Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Naming standard

Cm' thanks for your latest edits. Have an issue that perhaps needs more than one opinion. The Gilded Age section uses the full name for almost everyone mentioned. Unless known for their full names (as with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Wilks Booth, etc), shouldn't we use just the first and last names only, and used piped links accordingly? Using the full name in every instance tends to make the reading a little stiff, imo. Guidelines say we should use the same name as used by the sources, but this is certainly not a consistent thing. e.g. In their indexes, Smith uses Orville E. Babcock, whereas Chernow only uses Orville Babcock. Rather than combing through all the sources, perhaps we should adapt our own convention and just use first and last name only for first usage occurrence, unless, again, the individual in question is known by their first, middle and last name. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Once their full name is mentioned in the article, I would just use their last name. I would not give their full name but use the middle initial. Using names from their respected biographical articles is always acceptable. Middle initial can be optional, such as in the case of Benjamin Bristow, rather than Benjamin H. Bristow. But Bristow is very recognizable. Just like Babcock, Belknap, or Robeson, Fish, Cox. Those are distinguished names. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The way I usually see it done is to mention the full name the first time, using the form used in the person's article, if he has one. So, Abraham Lincoln, but Rutherford B. Hayes. Just last name thereafter unless there are multiple people with the same last name. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

For first occurrence of the name that seems appropriate, and consistent, i.e.using what the person's WP article says. In cases where there's no article we can use what the sources say. e.g. John McDonald of the Whiskey Ring has no article. In fact, I haven't come across his middle name anywhere. However, .McFeely, p.406,  Chernow, p.797, and White, p.561 refers to him as General John McDonald. Chernow, btw, also refers to him as "Grant's old friend". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, for people without articles, I guess it's up to the editors to figure it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The full name mentioned first and then their last name afterward is appropriate. It is possible to overuse a last name in an article. Simon 2002 says "trusted secretary" refering to Babcock on page 252. A person can be refered by their last name or occupation. It is up to the editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

For the first mention of McDonald we should indicate General John McDonald, per multiple major sources. Since the sources also indicate a close relationship between Grant and McDonald, we should also. I would go with Chernow amd indicate "old friend", and Simon, using "trusted secretary". i.e. General John McDonald, Grant's old friend and trusted secretary. This would reflect the fact that many of Grant's subordinates were so as the result of Grant's cronyism, and would also help to explain why Grant was suspected of knowingly being involved with the scandal, even though he wasn't. I went ahead and added "former General", but will wait for further comment about close friend ...  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, McDonald was not Grant's trusted secretary, Babcock was. I would say

General John McDonald, Grant's appointed St. Louis Internal Revenue Supervisor and friend,

General Orville Babcock, Grant's Private Secretary and friend, Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This article, probably can't be used as a reference source, but might help with naming people in the Grant biography. General Grant, General Babcock, General Mcdonald and Journalist Colony: A Study in Scandal and Friendship Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Chernow says McDonald, a supervisor of Internal Revenue in Saint Louis, was Grant's "old friend". While we were discussing McDonald, you brought in Babcock, who indeed was the secretary. Will make the edit accordingly. As there are a lot of points of context at this juncture I'll do a minor rewrite of the sentence, splitting it into two sentences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Woodward

In the bibliography, Woodward/Roper is linked to a publication dated 1987. Where are we getting 1957 from? If it's the orig date, I'm not finding it anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's my mistake, I guess. It was giving an error message with 1987, so I thought it was a typo for 1957, which refers to Woodward's "The Lowest Ebb" article from that year. Where is the full cite for this 1987 piece? I couldn't find it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the link. The Lowest Ebb C. Vann Woodward (April 1957), Volume 8, Issue 3 published by American Heritage. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The web page you linked to seems to be a different publication altogether. Our Woodward citation [412] links to p. 156 of Roper's book, featuring Woodward, while the other cite [417] for Woodward has no page number. Instead its parameter in the markup reads |loc=passim, (whatever "passim" is supposed to mean) which doesn't show up in the actual text. 1957 is fine with me, but it seems we need to get our Woodward cites and links in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I gave the link to Woodward's 1957 article published in American Heritage. Roper's book is a 1987 biography on Woodward. Since Woodward's original article is available, why not use that ? Roper's main focus is on Woodward, not Grant. Woodward directly discusses Grant. I would not call it an attack article, but from 1948 to 2000 Grant was very unpopular. Woodward discusses nothing about Reconstruction but mainly focuses on corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Passim: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/passim. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sentence citation needed

In May 1871, Grant ordered federal troops to help marshals in arresting Klansmen. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Article expansion trend

I have noticed the article is tending to get larger again. I have been trying to limit my edits. Unless there is need for clarifiation, expansion editing probably is unnecessary. The branch articles probably would be the best place for expansion. Thanks.

Branch articles are for in depth coverage. There is just too much history to cover, even in summary form, to permit a page length guideline dictate the comprehensiveness of the narrative. FA articles, by policy, must not overlook major details, a fair number of which are still missing, and incorporate good writing. Only a small fraction of the readers go to dedicated articles, most, if not all, of which do not show up in search results. Concern should be for the readers foremost. Guidelines permit exceptions and Grant's biography is among the definitive exceptions, so I have to wonder why this is apparently so difficult to accept. After all these years no one outside this talk page has made an issue of page length, even when it was greater than it is now. 100k of readable prose is simply not enough room to to cover the major and prominent topics in summary and comprehensive capacity. There is only so much trimming we can do without depleting the comprehensiveness of the narrative. Let's not start trimming any summary context directly related to Grant. Editors involved with other FA and GA articles have waved guidelines, reasonably, with no issues. We too should be in solidarity on this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, when an article is approaching the 200,000 bytes and when efforts have been made to reduce narration I think it is common sense to keep the article from ballooning out of control. Wikipedia policy is if an article it getting too large then make branch articles. "Too large" might be subjective. Yes. One of your edits said "context for the journey and Grant's heroic involvement -- expand page range for existing cite".Grant's heroic involvement seemed to be the only reason for that edit. Grant may have been critisized for not helping enough in Panama after he came to California. But I am not here to argue that issue whether Grant was heroic or not heroic. The edit seemed to be uneccessary to the article and would have served better in a branch article. There is no reason to prove Grant was heroic in the first place. Subjects such as Grant's drinking are controversial and as such deserve editor attention. This is a summary bio article of Grant and in my opinion should be written in a format similar to Simon (2002) who wrote in summary format of Grant's presidency. I had thought the article was settling down. You can edit as you like Gwillhickers. I don't have editor control. But each edit adds up and makes the artcile larger. The article should read like an encyclopedia, not a book. Too much information will bog down the articles reading speed in my opinion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, there is a point where too much info can become an issue, but given the sections here, none of which are too large, this is hardly the case, imo. Also, we are not saying Grant's effort were heroic, and remember, it was I who struck the comment about Grant's "compassionate" tending to the sick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Upon rereading Chernow 2017, Grant in Panama does deserve expansion. Yet, I think it would be good to keep the article under 200,000 bytes. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent additions have brought this article up to 104kb of readable prose, close to an all-time high in bloating. 100kb is more than enough. I agree with Cmguy that we should stay within the guidelines. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This branch article, Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant, probably needs editing and would be a good place for added information on his trip through Panama or his stay on the Pacific Coast. Biographers starting with McFeely cover Grant's early life extensively. That article is currently only 20,019 bytes and could be expanded more. Branch articles are important. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Branch articles are for in depth coverage. There is no in depth coverage about Panama here. Only a few sentences were added, some by your self. Grant's biography is where coverage of his early life and early career belong, no less than coverage of the civil war and presidency. Aside from an occasional tweak, the Early life article receives next to no attention and is only read on an average of about 40 times a day, compared the some 5000 views this article receives every day. That article was once redirected back to this page because of this redundant content fork. There are close to two dozen dedicated articles for Grant! What is the purpose of this article -- to serve merely as a glorified TOC for all the other articles? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Now we're getting mixed signals. Cm' brings up the idea of article length, and then makes some, albeit good, additions. However, I agree with his other point -- 200,000k of markup is a reasonable compromise, and would also account for footnotes. Otoh, "bloat" is hyper-speak and is sort of an insult to the writing that goes into the narrative. Guidelines are there to guide editors -- they are not policy, and it wasn't intended that we build a stone wall with a guard tower at the exact 100k limit, esp when editor discretion and exceptions are allowed. We shouldn't be having this discussion every time we step over a line, only when the article is truly in absurd proportions in terms of redundancy and tangential writing. It's also disruptive and not fair to a writer's frame of mind, having to stop while others cherry pick what part of the guideline they wish to focus on, ignoring the clause for exceptions and discretion. So now what? Are editors not allowed to make any more contributions? Is it the intention of anyone to delete 4k of readable prose, to satisfy page length, and and then lock the article down? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If I had the tools to lock the article after it was brought down to suitable page length, I would do it. YoPienso (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's why page length is a guideline, to prevent some individual to use it as an excuse to goose-step through the articles while ignoring the views of fellow editors. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

