one of the things scholarly sources have over op-eds: fact-checking. The details would have been nailed down in a book. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That may often be the case, but certainly not a rule, esp where White is concerned. Moreover, White covered a major detail not covered in his book. White, and others, say the bill was signed, which again, is nothing amazing and always the case when a President 'approves' a bill. You're suggesting that Grant approved a bill that became federal law without signing it. Let's just say what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I am saying White unfortunately is wrong on the signing date. I used Belz to replace White for reference on the signing date. I am not referencing White for the signing date. Coemgenus is correct. Us editors tended to be White's fact checker. Right now I think it is best to leave the Holidays law in the Presidency section. I think White's assessement of why Grant signed the bill into law is accurate, but the date is four days off. Until other sources are available it is probably best to drop the Holidays law from being in the Grant bio article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, at this point I wasn't arguing for inclusion here. I've no qualms about double checking the actual date. The important point is that Grant signed it, and according to several sources, did so in an effort to help reunite the states. Having said that, it's not very wise to apply rules of thumb in terms of reliability to op-eds, or books, as either can be in error. I've always maintained that sources should be evaluated on a per source basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it is okay to fact check both articles and books, especially on dates. Belz gives the correct date of signing. It is interesting that the legislatures were discussing the law be applied to more than the District of Columbia. Looks like this was a productive discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be no more need for further disussion on this issue. I recommend that this discussion be closed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalization

Some genius managed to vandalize this article. I'd fix it myself, but it is "protected", so I can't. Could someone with the authority to edit this do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.109.105 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Date of graduation from West Point

To my surprise, the exact date of Grant's graduation from West Point is not given by White, Smith, McFeely, Simpson or Chernow. The Ulysses S. Grant Homepage fixes the date at July 1, 1843, unlike Chernow, p. 27, who claims Grant Graduated "in June, 1843", with no mention of day date. Our biography gives the date of graduation on July 1, 1843, citing White, pp. 40, 44, but White only makes reference to "class of 1843". Cullum, 1891 gives the date of July 1, 1843. Odd that so many modern sources don't help us here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Other sources
  • Longacre, 2007, p. 21, fixes the date of graduation on June 30, 1843
  • Brown 1885, p. 19, fixes the date at June 30, 1843.
  • Fuller, 1929, p. 66 says, "graduated in July, 1843".
  • Richardson, 1868, p. 74 says, "On the thirtieth of June, 1843, Grant graduated ..."


