Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Christmas and Grant

This may be sort of a long shot, but is there any notable event involving Grant at Christmas? e.g.Either with his troops during the war or at the Whitehouse entertaining any notable figure, etc? We know he wasn't a religious man per say, but many less than religious people who acknowledge a creator, as Grant did, celebrate Christmas in terms of 'Peace on Earth, good will towards men'. Thought this might be an interesting insight into Grant's life, per his biography. Seems there must be at least one source out there that highlights a Christmas event. The biography mentions that Grant while on world tour spent Christmas aboard one of the ships that he traveled on, but this is just an incidental mention. I just checked White and Brands. Nothing. Will look for something notable elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The only Christmas for Grant that would be relevant would be any Christmas his family celebrated at the White House. I don't know of any sources that mention Grant celebrating Christmas at the White House. Christmas in the 1800's was not commercialized as it is today. It probably was not formalized. There was no television, radio, or wireless internet. It may have been a low key family event at that time. There was no electricity at the White House or "lighting" of the Christmas tree event. Was there a White House Christmas tree ? I don't know. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, speaking of internet, first tree, Harrison, 1889. Happy holidays, to all :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good websource. Nothing is mentioned about Grant. Was Grant even at the White House on Christmas ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never read anything about Grant and Christmas, but I'll happily join in the holiday greetings to all of you. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Christmas we have today did not exist in Grant's time. This article says modern Christmas practices were gradually developed starting in the 1850s. Here is the source: Penne Restad Christmas in 19th Century America, History Today, Volume 45, Issue 12, December 1995 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of doubtful that Grant made speeches or any other sort of ovation on or around Christmas to members of the House, or appeared on the Whitehouse lawn and gave the country Christmas blessings, etc. As General he was involved in the Vicksburg campaign during Christmas, 1862. Was there a day of truce at Christmas? Guess I'm sort of reaching for ways to mention Christmas in the biography. See you in a few days. Merry Christmas, or Peace on Earth, to all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I could not find any proclamations on Grant and Christmas, but while he was President he made Thankgiving Day proclamations each year. I think Thanksgiving was more of a national holiday more then Christmas was during the 1870s. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is something. Grant created four federal holidays for Washington D.C. on June 28, 1870. Certain Holidays Established in District of Columbia New Years; Fourth of July; Thanksgiving; and Christmas. That is from a primary source but its something. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I added that Grant made Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, and The Fourth of July legal federal holidays for workers in Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice addition, Cm'. Odd that White or Brands, which I have, doesn't mention it. McFeely, Smith and Campbell, as much as the online viewing will allow, evidently doesn't mention it. Badeau's (1887) coverage of Grant's post military life doesn't mention it either. I'm not suggesting that we not mention Grant making these holidays official, only that we should look to a better source than a magazine website to cite this event. Almost as a rule, web sight addresses used as citations go 404, sooner or later. Page numbers in publications never change. If you (or anyone) have any of these or other sources in hand could you check? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You're making a pretty good argument of why we should leave it out, actually. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Last I checked these Holidays are still in effect and Grant started them. I believe the edits add neutrality to the article, especially in light of his nortorious GO11. This law was trend setting and very modern. Government workers getting four legal holidays. Don't have to send mail on these days. Time magazine is not a biography, I agree, but that does not mean its a fringe source. Biographies are no guarantees fringe theories or misrepresentations can't be included in their narrations. I did not start this discussion, Gwillhickers did. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this where I'm supposed to say, 'It's all my fault'? No one disputed the source as non reliable, only that the address might go 404 sometime and that publication page numbers were more stable. No one questioned if the holidays were still in effect. No one made an issue of neutrality, or fringe theories. There are a good number of items in the biography that are not sourced by a Grant biographer. Cm', ever hear the expression, 'Quit while you're still ahead'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I am saying I did not start this conversation. It's nobody's fault. Should I be expected just to cave in and say everybody's right and I am wrong ? The I supplied the primary government source and the Times source. Here is the law Holidays in the District of Columbia Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(Pew!) No one is 'wrong' here. The sources are good enough. Did I not say, 'Nice addition', and merely asked everyone to look for a more stable source?? I can't speak for Coemgenus, but it seems if he was hell bent on removing your edit he would have been a little more direct. Moved the item back into the text, per your original edit. Wonder if Stanton dying on Christmas eve is what prompted Grant to make Christmas, etc, a national holiday. Something else to keep an eye out for in our travels.