All valid concerns Gwillhickers. Editors can improve or make branch articles better. I have already done so on Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant adding an infobox and cleaning up the sections and photos. A branch article on Grant's life is an opportunity. Add all the content you want. Editors can get that article up to 120,000 bytes. Working on branch articles you don't usually have editor disputes about content or article size. The other issue is that instead of having to fine tune sentences and lose content in the bio article, you don't have to do that in the branch articles. Adding more links in the bio articles to branch article could help get more readers to read the branch articles. I don't think a freeze on article length is necessary. I look at all content of an article not just narration. That is why I mentioned the approaching 200,000 bytes for the Grant bio article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned reply. We're only supposed to link to another page once. It seems that some don't appreciate the idea that the Grant biography has hundreds of links (blur), so it's really nothing amazing that only a tiny fraction of the readers make their way to one of the almost two dozen dedicated articles, which do not show up in search results. When they do they usually find a second rate article in terms of good coverage, compared to this one, (a couple exceptions noted) and in turn come back to this main article to get the full summary+ picture of Grant's very involved and historic life. A reader should not have to jump to a dozen other articles to get a comprehensive picture of Grant. With all due respect Cm', this discussion, over a marginal page length issue, and resultant calamity, was uncalled for, while concern for the readers seems to have taken a back seat. Apparently the few editors who drafted the page length guideline were not historians, or even history buffs like ourselves. This article should not be treated the same way as an article for 'Mayor Jones'. One size does not fit all. Trying to stuff a size ten foot into a size eight shoe has proven a little ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, several editors have expressed the concern that this article is subject to unwieldy bloat, which is precisely a concern for readers. It's nonsense to claim it is not a concern for readers. Its also a concern for content when the comparatively less significant is elevated to similar emphasis as the more significant, which is also a concern for readers. Readers are not looking here for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Readers, hungry for information, are coming here for as much comprehensive information in one article as is practical. You can't tell me a reader appreciates less information, and less than comprehensive information. Page view statistics for most of the dedicated articles tells us only a tiny fraction of the readers are going to these -- neither from this page or from a search result. Dedicated articles don't show up in search results unless one types in the exact title of a given dedicated article, which no one knows of until they arrive at that article, somehow. WP once did a study only to reveal most links are not used often, if at all. Another concern is FA policy, which demands good and comprehensive writing, and more than a bunt stand-alone statement about a topic. Another concern is deleting info for page length reasons alone, which guidelines frowns on. Another concern is compromise, a policy that should be practiced when split opinions arise. All these things are routinely ignored in these discussions, so it's a little difficult to understand this apparent fervent adherence to this one cherry picked guideline, while other guidelines and policies are ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all editors save one have accepted that we have to follow Wikipedia guidelines on length. That hardly seems a matter for debate, but if it were to be one, we would have consensus on the point. Readable prose is usually the unit of measurement for these things because the length of citations--which drives up the raw bytes total in some articles that have many different sources--does not actually make the article longer for the reader. When we converted to sfn-style citations years ago, it reduced the byte count but the number of words read by a reader remained unchanged. Readable prose is easily ascertained by adding this script to your common.js file and gives an accurate count of the actual text, which is what we're really takling about here (it's currently at 104 kB (16710 words)). That is also the measurement used in the relevant editing guideline. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Counting words in such a fashion is not the way to write a narrative. Again, if the article reaches absurd proportions in terms of redundancy and wholly tangential coverage I have no problems of dealing with this accordingly, which I have been doing all along. There is much more than word count to consider. It would be nice to see compromise efforts reciprocated rather than turning to a robot to determine the length of narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a point where an article can just be bloated and have too much information for the reader. My guidline is the 200,000 byte raw data. The sfn format has really helped reduce article size. People do read the branch articles, of course, not as much as the bio, but there are readers. If more editors contributed to the branch articles that potentially would generate more views. Branch articles can be GA and FA status. The Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant has little over 21,000 bytes and could be expanded more. It is an editor bonanza. I have been adding content. I appreciate editor input regarding this matter. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 200,000k bytes of raw data is a fair compromise. If we had too, we could always trim the footnotes or consolidate citations and replace sources that are only used once or twice, etc, when possible, first, rather than chop into the main narrative, which is the main concern of anyone hoping to read a good account on Grant. Again, what are we supposed to do if we were to delete the text down to 100k? Stop editing?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, 50,000 to 100,000 bytes could be added to Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant. No one is asking to reduce Grant's bio article down to 100,000 bytes, as far as I know. It would be appropriate to limit editing when the Grant bio article is approaching 200,000 bytes in my opinion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy: You're 100% right that the Early life article should be expanded. I didn't really want the drama of this article to be doubled in my watchlist, but if you want to work on that Early life article, I'll be glad to help you. There's lots of room to gorw there. Again, I agree about reducing the article to a manageable size, but total bytes is not the measure the guideline speaks of, nor does it much matter to the reader. The word count (or the readable prose kb, a rough proxy for word count) is way more important. That's what the rule says and it does so because that affects how long it would take for the reader to read the article. If we reduce the total bytes by, say, deleting the publication locations in every citation, it would not make the prose of the article one word shorter. So, while I agree that the article is overlong, I'd suggest that we measure that the same way other articles are measured and in the same way that the guideline instructs us to measure: by kilobytes of readable prose. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert:Thanks Coemgenus. I am all for your help on the Early Life article. There is a lot of missing information. I think the reader would be interested in Grant's younger years. I agree the word count "is way more important." I only use raw bytes as a way to get an idea that the article should be reduced either in prose or other areas. The other thing I have been doing is putting in Infoboxes in the branch articles, just with information that would only pertain to the article. Infoboxes give the year of Grant's presidency, his birth and death dates. Infoboxes give the branch article its own article look. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Again, we can't treat this article the same way we do for an article about some Mayor or Congressman. This is why guidelines allows exceptions and editor discretion. WP does not expect us to behave like robots, and it's disruptive to hound editors to behave this way. If anyone wants to work on the Early life' article feel free, but as pointed out, it's generally a waste of time. Very few people are going there and it was once redirected to Grant's biography because this is where that information belongs first. If anyone really wants to get in to in-depth coverage of Grant's early life this is fine, but we still need to cover this important chapter comprehensively in this article where it will be read 1000's of times more often than the Early life article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: I don't know if you've ever published anything professionally, but I can assure you that word count is always something editors take into consideration, even on the internet. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• It would be easier to go along with reducing text here if readers were going to the dedicated articles, but mostly they're not, and if the context we removed here was already in a given dedicated article, and that article measured up to this one in terms of coverage and good writing. Mostly this is not that case. Until that happens we need to be mindful of readers, first, and not make a perpetual and reoccurring issue over a marginal page length issue that isn't hurting anyone, but helping them, esp the students and history buffs who hope to find more than blunt statements devoid of context. Consensus can't go against policy, and again, the idea of compromise policy, stated plainly at the top of the consensus page, and elsewhere on that page, and comprehensiveness FA policy are just that, not to be ignored. Also, you can't wave one guideline around while ignoring others, and guidelines tell us Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length.
  As for word count in the professional publishing world, this is only a consideration in terms of printing costs v profits, etc. One look at the wide range of pages among biographies, esp Chernow's, should tell you that. Again, are editors expected not to add any more information here? This is a consideration that's been repeatedly avoided. I ask again, if the article was reduced to 100k of readable prose, what then? No more contributions? Before anyone goose-steps to the beat of page length this is something that needs to be resolved. Otherwise, we'll be back here in short order running around the same old block. Reasonable compromise, one that will not infuriate anyone, is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to make other contributions in the same marginal capacity that I've been doing, and will follow up with trims, out of compromise and consideration for other fellow editors. It would be nice to see these considerations reciprocated someday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Goose step? You've used that pejorative term twice in this thread. Are you calling us Nazis? Please strike those phrases.