It would seem June 1, 1843 is the date of graduation, consistent with Chernow, who albeit only gives us June 1843 with no day date. Many of the sources I checked, both new and old, including White, only mention 1843 by itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure the date matters but more the year. Grant graduated in the Class of 1843. Notable Graduates Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but we should at least get a handle on the correct month, since we (attempt to) give the date in the biography here. I'm inclined to go with Chernow, since this is what most of the older sources say. Will continue to dig outside the realm of biographers, as they seem to be of little help here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Cmguy, let's just say he graduated in 1843. Less exact, but fully verifiable. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Since there are only two older sources (Fuller, 1929 and Cullum, 1891) ,that claim 'July' was the month we should say 'June', per Chernow and White, and since the Register of the Officers and Graduates of the ... Academy also give June as the month. Nothing pressing, but why not? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
West Point, the very college Grant graduated from, lists him in the Class of 1843 as a notable graduate, without a specific date of his graduation. I have never graduated from West Point, but it seems its alumni are recognized by the Year of graduation not the Month/Day of graduation. And since the actual date is unreliable then it is best to go by the Class Year. I say go by the West Point model. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I added "Class of 1843 (June 30)". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
White nor Cullum say June 30. Cullum, p. 170 says July 1. If we're going to say June let's use biographers Chernow and Longacre for the cites, which are consistent with most of the older sources, including the Register of the Officers and Graduates. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, Cullum says Grant graduated June 30 on page 256. He was promoted July 1 on page 257. There is a difference of one day between his graduation and promotion. I was using the link you gave. The column on page 256 says DATE OF GRA-DUATION. Page 170 is the Class of 1831. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The link I provided above, and here, doesn't say June 30. On page 256-257, John G. Foster is mentioned, not Grant -- at least in the text I linked to. In any case, we should use biographers Longacre and Chernow if we're going to mention the June date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The first link says upon leaving West Point he was promoted to the Fourth Infantry on July 1. Grant graduated June 30 and was promoted the next day. The second link says July 1, 1839 July 1, 1843, but does not specifically say his graduation date. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This was the link you provided [2] If you scroll up to pages 256 and 257 you will find using an 1843 Calander that Grant graduated Friday June 30 and then on Saturday July 1 he was promoted to the 4th Infantry. The July 1 date is his promotion date. It makes sense. The Graduation was on Friday and then the Promotion was on Saturday. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
July 1, 1839 when Grant entered West Point was on a Monday using an 1839 Calander Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
My reference/link in my last reply above was to Cullum, not the register. We're not using the register for a source, which I provided to support the June 30th date, we're using Cullum who doesn't give June 30 as the graduation date. Once again, the existing cite needs to be fixed, as neither White nor Cullum gives June 30th as the graduation date. Recommend Chernow and Longacre. i.e. Chernow to support the idea of Grant graduating 21st in his class, and in June, Longacre to support the June 30th day date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The Registry was compiled by Cullum and published in 1850. The Registry lists Grant graduating on June 30. Cullum does not say Grant graduated July 1. There were two seperate event Grant's graduation and his promotion. Biographers may have mixed up the two events. There is no reason to believe the registry is unreliable. The calander is confirmation. Graduation on Friday and Promotion on Saturday. The cadets had to graduate before being promoted. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There are two printings of the Registry, One of 1850, the other printing of 1891. I didn't say the Registry was unreliable, only that the June 30 date is not found on pp.170-171 of the 1891 printing, but on p.256 of of the 1850 printing. The confusion is that there are two printings, whose page numbers differ, per content. The existing cite says 170-171 to the 1891 printing, which is wrong. Yes, I thought the same, that some of the biographers may have assumed that Grant graduated on the day he left the Academy. Recommend we just use Longacre and Chernow and be done with this.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Whites says Grant graduated in June 1843, on "a June afternoon, as part of the final graduation exercises, the cadets gathered...", on page 43. That would have to be on the 30th. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The 1891 version of the Registry does not specifically say the date of graduation, but the 1850 version of the Registry does. The 1891 version only lists the dates July 1, 1839 and July 1, 1843. It does not say July 1 was the graduation date. July 1 is the Promotion date. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I just explained to you. White gives no indication of the day date simply by mentioning a June afternoon in 1843. The Cullum, 1891, cite was still wrong, it didn't mention the graduation date. The 1850 printing mentions both graduation and promotion dates. Thanks for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Secretary of War ad interim

I think Secretary of War ad interim should be added to the infobox. Grant served from August 12, 1867 to January 14, 1868. Info box sample to the right.

Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 37
United States Secretary of War ad interim
In office
August 12, 1867 – January 14, 1868

Source Biographical Register... George Washington Cullum 1891 page 172 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Perjury?

According to one of the sources in the bibliography, Donovan, 2010, Grant committed perjury when he testified before the Chief Justice in his defense of Babcock John McDonald, whom he had appointed Supervisor of Internal Revenue. White, p.562, however, says that Grant was fully cooperative in the effort to prosecute McDonald. This seems to be quite an inconsistency. Am in the process of trying to iron out the details involved. In this effort I've come across some interesting sources that may shed some light here.

  • McDonald, John (1880). Secrets of the great whiskey ring; and Eighteen months in the penitentiary. St. Louis, Mo., W. S. Bryan.
  • Felton, Franklin Eliot (1870). The Secrets of Internal Revenue: Exposing the Whiskey Ring, Gold Ring, and Drawback Frauds. William Flint, philadelphia.
  • Cooper, Edward S. (2016). John McDonald and the Whiskey Ring: From Thug to Grant's Inner Circle. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-6839-3013-6.