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I put it in a note out of compromise. I added what White said on Grant and Christmas. Grant signed the bill on Holidays because in this case he was being modern and the standards of his times were changing. People wanted days off. In this he was progressive. But I also added that Grant allowed the slaughter of millions of buffalo when he had power to outlaw the bison slaughter. This was done to keep Indians on their reservations. In that he was being conservative. The price of conquering the West was the Buffalo. My edits were done in good faith. Grant was like Jefferson, he is contradictive and hard to figure out. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Compromise, what? Really, adding and adding sentences is not the way to go. Three new sentences because of Christmas? Because editors celebrate Christmas? It's just not good, on multiple levels. Are people just ignoring Coemgenus, when they point out no biographer covers this. Is Coemgenus being too subtle? That lack of coverage means it does not belong, and a Christmas party is trivial. Mourning for Stanton is out of place otherwise we have to put everytime Grant issued national mourning.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I was being too subtle. The fact that no Grant biographer mentions something should be an enormous red flag. It means that the consensus of Grant scholars is that that item is too trivial or tangential to include in a comprehensive biography. That absence, ipso facto, should mandate its exclusion from this encyclopedia article, which is meant to be a more concise summation of mainstream Grant scholarship. When we add something that every grant historian excludes, we are substituting our judgement for theirs. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sensing a double standard here. White mentioned Stanton's death, Christmas, and the mourning of Stanton. White is a Grant biographer. There was no POV pushing. Having a day off for a holiday, something common today, was trend setting during Grant's time. There is no reason to have an edit war over this. Yes. No biographers mention Grant creating holiday's for people. That should not automatically effect exclusion from the article. I mentioned the slaughter of bison, an important part of Grant's peace policy. Why do some biographers exclude this ? Maybe biographers have their own POV and their own agenda. I don't think Wikipedia should just be an outlet for Grant biographers. Adding non biographer sources, in my opinion, strengthens the article highlighting different aspects of his presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Two of the items are cited by White, 2016. Obviously Christmas is what prompted the inquiry about Grant and Christmas, but nothing was added "because editors celebrate Christmas" -- that's a rather flagrant assumption. We don't know if "none" of Grant's biographers mention Grant's federal holiday act. We've been down this road before. There are a good number of sources in the bibliography that are not Grant biographies and used in the citations. While we must follow the scholarship, there is no policy or guideline that says every item must be cited by a biographer. Making Christmas, etc a holiday isn't at all tangential and is an act directly related to Grant. Grant's first celebration of Christmas at the Whitehouse, and mourning of Stanton, both cited by White, 2016, are also notable events in Grant's life. This is the Grant biography, and items that directly reflect on Grant's person should get top priority. It's too early to claim that none of Grant's biographers cover Grant's federal holiday act. Has the reverting editor looked? Cm' thought the edits were appropriate and so do I. We're going to need an outright policy violation or a substantial consensus to simply delete this informative information. One could easily claim that the only "POV push" here was the attempt to delete every mention of Christmas in the article, regardless if it's directly related to Grant's life, but that would be an assumption and an abandonment of good faith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I know I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. What we should be doing is reading the sources and summarizing them. What happened here was the opposite: editors thought of something that they wanted to add, then searched sources and the internet to find someway to back it up. That's how an article can come to reflect an editor's judgment about what's important in Grant's life, rather than the consensus of scholars' judgment. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, not only that but now editors to keep this trivia are using original research to say how important it is to Grant's biography - his life - not his presidency - his life. That's just poorly done, again on multiple levels. We have a BRD challenge and an ONUS challenge - there is no consensus for these additions. If you contend multiple biographers discuss the holiday order, and its importance for his life, show the sources (because what we have now does not do it for half of us) - if you contend that this Christmas celebration and party, is by consensus of sources so important out of all the parties of his life, show the sources (again because what we have right now, does not convince), if you contend that this official mourning, out of all other mournings is by consensus of scholarship so important, show the sources (again because what we have now does not convince). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There were no Wikipedia violations nor POV pushing. The Times article is not in anyway fringe. I supplied the actual law in 1870 in the talk page that supported the Times article. Alanscottwalker is it your job to be judge, jury, and executioner, the dictator of Wikipedia policy? The information on Christmas and Stanton was supplied by White (2016). We are told to use biographers and so one was used and then deleted. Hypocracy. Then we are told we are POV pushing when an actual biographer was used as a reference. Coemgenus and Alanscottwalker could be accused of POV pushing biographers. There was no original research either. Editors have a right to their opinions as long as their opinions are not presented in the article. Has it come now we need litigation and attornies for every edit in the Grant article ? Apparently Christmas holiday is super controversial today. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No hypocrisy. They are different problems centered on Christmas trivia - that was brought up on this page looking Christmas trivia - and no I am no more in charge than you, you boldly edited and it was reverted, per BRD. It is without consensus and so cannot now go in per ONUS absent settlement among us. I have invited you to provide more sources and context from those - to demonstrate it is not particularist Christmas POV trivia without original research, and you can refuse, if you like, but that refusal is not going to settle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That Grant parted his hair on the left, or that he liked Irish stew, is "trivia". Otoh, a presidential act making federal holidays is not trivia. Grant's first Christmas celebration in the Whitehouse as President is not trivia, esp for his biography, nor are his feelings about Stanton and the tribute he gave to this notable figure and friend of half a life time. The items are all notable, two of them cited by White, 2016, and all are directly related to Grant. It doesn't matter if editors thought of something and then found it in the sources. There is no "original research" here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You said all that without sources to back claims of scholarly consensus on importance. That's called original research -- and that is editor POV. We've been over how we cannot put everything in White or in any book length biography in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not true Alanscottwalker. I gave White (2016) as a scholarly source on Grant and Stanton. Deleted. "Scholarly concensus on importance" ? That is very subjective. I gave the Times as a source too. The Times is not a fringe magazine and has not been banned by Wikipedia. It was on their website. That concerned Grant creating holidays. If editors believe the holidays to be trivia, I have no problem, nor do I have a problem if this information is removed. But to accuse any editor(s) of orginal research, ONUS, and BRD is over the line. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

BRD is where you make an edit it is reverted and then discussion of putting it back in occurs before it is put back in. Onus is getting consensus for the proposed change. Those have been violated. The rest is true. As I have said neither White nor Time, convince either me or Coemgenus that this is not trivia given undue weight, by editorial wishing to mention Christmas more. We simply cannot put everything White or any book length biographer has in this article, and the Time mention does not satisfy the ONUS for importance to his biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

All the items are sourced by reliable sources, directly reflect on Grant the President and Grant the person and are appropriate to a biography. There is no original research. There is no policy that says all items must be cited with a Grant biographer. This is getting peckish, and once again smacks of WP:OWN. The "trivia" label is a reaching opinion and doesn't stick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You have still not shown a scholarly consensus on this claim of importance - that is POV pushing and original research (we are not objecting on verifiability). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no one's denying that it's true. The problem is giving more weight to a minor event than Grant's own biographers do in their much longer works. This article has grown by 30K this year and almost none of it makes the article better. If we don't limit the article to what scholars have considered important, what should our limiting principle be? Our own judgment? Surely that can't be it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Insert: Accusing editors of POV; ONUS; and BRD does not help the article, just divides editors against other editors and creates a hostile editing environment. Two sources: Christmas in 19th Century America, History Today, Volume 45, Issue 12, December 1995 and Holidays in the District of Columbia were given in the talk page. Two sources: White (2016) page 494 and Waxman, Olivia B. (2016). "The Surprising Story of Christmas in the United States". Time. Retrieved December 23, 2016. were given in article. Again, if editors view any information in the article as trivia, I don't have any problems. But let's stop accusing each other. Editors should not live in fear of being bullied for making good faith edits to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and the challenged sentences should be reverted until there is a consensus per policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You haven't cited any policy that supports the position that items be cited by biographers only, or that "importance" is based on 'how many' biographers