You sound so aggrieved, but in fact (as has been pointed out here and many times in the past), you are the lone editor refusing to yield to the consensus of everyone else that size matters. YoPienso (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with YoPienso, Gwillicjers, your language is increasingly uncivil, your arguments tendentious, and your refusal to accept to the consensus we've achieved time and again on this rule (and your refusal to abide by the rule in the first place) violates the co-operative spirit of this encyclopedia. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Comegenus, the reason some points are rehashed is because you don't respond to fair points and questions and seem to cling to the single page length guideline, as if a longer than average article was somehow adversely effecting the readers, assuming this is your major concern. It's a little difficult to heed your words about cooperation when you don't even acknowledge the idea of fair compromise, and while you seem to blindly embrace one guideline while ignoring polices and other guidelines in the process. All along I have been making compromises, including just recently, going along with Cm's suggestion, while keeping additions to the text in sane proportions while making trims. I went along with your suggestion about making a dedicated article for the world tour, and even moved the bulk of the historical reputation section to a dedicated article in response to your concern about page length. Please try to keep the big picture in mind. As always, I have gone along with consensus, even though I continue to debate my views. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate Gwillhickers contributions to the article. Maybe goose step was not the best choice of words but I don't personally take offense. I think Gwillhickers agreed to a 200,000 byte raw limit. I am encouraging editors to edit on the branch articles. That is the solution. Since there currently is an abundant supply of information on Grant, it should be directed into the branch articles, using reference sources from McFeely to Chernow. I am not sure Gwillhickers has technically violated the rules since he apparently agreed to the 200,000 raw byte limit. I don't know how to calculate the narration prose bytes. But let's be civil. It would help editor concensus if editors could calculate narration text. Is there a program that does that? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Thanks Cm'. As I said, 200,000k of raw data is a practical and fair compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding this script to your common.js file gives an accurate count of the text (instructions are in the linked page). If you don't feel like doing that, I'll be happy to run it for you whenever you're concerned about length (it is currently 103 kB (16704 words)). --Coemgenus (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. I added the script and it works. What would also help is the Wikipedia guideline on article size particularly readable prose. Does Wikipedia recommend a specific readable prose size ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cm' yes, WP does specify a size, but what continues to be ignored is the idea that guidelines are not policy and exceptions often arise where editor discretion is called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yopienso', Goose step is a figure of speech, a marching step practiced by Russians and other dictator regiese besides the nazis, and if you can't accept the term in the context given that is unfortunate. My arguments have been reasonable and well explained, pointing to policies and guidelines that have been routinely ignored, along with other fair questions, including what is to be expected of editors if the article was chopped down to satisfy page length. In light of your previous reply it would seem you're the one who was aggravated. I'm sorry, but given your recent retort the term was entirely called for. No one is forcing you to participate in the talk, so here too, please don't invent another problem for yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No. First, I object strongly to your invitation to another editor to leave this page. That aside, your arguments have not been ignored, they have been rejected. Nor have your arguments been reasonable, your arguments have been repetitious. Viz. 1) If readers are not going to the subarticle, that's up to them, and its just as likely they do not want the things you are trying to over-fill this article with. 2) If sub-articles need improvement the solution is improve sub-articles, not write it down in this article. 3) Readers are hurt by overwriting articles, they loose the forest for the trees, and the bushes, and the moat hills. 4) Compromise does not mean you get to add and add to this article. 5) This article is already comprehensive as has been demonstrated time-and-time again, including at the time it went through FAC and was found comprehensive - in short comprehensive does not mean whatever you say it means. 6) It's only your repeated same arguments that do not abide by editor consensus policy. 7) You point to an essay, not a policy or guideline, not only does that essay not mean that you can just add and add to this article, the policy is among other places found in WP:ONUS and it requires you do need editor consensus here for additions, which should not be at all be surprising as it is the standard rule for all editing (your implied and direct charge that any of us refuse content improvements because we are unthinking automatons or goose steppers is utterly rejected and has no basis). 9) All this has been said before in one way or another, by multiple editors, so please, hear us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I only pointed out that no one is forcing anyone to participate. Also, it would be nice if you practiced what you preach and listen to other views, rather than ignore them, repeatedly, invoking my sentiment that the approach to editing sometimes seems robotic. At this point, it was and remains warranted. Also, you need to have more faith in the readers, who are interested in the subject and welcome information. Two editors have offered a compromise of a 200,000k raw data limit, which is reasonable. I also linked to policies, and the well reasoned essay has it's own section/link in the guideline article. Please don't invent another issue. The article is only a bit longer than average -- not five times longer than average. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Having already listened again and again, I note I and others disagree with you, that does not mean we have not listened. So, then you turn on someone and invite them not to participate here because they disagree with you. Now, you just said this article is long for Wikipedia, so, yes, it's long. But you again demonstrate you have not listened, why "article prose size" is what matters has already been explained several times, article prose size is what readers must read. I do have faith in readers as do our guidelines (and its odd that you think readers are incompetent to find sub-articles). Readers are looking for summary tertiary information as set forth in our policies and guidelines, and those who actually want more go to sub-articles. (Also, it's just plain false, we have done anything here like robots -- Coemgenus, for example is the one who got this article to FAC, for goodness sake)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me but Cm' was also a major contributor in the effort to achieve FA satus, and I also added significantly to that effort. Neither Coemgenus or Cm' has even suggested that this gives them ownership rights. Again, you need to stop inventing issues and compounding the debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me' Why are you not listening, your the one who accused editors of being robotic. I said absolutely nothing about ownership. I was here before FAC, I know what went on. And I have no problem saying again that Coemgenus is the one responsible for getting this through FAC, and it's just wrong to accuse anyone here of being robotic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert :Yes, I noticed you have no trouble with that narrow comment. While Coemengus was the one who contributed the most it's simply wrong not to acknowledge Cm's time and effort which was almost par with Coemngeus', and I was referring to your efforts, such that they are lately. All you've done here is drag in Coemgenus to deviate from the issue of your recent activity. Also, no editor is above criticism. If I think an editor is not responding to reasonable issues, like what is expected of editors if we reduce the prose to 100k, then I will so say in terms I feel are appropriate. Dictating the treatment of the narrative simply by counting words is robotic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem with me pointing out how wrong you are. For myself, and I am certain for others who are disagreeing with you here, our concerns are for readers, informed by policies and guidelines, and our reading and writing on this topic - it's not robotic, at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Again with your inventions. Readers are competent to find other articles, but are not inclined to jump to more than a dozen other articles, not to mention the 100's of other articles linked to. This was clearly explained for you. Also, I don't see any explanation by anyone, including yourself, why article prose size is such a pressing issue other than an opinion that they don't want further information and context. It would also be much easier to listen to your words if it wasn't for the fact that the only time you chime in around here is when you disagree with me. This is tantamount to hounding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, I've been chiming in and editing this article for years, even before it got to FAC, your ridiculous hounding claim is utterly spurious. As I have already said, but perhaps you did not hear, readers are not all interested in going to other articles because they don't want that detail. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As I already said, any interested reader wants details and context, to a point of course. You can't even begin to explain why an interested reader wouldn't want more information and context. And yes, once upon a time you made some contributions, but lately all you do is disagree with compromise efforts while you concentrate your remarks, and inventions, at me. And did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons why readers don't go to a dedicated article is because the topic is well covered here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have explained why readers do not want to be lost in details. Your idea of "context", is just not what I and others agree is useful or needed -- we think it's poor. As everyone agrees this article is long, let's run with that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please speak for yourself. Everyone dose not think the inquisitive reader doesn't want added context and comprehensiveness in the narrative, and FA policy requires us to add context and comprehensiveness. I'll "run with that" as soon as fair issues are addressed, e.g.what is expected of editors now, and you stop inventing ridiculous claims about the intelligent and inquisitive readers. If students and history buffs don't want contextual information then why bother with the dedicated articles? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you read nothing other editors have said to you. It's not just me who has been disagreeing with you. It should be apparent to you why someone who wants all the useful details on the early life, or presidency would go to the dedicated article - that's why those articles are called Early Life and Presidency. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have read every word, unlike yourself, apparently, who hasn't read what Cm' has offered in a compromise of 200k raw data, so please, once again, you really should only speak for yourself, and not cherry pick and ignore various points in the debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have read what's been written, you would know there is no such thing - and it's most definitely not agreed by the majority of editors. I will repeat because it does not seem possible that you have read when you respond with such nonsense. "I am not the only disagreeing with you." That's a fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Solutions