Some background on Grant's relationship with McDonald seems to be in order. Before the Whisky Ring scandal became known, Grant was in Missouri being entertained by McDonald who was trying to win Grant's favor. While in Missouri, according to Chernow, pp.797-798, Grant had entered two of his horses in a competition at the county fair. Grant, being a connoisseur of and an expert on horses, knew however that his horses didn't measure up to some of the Kentucky thoroughbreds entered in the competition. McDonald was the judge of that competition, and when he awarded a blue ribbon to Grant's horses, Grant threw his cigar on the ground and exclaimed in a low voice, "this is an outrage". McDonald later gave Grant a pair of horses, with gold breastplates engraved with Grant's name, and a wagon, as a gift in his continuing effort to win Grant's favor. I don't know if all of these details belong here, but any help in verifying any perjury would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the link provided Donavan said Grant committed perjury to protect Babcock, not John McDonald, who was convicted and sent to jail. McDonald was angry because Grant did not let him out of jail sooner. From what I read of Grant's testimony he was sketchy with remembering anything concerning the Whiskey Ring and Babcock, his words protected Babcock, and underneath his words it seemed he did not tell everything he knew. Does that meet the standards of perjury for his times ? That is difficult to say. It really wasn't what Grant said, it was that what Grant said had weight, and that is what got Babcock off the hook with the St. Louis jury. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Babcock. Apologies for getting sidetracked with Chernow's account of McDonald. In any case, it would seem that if Grant had in fact committed perjury, a felony, he would have been prosecuted, and as President, would have also faced impeachment charges, so again, I have to wonder about Donovan's claim. Grant's relationship with McDonald, however, is still revealing, and seems to give some good insights on the Whisky Ring's dealings with Grant.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a link for the legal definition in 1876 from A Concise Law Dictionary: Perjury page 303.
Perjury would be concidered swearing to willfull falsehood in a judicial proceeding while under oath. Did Grant do this? He never was charged, but it is obvious his words were meant to get Babcock acquitted. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
McDonald claims in his book of 1880, pp.17-18, a primary source ...
"The original intention of the organizers ... was for the purpose of raising a campaign fund with which to advance the interests of President Grant's aspirations for a second term. So far as my personal knowledge extends, the money received from the distillers and rectifiers was used according to the original intention of the members ..."
It sounds as if he was writng this account while the jury was looking over his shoulder. Still laughing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking McDonald or Babcock ? Grant was never charged with perjury at his White House deposition. Donovan is entitled to his own opinions. It really is up to the reader to decide. Grant most likely willfully did not recall information that could have damaged Babcock. He may have a few times said he did not recall information concerning the Whiskey Ring. I don't find anything that was willfully false in Grant's testimony. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said, it's McDonald's book. If anything, it reveals the sort of character he, and the other ring members, had. Anyway, like with Grant's drinking, some of the accounts are exaggerations or complete falsehoods, as, like you say, charges of perjury were never levied at Grant, so it seems at this point. I'm inclined to doubt Donovan. Here is yet another example that supports the idea that no source, op-ed or book, is above scrutiny. We're supposed to say what the sources say, to which I generally agree, but if we were to blindly follow this rule many of WP's articles would be rife with contradictions or complete fallacies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This is just speculation, but historians such as McFeely and Donovan believe that willfully witholding information is perjury. Grant may not have told everything he knew to be true. He probably did not make any "false" statements. I am not an attorney. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
So far I haven't even seen a claim of withholding evidence. If Grant outright committed perjury it seems he would have been charged, and we'd have more than Donovan's claim. It's too early to tell if Donovan is the only one who's made such an accusation. I've read several accounts that Grant was loyal to and defended his cabinet and other subordinates, but never anything about perjury, or anything that could be construed as such. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
McFeely and Donovan both believe Grant committed perjury. This is only my opinion, Grant probably did not tell all he knew concerning Babcock and the Whiskey Ring. It was not his finest hour in the deposition, like at Appomatox. He was protecting Babcock. I view Grant similar to a "defense witness". He was biased but he did not commit perjury. According to the 1876 book on law witholding information was not a definition of perjury, but rather, stating a willing falsehood under oath in a Judicial proceeding. Technically Grant avoided perjury, but his statements were misleading at times, and designed to favor the defense. Again, historians are entitled to their opinions. There is not enough historical evidence to say Grant committed perjury in the bio article. Thanks.Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it was not my intention, or desire, to say Grant committed perjury in the article. Donovan just sparked my curiosity. Still digesting McDonald's and other accounts. A couple of weeks ago, while at the library, I stumbled across a PBS video on Grant. It featured commentaries of McFeely, Waugh, Simon and a few others. Simon was objective in his assessment, Waugh had a somewhat pretentious air about her, imo. McFeely, looking of course somewhat older than his picture on his book's dust jacket, was critical of Grant but his tone was not vindictive, but one of disappointment in a few instances, but still expressed an admiration of Grant. In several instances he said "Grant shouldn't have..." done this, or that, as if he was speaking about a friend. The video covered Grant's presidency almost in proportion to coverage of the war and touched on some of the various scandals. Still, no concrete evidence of perjury. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so either. There is no evidence Grant told a lie in his testimony. It really does not matter either since Grant was not charged with perjury. It is only speculation by Donovan and McFeely. Maybe McFeely admires Grant more than we think. McDonald was angered at Grant for not setting him free sooner. He said Grant knew about the Whiskey Ring but offered no evidence of such knowledge. Thanks for the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I added information from White 2016 for clarification. Grant's February 12 deposition said that Grant had confidence in Babcock's integrity and efficiancy and that Grant's confidence in Babcock was unshaken. That is what probably got Babcock acquitted by the jury. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That sounds more than plausible. Babcock was present at Appomattox and delivered Grant's final dispatch to Lee with instructions to escort him to a meeting with Grant at a place of Lee's choosing for the surrender. No doubt Babcock's service in the war and association with Grant had much to do with Grant's efforts, such that they were, and the jury's decision. Otoh, maybe the jury was each given a case of whisky and a box of cigars if they dismissed the affair. (rib) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Presidential Ranking