Cm', as much as I appreciate your effort to bring a dedicated article up to speed I still feel your effort here is largely a futile one. It would seem we need more than one link to get more readers to the other articles, but guidelines won't allow for that either. It wouldn't be so difficult of accepting the idea of moving context to other articles if the bulk of the readers were going to them. As page view stats for almost all the other dedicated articles reveal, only a small fraction of the readers go there. This is the article they come to to read about Grant. Moving context from this article will mean most of the readers will never read it. This is the reality some seem unable to accept. If there is consensus, we need to perhaps insert one or more piped links after key statements in the text. i.e. (See the dedicated article for further details). Also, the Early life' section is one of the smallest sections in the biography. Why not concentrate on an article whose relevant section here is among the largest? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There's already a hatnote and a link below the infobox, isn't there? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, and these two links are are not getting the greater bulk of the readers to a given dedicated article, which in theory are supposed to work, but in practice, they are mostly ignored or go unnoticed among the one or two links that direct a reader there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the current Wikipedia guidelines 100,000 bytes is the highest amount for readable prose. That is not a subjective amount. This article has 103,000. The article is exceeding the guideline. The current readable prose in the Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant is 15,000 bytes. That branch article could be increased by 85,000 bytes in readable prose. That is why we have branch articles to keep this biography article to maximum 100,000 of readable prose. I am going by the numbers here. 3,000 bytes of information should be removed to branch articles. It does not have to be only the Early life branch aricle. Let's say the Early life article gets to FA status and on the front page of Wikipedia. Would not that increase article viewership ? Why not get every branch article to FA status ? I know more about article size concerning readable prose. I think this is a case of Wikipedia policy, not editor concensus. It should not take much to move 3,000 bytes of information to branch articles. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy, I completely agree. There is more than enough source material to get any of the major subarticles to FA status, and having them on the main page would get more attention for them, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the Early Life ' section is among the smallest sections, so it seems there is no pressing reason to reduce it any smaller, if this is what you're driving at. Guidelines allows 100k of readable prose. We are at 103k mark. Since exceptions and discretions are allowed this should not be anything to even blink at. Contributors to this article have been making trims all along, and great efforts have been made in the recent past to alleviate page length concerns, so no one has rejected the idea of length entirely as I've been accused of by one editor. All that I hope for is a reasonable handling of the narrative, and removing context will only result in less interest to go to another article for further information. Context creates an interest. Blunt and out of context statements will only bore the intelligent reader, let alone entice that reader to inquire any further. Again, building a wall and guard tower, in effect, at the exact 100k line is not what guidelines are about. We can't keep on in this fashion every time we inch over the 100k mark. Redundancy and wholly tangential writing should be the biggest concern, and that is not even an issue with our biography. Anyway, I guess an added link after one or two key statements is out(?)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I am for expanding the Early life branch article. 3,000 bytes of information from the bio article needs to be reduced to comply with Wikipedia standards. There is no wink rule where if it exceeds this than just wink and look the other way. Grant's tour around the world is a branch article. Look how successful that article was. You worked on that article. Branch articles can make it big when editors put more effort into them. This article is FA. Major editing is unnecessary. Gwillhickers, why not reduce this article to the 100,000 byte Wikipedia limitation ? Why not work to get the Early life branch article to FA status ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This branch article World tour of Ulysses S. Grant got "1/9/2018 - 1/29/2018 · 552 pageviews". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

On 11-08-2017 the World tour of Ulysses S. Grant article got 12,445 views. Not bad for a "branch article". Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The World tour article received a lot of views on the day it was presented as a DYK item on WP's front page. Since then it only receives about 20-25 views a day on average. In any case, I've no problem with expanding a dedicated article if this is where you want to spend your time and effort. Dedicated articles don't negate FA policy that requires topics be covered contextually and comprehensively. If we chop the article by 3k, then we are still faced with an issue of what editors are expected to do thereafter. Are you willing to never again add anything to this article, or continue playing musical chairs with the narrative, added and deleting, adding and deleting? These are fair questions no one has squared off with, and ones we will have to deal with later if they're avoided now. If we compromised and employ what guidelines allows for, exceptions to unusual articles, we wouldn't have this problem over and over again. Are you abandoning your idea of a compromise 200k raw data limit? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The 200k raw limit was only as a general guideline for article reduction for myself. The link you gave Gwillhickers says there is a 100k limit on readable prose. The article can still be edited on or rewritten to keep up with modern research. Grant is on a high water mark of biographies within a 5 year span - Brands 2012, White 2016, and Chernow 2017. Maybe a better article could be created by lowering readable conent. Gold does not have to be polished. It retains its own luster. Grant article is FA status. Why does it need continued editing ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I'm perfectly willing to not add any more to this article without taking something else away. I don't understand why we keep tinkering with it when it's been recognized as among the best on Wikipedia, while millions of other articles could use our help. When new books came out, it made sense to add things, but that's been twice in the past few years. None of the rest of these edits have advanced the encyclopedia as a whole the way that working on a lesser article might. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Very good point, Cmguy. Good editing does not mean adding and adding, in such an article as this and with so much -- if anything, it means editing-out and organizing, which is the hardest part. Other than something major in new sourcing, as suggested by Coemgenus, which generally only requires some tendential shaping, we should edit down and move to dedicated pages. If this were to go to FAC review, it would not fail on comprehensive context for not having enough, it would if anything be seen as too much and prolix, and there would be calls for less -- and it might get failed on lack of stability, if anything. (Also, for future thought, Rjensen recently suggested to me that things be moved from here to the presidency article.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's four of us in agreement: The article does not need further expansion. Further tinkering would be counter-productive. YoPienso (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Tinkering" is a two way street. If there are major details over looked, which must be included in a FA, they should be added. Consensus can't go against policy, and it shouldn't be based on one guideline while others are ignored, nor should it be motivated by personal peeves while guidelines and policy are cherry picked and others ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that the article can be made better by streamlining the narration without removing content. I believe a 100,000 byte cap on readable prose is appropriate for the Grant biography. Thankfully this article does not suffer from lack of neglect. Honestly it might be over edited. Chernow 2017 and Smith 2016 are the most recent sources on Grant biography. Both could be used to streamline the article. Why does this article have so many notes ? Maybe incorparating the notes into the narration or just moving the information to branch articles could reduce the size of the article. I think a streamline article would not have any notes. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, you added many, if not most, of the notes. Since they don't count as readable prose they're not an issue. As we've done in the recent past, we can reduce long winded grammar, tangential items, etc, but the context needs to stay, and shouldn't be removed just to satisfy page length. If the article becomes too depleted and less than comprehensive, it will only beg another FA evaluation. With the musical chairs routine and the instability this article has been repeatedly subjected to it's a wonder it hasn't happened already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There maybe a simple solution. Set the readable prose cap at 100,000 bytes maximum, and have an editor concensus of 200,000 raw bytes cap maximum. History it is best explained when the least amount of words are used that express the most meaning without repetition. Depletion or Addition could cause another FA evalutation. I say just keep the article at 100,000 readable prose cap. Reduce the article without removing context. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's been a simple solution all along -- Compromise and exercising what all guidelines allows for -- exceptions and editor discretion. However, I agree, i.e.keep the context and reduce the verbage, when possible, as I too have advocated. In any case, more details and context in terms of non-redundancy and wholly tangential text would be welcomed by any intelligent reader interested in Grant. WP is not an encyclopedia for grade schoolers or those seriously lacking in attention span. We still need more ways to get readers to the other articles. Perhaps links in existing foot notes after key statements would help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a guideline that sets a 100,000 kb cap on readable prose and editor consensus to obey that guideline. I think the issue has been settled. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Is there a Wikipedia guideline cap on raw bytes or is that under editor discretion ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone uses raw bytes in a guideline to measure anything. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

100k of readable prose is acceptable so long as we don't remove important context and treat the narrative like we're writing for 5th graders who don't appreciate good context and comprehensive writing. I still have reservations of what will happen when the article is reduced to 100k. We can't lock the article down, this is Wikipedia, and we can't go on ignoring policy and other guidelines simply to maintain an exact word count, esp when after all these years not one single reader, out of the thousands that come here every day, has ever complained about the length. If we reduce the word count intelligently I'll have no problems with cooperating in the trimmings, as I've done all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there are no guidelines for raw bytes I have suggested a cap of 200,000 raw bytes by editor concensus, and keep the readable prose capped at 100,000 bytes by Wikipedia guidlines. Editors are welcome to expand the Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that if we keep the word count near the 100k level, the markup will maintain its own level. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Looks like the article can move forward now. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked quotes

It is difficult to move forward when blocked quotes are in the summary biography article. This article is still over the 100k limit and needs to be reduced. How can the article be reduced when there is an edit war over blocked quotes? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Cm' the blocked quote is the only quote offered in 'block quote' format, among the couple of other definitive quotes we offer by Grant. This is important context to Grant's reluctance, yet acceptance, of the presidential nomination. Will look for other ways to reduce word count without sacrificing important context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The full quote is not necessary for the article. This is a summary, not a book. All narration in the article is subject to reduction. There is a 100k limit on the article. Preventing reduction is not the answer. It is editor control. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, a few quotes does not a book make. The quote is needed, revealing Grant's sentiments about accepting the presidential nomination, as explained above and twice in edit history. Inciting instability with hyper speak and accusations is not the answer either. What is with all this urgency? We are coming along with the reductions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's that long. It's not necessary, but I think it adds to the article and would leave it. That it's a block quote doesn't add to the length any, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article needs reduction. I appreciate your opinion on the matter Coemgenus. But what is next ? Don't reduce this section. It is too important ? Yes. Grant is saying his was the only man for the job. That makes Grant somewhat of an Omega Man. The only person in the country who was not a racist and who would fight racism. Is that true ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reduced narration and kept the block quote. I moved information into the Presidency article. The readable prose is now at 1.01 Kbs. It is almost at the 1.00 Kbs cap. I think there is too much emphasis on Grant's "reluctance" to be president, especially in a blocked quote and in private letter to Sherman. That is just me though. I appreciate editor discussion and trying to avoid edit warring. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Working 'closely'