I made some changes to Grant's presidential ranking in the lede section. Grant achieved average status in 2017 C-Span Survey. His reputation only went up in the 21 Century. I think it is clear McFeely's book on Grant did nothing to raise his reputation. Grant's lowest ebb was between 1994-1996 in the 20th Century at 38. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That last sentence adds nothing to the original point that we labored over for months. His ranking was once quite low; now, it is better. We already say that. The last sentence just adds a false exactitude based on one editor's analysis of the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, all of the changes divert too much from what we had previously agreed upon as a long-fought consensus. I restored the consensus language, as there was no agreement here to change it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Grant is ranked average in the 2017 C-Span Survey. The statement that scholars "continue to" rank Grant below average is unreferenced and unsourced. The statements in the lede lack neutrality. Additionally Grant is ranked in the top ten presidents concerning Civil Rights in the 2017 C-Span Survey. The "continue to" statement is POV. It makes it sound as if there was still a conspiracy to rank Grant below average. The current lede is biased and inaccurate since Grant is in the second quartile in the 2017 C-Span Survey. That is average. He got green. He is not in the yellow or red. Personally the lede reads a bit like Civil Rights really is not that important to historians and is treated very casually. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"False exactitude" ? There is a link to the Presidential Ranking page. I analyzed nothing. The link provided the data. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion should be allowed to occur in a talk page before saying "no agreement here to change it." That is defeating the purpose of discussion before the discussion begins. I am offering is a simple proposal to offer a neutral statement. Change: "Scholars continue to rank his presidency below the average, but modern appreciation for Grant's support of civil rights has helped improve his historical reputation." to "Scholars rank his presidency average to below the average, but modern appreciation for Grant's support of civil rights has helped improve his historical reputation." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
There may yet be consensus to change it, but there wasn't yet. When the language was the subject of intense debate over the years, I think it's better to discuss here before making unilateral changes. For my part, I don't see that anything in the 2017 survey requires a change. It is merely one more data point confirming the gradually better opinion of Grant--which is what we already say in the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Coemgenus, I apologize for extended editing and it was not my intention to go against any editor concensus. My main contention was phrasing that historians "continue too" rank Grant below average when Grant had actually reached average or second quartile status on the 2017 C-Span Survey. He was in the green and he was on the bottom average, but average none the less. It was not until 2002 Sienna Survey that Grant's status began to rise, probably started by Smith's 2001 Grant biography. It may be safe to say that the 20th Century was not kind to Grant and that his negative reputation lasted a century. Grant's revival is a 21 century phenomenon. Reputations can shift either way negative or positive. Books by Smith, Brands, White, and Chernow have really helped his reputation among scholars. It may be odd to celebrate "average" but in Grant's case it is a good thing in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_37&oldid=825743883"