Cm', re your last edit to the lede: I took the term 'closely' to mean that Grant worked closely with Lincoln in terms of managing the war effort, etc, which is true. In fact, they also communicated frequently via telegraph or dispatch. It wasn't a reference to the personal relationship and/or the political understandings between the two men. This seems like a very important detail which we might want to emphasize a bit more. e.g. ... Grant worked earnestly with President Lincoln to lead the Union Army ... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. It is true Lincoln supported Grant. Grant's rise in the military during the Civil War is owed to his victories, Lincoln, and Washburne. That does not mean Lincoln and Grant worked "closely" together. In my edit I was going by Simon (2002) page 243. Lincoln was a frontiersman, while Grant was "cultivated gentility", Lincoln told dirty jokes, while Grant refused to listen to dirty jokes, Lincoln was indirect as military commander. Here is a quote: "Lincoln's style was indirect, and it is doubtful whether, in their infrequent meetings, Grant fully understood the man or his policies." Lincoln was Grant's supervisor, according to Simon. The term "closely" suggests otherwise. Grant wanted Lincoln to fire Butler, but Lincoln told Grant to fire Butler, and he did. Mary Lincoln's tantrums kept the Grants and Lincolns apart, may even saved Grant's life. The Grants refused to go to Ford's Theater and attend Our American Cousin performance. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, Grant was in frequent contact with Lincoln during the war, and often met personally. At time's Grant let Lincoln ride his horse when they were inspecting a given battle front. There are numerous incidents where the two met personally, not to mention their communications via telegraph or dispatch throughout the war. Our lede statement obviously communicates this general idea, nothing more: As Commanding General, Grant worked with President Abraham Lincoln to lead the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy. Once again, it is not a reference to each man's understanding of the other's political views or personal dynamics. Adding "closely" or "earnestly" to the statement only accentuates this idea and would tell us their association and joint effort in leading the army was more than a passing one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Grant and Lincoln were friends. Simon is a reliable source. When something is doubtful why put it in the article. Simon said "[c]harged with vast responsibilities, General-in-Chief Grant had to act vigorously within the military sphere, tread softly in the political sphere, and understand as well the politics of command. Under Lincoln’s guidance, sometimes oblique, sometimes imperious, Grant succeeded." That does not sound like a close relationship. Also Grant was not allowed to handle the Peace Conference of February 1865. Lincoln sent Major Thomas Eckert of the War Department’s telegraph office to handle the situation. Major Eckert outranked Grant. Source: The Officers: Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885). Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would Lincoln send a subordinate, Major Thomas Eckert, to be in charge of the Peace Conference of February 1865 ? In fact, Major Eckert "ordered" General-In-Chief Grant not to talk to the Confederate representatives. That does not sound like a close relationship between Grant and Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is what Major Eckert said to his superior officer Grant, " '[e]xcuse me, General Grant, you are not permitted to say anything officially at this time,' and I stopped him right there. I added, 'If you will read the instructions under which I am acting you will see that I am right.' " This demonstrated that Lincoln had little faith in Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Cm', this is peckish and amounts to little. Lincoln had faith in Grant through most of the war, starting with Belmont and the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson, and stood by him even when rumors of drinking hit the fan by disgruntled entities envious of Grant's command, initiative and repeat victories. This is covered in the biography. How about saying frequently worked with Lincoln? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Why attack me ? I have given references. The best way to say their relationship was that Lincoln was the President and supervisor of Grant. We can't make up history or put the history we want to in the article. Terms frequently, closely, and earnestly are more speculation than truth. Lincoln did not even know what Grant's plans were. The only time Lincoln and Grant worked well was when Lincoln indirectly told Grant to send troops to Washington when Lee sent Jubal Early into the Shenandoah Valley to attack Washington D.C. Grant had also disagreed with Lincoln's cotton trade policy, that got Grant into trouble with General Orders # 11. Grant never met Lincoln until 1864. Lincoln and Grant really did not talk about specific strategy attacking Robert E. Lee. We seem to be going around in circles. Grant was angry at Major Eckert and he walked out of the Peace negotiations because he was not allowed to speak by a subordinate Major sent by Lincoln. Maybe Grant could have ended the War peacefully. Lincoln was pulling the rug out of Grant's authority, in essense. Lincoln did the same thing to Grant with General McClernand, a War Democrat, at Vicksburg. Simon says Lincoln was Grant's supervisor. That makes sense. I think it is the best way to describe their relationship. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a Simon compromise phrase: Under Lincoln's guidance.... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I added context using Chernow 2017 pages 343-344 saying the relationship between Grant and Lincoln was cordial and friendly. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Coemgenus, Cm's edit was more definitive. "Supervised" not only suggests the idea of working closely, but more than suggests these events were frequent, given the demands of the war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Supervised, when Simon is taken into context, is that all President's have a supervisory duty over generals. Lincoln wanted results. Grant knew this. And I think that is why in part Grant never retreated while fighting against Lee. Grant's meetings with Lincoln were not frequent, according to Simon. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said, they were in constant communication, frequently working closely together as the events of the war unfolded. And they did indeed meet personally on several occasions. 'Supervised' is even more definitive. While I appreciate your efforts, this was a rather simple point about one statement in the lede and should have been resolved days ago without wandering into dozens of other topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Simon said Grant and Lincoln met infrequently. Constant communication ? There are no telephones in 1864-1865. Lincoln had to literally walk to the War Department to find out information about the war. As far as I know Lincoln relied on the War Department staff who received telegraphs. The only thing specific Lincoln told Grant was to defeat Robert E. Lee. How Grant did that was up to Grant. The two only knew each other for about a year. But Lincoln deserves credit for getting Grant to send troops to protect Washington from Jubal Early's Confederate Army. I put that Lincoln and Grant had a cordial and friendly relationship. The Civil War ended in May and Johnson was President from the time Lincoln had died to the end of the Civil War, a little over a month. Both Johnson and Lincoln were Presidents during the Civil War. Lee's surrender did not end the Civil War. The last battle of the Civil War, Palmito Ranch (May 12-13, 1865) took place under Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

After Vicksburg Grant met with Lincoln frequently, traveling to Washington about once a week. Before that Grant moved his headquarters to Nashville because it allowed a direct telegraph line to Washington. Before that Lincoln and Grant met and inspected the battle front during the overland campaign, Lincoln often riding on Grant's horse. Lee's surrender officially ended the Civil War, regardless if word did not reach all Confederate troops. Lincoln was assassinated about a week thereafter. Johnson did not work with Grant to defeat the Confederacy in any capacity to speak of. Thanks for your input. "Supervised" is probably the best term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What source says Grant travelled weekly to Washington after Vicksburg ? It was Rawlins who went to Washington after Vicksburg to meet with Lincoln. Not Grant. How could Grant travel to Washingon weekly during Chattanooga campaign ? Vicksburg ended July 3, 1863. Grant met Lincoln in 1864. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

At this point I'm not really interested in any discourse over an endless steam of other topics when the simple issue has already been resolved, and further, don't appreciate your tone or assumption that everything I've told you about Grant and Lincoln was just made up. I will give you this. Chernow. p.352 says, Every week Grant traveled to Washington and sat down with Lincoln and Stanton (sec of war) for lengthy talks. Almost immediately, he developed a harmonious relationship with the president. This was during the period that followed the fall of Vicksburg and when Lincoln began giving Grant more than average attention as generals go. Chernow also has an entry in his index (Grant...Lincoln's, meetings with,) devoted to specific meetings between the two. You seem to think frequent meetings and/or communications between Grant and Lincoln is something unusual. Keeping the idea of article improvement in mind, it wouldn't hurt if we found other sourced specific instances when, and where, Grant and lincoln met personally. I know of several instances. There's more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. The first meeting of Grant and Lincoln was March 8, 1864 at the White House. Specific dates of meetings between Grant and Lincoln would be helpful. I was going by Simon (2002) who said meetings between Grant and Lincoln were infrequent. Vicksburg Campaign ended on July 11, 1863. I can look at the Chernow 2017 source given. Chernow was saying that after Grant arrived in Washington on March 8, 1864 Grant met weekly with Lincoln and Stanton. The Overland Campaign started on May 4, 1864. That would be 58 days between those two dates. 58 days divided by 7 is 8 weeks. That would mean Grant at minimum met with Lincoln and Stanton potentially 8 times for 2 months. Dates and records of these meetings would be needed. There seem to be historical mixed messages concerning Grant and Lincoln. Simon (2002) says it is doubtful Grant understood Lincoln and their two personalities were opposites. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked quote

The article narration can be reduced without the blocked quote in the Presidency section.

Grant assumed the presidency with reluctance, which he expressed in an 1868 letter, after his nomination, to his close friend Sherman:

I have been forced into it in spite of myself. I could not back down without, as it seems to me, leaving the contest for power for the next four years between mere trading politicians, the elevation of whom, no matter which party won, would lose to us, largely, the results of the costly war which we have gone through.

This can be reduced to Grant accepted the presidential nomination out of duty, although he prefered to remain in the Army. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The article currently is at 101 kbs readable prose. This edit would be done to get the article at or closer to 100 kbs readable prose following Wikipedia policy. I favor the edit. A blocked quote is great for a book but not a Wikipedia summary biography article that has exceeded the readable prose limit. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit will reduce the readable prose from 81 words to 16 words, a difference of 65 words. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is now at 100 Kbs, but I still favor the edit to reduce the size of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there are no comments, I take it there are no objections. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Any objections or comments ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

We discussed this. While you seem to be adamant, for some reason, about removing this major item of context, Grant's own words no less, simply to reduce length, you went ahead and added a political detail far less important to Grant's overall presidency than his reasons for accepting this office. You don't give us much cause to have much faith in your reasoning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not removal. It is replacement. We discussed but without resolving the issue. There is no need to slander me either. The blocked quote is not necessary for the article. It can be removed to the Presidency article. It is not a major item of context. It belongs in the Election of 1868 section. It is saying the same thing using differnt words. The Treaty of Hawaii was a sucessful treaty, not an insignifigant detail. Gwillhickers, there is no need to attack my reasoning abilities or make this personal. I don't want an edit war. I would appreciate a better tone of civility in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Grant's quoted letter has been added to the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. There is no reason to keep it in this article. More important is information on Grant's atonement to the Jewish people, such as attending the opening of a Synogogue. Establishing editor control is against Wikipedia policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Foriegn policy

The last entry to the lede is a politically tangential detail and if anywhere, belongs in the Presidency section somewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Hawaii is the 50th state of the United States. That treaty started a process of statehood for Hawaii. I disagree that it is a tangential detail, especially in light of the fact that Santo Domingo gets so much bad press from historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The trade reciprocity treaty is not even covered in the body of text, while nothing is said of Grant's involvement in terms of promotion, debate, party support, signing, etc. Hawaii statehood didn't occur until 1959, 82 years after Grant left the Whitehouse in 1877. Trying to attribute this to Grant in the lede like we would West Point, Reconstruction, Appomattox and other lede-worthy subjects raises a due-weight issue. The way you feel historians treat 'Santo Domingo' has nothing to do with this topic. The lede is for summarizing major topics in Grant's biography. I would not object for this statement to be in the Presidency section and/or article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The reciprocity treaty is mentioned in the Foreign Affairs subsection of the Presidency section. No one is attributing Hawiaan statehood to Grant. It is just saying he had a successful trade treaty with an island nation as opposed to failed Santo Domingo treaty. That is a neutrality issue. Gwillhickers, you always seem to oppose my edits as if I need your permission. That is editor control. Editors allow you to freely edit. Why not extend the priviledge to me. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No one's edits are above scrutiny and editors have the right to ask questions or make suggestions here in Talk. They even have the right to make reverts. Having said that, thanks for withdrawing the statement and discussing. -- We may want to remove other lesser political details from the lede; Not because of any few words of length, but because the lede is long and should only lend itself to major chapters (.e.g.Vicksburg) and major subjects (e.g.Reconstruction, Corruption, etc.) in Grant's life and legacy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe this paragraph, filled with foreign affairs details could be summed up this way:

Existing passage.

• In foreign policy, Grant sought to increase trade and influence while remaining at peace with the world. With Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, he successfully resolved the Alabama claims through the Treaty of Washington with Great Britain. Grant and Fish negotiated a peaceful resolution with Spain over the Virginius Affair. Congress rejected Grant's initiative to annex the Dominican Republic, creating a rift among Republicans.

Condensed proposal

• In foreign policy, Grant sought to increase trade and influence, remained at peace with the world and resolved a number of outstanding foreign affairs issues while failing at others.

If we were to provide one example I would recommend we mention Grant's avoiding war with Spain.

• In foreign policy, Grant sought to increase trade and influence, avoided war with Spain, remained at peace with the world and resolved a number of other outstanding foreign affairs issues while failing at others.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. It has not been resolved on the above block quote. Your summaries is too general. I had to clean up Chattanooga and promotion section. You slander my reputation as an editor on Wikipedia and have taken editor control of the article. You started an edit war on the block quote but insisted on pushing in Grant and horses. You seem to have an agenda to relegate Grant to a corrupt so so President, when biographers have been praising his presidency. You forbid a successful treaty of Grant's to be in the lede because you don't want Grant to be sucessful at anything. It is becoming impossible to edit on this article. I don't have a lot of issues with Coemgenus and Alan Scott Walker because they are respectul editors. We had been getting along well, but things are breaking down. I don't have any political agendas when it comes to Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If I had "editor control" the article would be somewhat longer that 100k of prose. Reverting a questionable edit is not an edit war. You have made your share of reverts also. Now I have an agenda against Grant?? "I don't want Grant to be successful at anything"?? I'm sorry but now you're sounding like a child. Are there any other accusations you liked to add? I'll be glad to discuss matters concerning article improvement as soon as you collect yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The 100k limit is Wikipedia policy, not editor control. Grant attending a synagogue while he was President in his atonement of General Orders #11 is more important than his block quoted letter to Sherman. Also the letter is a primary source. Why not use Simon (2002) who said that Grant accepted the nomination out of duty, but prefered to stay in the military. That is really what the letter was saying. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 established trade with the Kingdom of Hawaii was a success, to counter Grant's failed Santo Domingo Treaty. The lede makes Grant sound like a failure. The lede should be specific for the reader. I would be more willing to compromise if I was allowed to edit myself in the article. Editors have cooperated with your edits. I compromised on adding information on Grant and horses. You slandered my reputation as an editor "You don't give us much cause to have much faith in your reasoning." That is editor control. That is creating a hostile editing environment. All I am asking is the freedom to edit in this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That remark was in reference to your willingness to remove a major point of reference while sticking political details in the lede. How do you expect anyone to have faith in this approach when all along you've been prodding us with the idea of page length, more so than even Coemgenus has done. Sorry. You're the one who has initiated the hostility with your continuous accusations, beginning recently and before, accusing editors of controlling you somehow, and I'm not the only one you've accused of this. The last barrage of accusations sort of confirms this idea. Everyone around here abides by consensus. No one exerts any authority over other editors. It's ridiculous that someone has to recite this for you. All we've been doing here is Talk, and we all make a revert now and then. You withdrew your edit, I didn't force you. When I suggest we remove other political details in the lede you came apart. There is no point in discussing the article given your present state of mind. Please try to control your efforts and the accusations and I'll be happy to get back to work with you. We've covered much ground. Let's not stop. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How is a trade treaty a political detail ? Was NAFTA a political detail ? Wikipedia policy is to keep the article neutral. Saying Grant failed at Santo Domingo and not mentioning the successful Hawaiian trade treaty in the lede is not neutral. Grant was a politician. You can't remove political details from a political article. The readers deserve better. It also undermines the importance of Grant's presidency in restoring the Union during Reconstruction. That is what the Lost Cause tried to do. All I am asking is the freedom to edit on this article. Simon is a solid reliable source. Chernow is a solid reliable source. White is a solid reliable source. And concerning the 1868 election Chernow stipulates that Grant was not sorry he ran for President. The quote makes Grant sound like he was forced into the Republican nomination. He was not. He accepted the nomination by his own choice. Simon and Chernow explain things in a summary fashion. Block quotes are great for books but not a summary biographical article on Grant. I don't monitor other editors edits Gwillhickers, not even yours. I feel that I am being monitored in this article. My edits are to increase clarity of information, fix chronology, or clean up "sloppy" editing. I have no political agenda. The blocked quote can be explained better in summary form. I don't want edit warring. I want the freedom to edit. My present state of mind is fine. I am open to discussion as long as editors respect each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Virtually everyone's edits are monitored, which of course they are in presidential articles, and duly so. Other than an occasional revert or restoration there's been no edit warring. This is Wikipedia -- and the narrative is the product of editor scrutiny. Anyway, let's get back to work. I gather my last proposal doesn't agree with you. Fine. And Grant's rather simple quote, reliably sourced, is a summary -- do we really need secondary statements from one or more historians to convey his sentiments about assuming the presidency here? To the surprise of many, Grant was quite the writer. Let's work it out, as we've always managed to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to work things out. Getting rid of the quote would serve other purposes. One, it would allow more space in the article. Two, a summary explanation by biographers Chernow and Simon would add clarification. Remember Grant tried to run for three terms in office. Doesn't that seem odd for someone who did not want to be President. Three, White, who published the quote, could be sourced too, while the quote has been added to the Presidency article. Additional information on Grant's atonement to the Jewish people can be added. Grant would have never run for office had he not wanted too. All that needs to be said is that Grant thought he was the only man for the job, and he accepted the 1868 nomintation out of duty, but preferred to stay in the military. That is essentially the quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

editbreak

I have to disagree. Once again, Grant's quote is comprehensive, expressing his feelings about assuming the presidency and tells us exactly why. We would have to replace it with another statement(s) to relate this important aspect of Grant's state of mind and reasoning at that juncture in his life. There are plenty of other ways to reduce length without removing or truncating important context, which we have been trying to do all along. This doesn't mean we can't add a sentence or two to the narrative now and then, just so long as we keep the prose at or close to the 100k mark. Also, I don't want an alarm to go off every time we happen to step over the 100k line. This is why every guideline stipulates exceptions and editor discretion. Consensus can't turn a guideline into a policy, nor can it insist it be adhered to religiously as we do Wikipedia policy. I am willing to go along with page length concerns when it is practical, but not as if it was some rigid rule while someone is looking over our shoulder counting words every time we edit. Also, the lede is meant for general subjects. It is not the place to enumerate bills, treaties, and other political details. Mentioning this one treaty in the lede gives it just as much weight as is given to major subjects like Appomattox, Reconstruction and would surely invoke due weight issues. Also, if you want to add a point about Grant and Jewish people in the body of text I've no objections. This would increase comprehensiveness on that important topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has set the cap at 100K. That means that editors have to remove and replace to keep the cap. I disagree that there is some loose relative subjective number above the 100k. When will it stop ? The letter to Sherman, only expressed Grant's feelings after his nomination in 1868. We need to add biographer context. It leaves the reader perplexed. Grant, the president who tried to run for three terms in the 19th Century. Why didn't he retire after his first term ? Why did he run for his second and a third term ? The blocked quote can be replaced by biographer context. The blocked quote is in the Presidency article. Certainly the presidency helped his family out appointing them and his friends to political office. Also, no more having to submit to a president. Now Grant is the boss. No more Johnson-Grant controversy. There is no need for the blocked quote, when biographers Chernow and Simon, have addressed this issue. Grant's appointments of Jewish officers is more important than the blocked quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The solution is simple. Reduce the size of the quote and added editor context from Chernow and Simon. The full quote from White is in the Grant's presidency article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• You're fixed on this one quote for some reason. Its general context is more important than the small amount of length we may reduce by adding some other statement in its place. Also, please don't try to get too high handed about page length, since you were one of the major contributors when the article was growing in size past the 100k limit, esp when Chernow's book came out, while you also suggested a raw data limit, allowing more prose. As always, I will make efforts to reduce length without depleting context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Also, adding a statement about Grant and Jewish relations is not contingent on the existence of any one quote. If you're that concerned about the added length we can always reduce some grammar or lesser details somewhere else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is there so much protection of a blocked quote? It is the only one in the article. It can be summarized. This is a summary article, not a book. Why would summarizing a blocked quote create an edit war ? I asked a question on compromise and there was no answer. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked quote replacement proposal

In an effort to avoid any edit warring I am making the following proposal to replace the blocked quote:

Grant assumed the presidency with reluctance, which he expressed in an 1868 letter, after his nomination, to his close friend Sherman:

I have been forced into it in spite of myself. I could not back down without, as it seems to me, leaving the contest for power for the next four years between mere trading politicians, the elevation of whom, no matter which party won, would lose to us, largely, the results of the costly war which we have gone through.

with

Although Grant had preferred to remain in the army, he accepted the Republican nomination out of duty, believing he was the only one who could unify the nation. In a letter to Sherman in 1868, he said he could not back down without "leaving the contest for power for the next four years between mere trading politicians." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Favor: This will summarize Grant's reluctance to run for the presidency. This gives better understanding and biographer input on why Grant ran for president in 1868. I kept a partial quote of Grant's 1868 letter to Sherman. Editor opinion welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We already have a summary that's more than adequate. This particular quote of Grant's is among his most famous and significant. It's understood that assuming the office of the presidency is done so out of duty, but Grant's quote tells us why. There's plenty of "biographer input" already, while most of the biography is derived from 'biographers'. This doesn't mean we shouldn't hear from Grant himself on a given (and very important) point. It's also understood that as a Commanding General he preferred to stay in the army, or he would not have accepted with reluctance. Also, you speak of block quotes as if they were automatically not good somehow. We only use one, for Grant, in Grant's biography. Block quotes exist in many presidential articles. Presidents are often quoted, more so than lesser figures in history. I have no objections if you would like to add clarity to the text if you feel something is really missing. As per your original concern, I will continue as always to make efforts to keep page length under control. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what the use is when other editors do not make comments. Coemgenus said the block quote was not necessary. I do have a problem with block quotes that are a primary source. They are great for books. They don't have any historical assessement on their own. As far as I know White is the only biographer who is quoting Grant. White does not give a lot of input on the letter. Simon and Chernow give historical assessement why Grant accepted the nomination. I have kept part of the quote. It seems other editors just edit freely. I have humbled myself to talk things out, but I don't think it is doing any good. Editors are freely editing without talk. So should I. Sometimes I feel a bit underappreciated. We don't have a summary that is adequate. I feel I have been patient on this matter, waiting for editor opinion. I think that part of the problem with this article is that discussions often end up in disfunctional dialogue. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't know why WP would provide markup for and allow blockquotes if they were for 'books only'. This is your assumption. Again, they exist in 1000's of other articles, not to mention presidential articles. Also, as existing talk page sections will show, not to mention recent Talk page edit history, I have approached you with numerous points of discussion, first. Often times you have made contributions without talk, so it's a bit disingenuous for you to carry on as if you have been singled out and victimized while your edits are frequently reverted. -- Grant's letter is a general point of context and sets the tone for his feelings and what he was up against when he became president. The narrative goes on to support this idea in numerous cases. Explanations have always been extended to you far more than for any other editor, but you argue at length over simple points and drag in numerous other off topics in the process, as now. You started out with a big concern for page length, and when that was addressed you have been all over the map since, rendering the discussion "disfunctional" while discouraging others to participate. In light of all the accusations you have levied at me and others it would seem you have been treated more than fairly around here. Again, if you feel that clarity is needed on any given topic or idea it will no doubt be welcomed by most if not all of us here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Chernow devotes part of his book to Grant's redress of the his General Order's # 11. That has more historical weight than Grant's letter to Sherman. Grant's concern for Jewish people globally and in the United States while President. Chernow says Grant was not sorry he ran for President. The blocked quote does not present this at all. Grant's unprecendented third term bid also bears evidence he wanted to be President. As far as editor control goes, I started this talk to come out with a compromise rather than have an edit war. My initial edit on the blocked quote was overturned. My editorial judgement was put into question. Also information on Grant during the Election of 1868 belongs in that section, not the Presidency. I have been going out of my way to discuss this. When I believe there is editor control I have been honest in saying so. These talks seem futile. I should have the freedom to make my own edits without any talk discussions. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, Grant's quote, or any other item, is not contingent on the existence of any added statement about Jewish relations. If you would like to add a statement of clarity about Grant's Jewish relations no one is stopping you, more over, no one has even objected to this in Talk. Grant's quote is not supposed to cover all the different aspects of his presidency in detail, and making such demands on any one passage seems to exemplify that you are only arm-wrestling here. You seem only to be inventing objections about a simple, yet definitive, quote from Grant. If you still feel you are under "editor control" there is nothing else I can tell you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Grant's full name

The bold name Ulysses Simpson Grant has just been added to the opening sentence in the lede by another editor. It was my understanding that when Congressman Hamer submitted Grant's appointment to West Point he thought Grant's middle name was Simpson and as such the 'S' in Grant's name was and has often been assumed to stand for Simpson. As I recall, Grant once said the 'S' didn't stand for anything officially. I would return the original name configuration back to Ulysses S. Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)