cover a topic. What happens if someone discovers a new Grant letter that yields revealing insights into a topic? Do we reject the revelation if not yet covered by Grant's biographers? Do we wait until more than one biographer cover the matter, even if it's covered by the people at Time, Smithsonian, etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, all focus on the scholarly consensus for content. If something in his general biography is covered rarely to not at all, it should not be covered in his general biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing that invokes NPOV issues here, the items are soley factual events and don't advance any particular POV. Also, there is no "original research", as all events are matter of fact and don't advance any new or unusual position. Last, there is nothing that brings verifiability into question, as even you claimed above: ("we are not objecting on verifiability"). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is POV, 'we want to talk about Christmas', the original research is the claim that this is vital to his biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, the idea of Grant and Christmas came up on Christmas, but no one said we must add it because it's Christmas, or that we "want to talk about Christmas". Adding simple facts, regardless of whom may want to talk about them, is not original research, and once again, "original research" only occurs if someone tries to construe and advance an unusual position, or something not supported by the sources, like White, or Time magazine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Grant and Christmas, cont

• ASW, "Importance" is yet another highly subjective claim, requiring that every edit made in the article be checked with and backed up by multiple biographers who cover a given item or topic at length. If an item is not subjective and opinionated, fringe or unusual in nature, directly relates to the subject (e.g. As does a presidential act) and is backed up by a reliable source, that is all that needed. If you are going to make accusations, of any kind, (you've made several, regarding content, and regarding editors), the burden of proof is on you. No one has looked through most of the sources, and I suspect you've checked next to none, yet are ready to give all three sentences the axe anyway. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Coemgenus, okay, once again, thanks for intervening without resorting to far reaching accusations. It would seem there are numerous items in this article that are less than par with Grant's presidential act of establishing federal holiday's, esp during his earlier life. If anything is, perhaps, not greatly noteworthy it would be Grant's Christmas dinner. If page length is still a pressing issue we need to start removing items that are better covered in dedicated articles. There are several very long sections for which there are such articles. This way we don't go through this same routine every time someone adds a couple of sentences. However, removing or blocking content for page length considerations, alone, is frowned on by guidelines, so we have sort of a dilemma. Again, we can't expect this article to remain the same forever in terms of new content or length, and trying to enforce it so will only involve a future of displeasure here at Wikipedia, a public forum. How many sources would you expect we find that would justify inclusion of Grant's presidential holiday act? Let's start talking specifics and doing the leg-work and making the effort Cm' has made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No "importance" is your claim, you have the burden. I do not have a burden to show it unimportant. And no, your claim that you have a source is "all that is needed" is incorrect, ONUS policy specifically says having a source is not enough. As for the lack of sourcing, which you fail to provide to show a scholarly consensus - that means it amounts to editor POV pushing and original research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in other words, all the items that are cited with one source bring ONUS policy into question? "Original research" is only an issue if someone tries to advance a new position not supported by the sources. Noting the events in question doesn't do this. What "POV" are we advancing by mentioning Grant's holiday act, his first Christmas dinner and his tribute to Stanton? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's get things out in the open. I was under the impression there would be no objections about making a Grant and Christmas edit in the article. There only appeared to be opposition only after edits were actually made. Is Grant and Christmas trivia ? I don't think it is. If there is not enough concensus to put Grant and Christmas in the article, then that is up to editor's choice. Getting Christmas, New Years, the Fourth of July, and Thanksgiving off in 1870 and 1871 were big deals. Washington D.C. was a growing population. All the mails were shut down. People did not have to go to work. Sources: Christmas in 19th Century America, History Today, Volume 45, Issue 12, December 1995; Holidays in the District of Columbia; Waxman, Olivia B. (2016). "The Surprising Story of Christmas in the United States". Time. Retrieved December 23, 2016. If this information is deemed trivia by editor concensus or lack of concensus, then why is this information trivia ? You can't say information is unimportant without explanation. That would be POV. I gave three sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your first source does not even mention Grant, your third source mentions Grant in passing once, without even discussing him, your second source is primary (and also does not mention Grant) - none establish any claim for due weight in his encyclopedic biography, and we are not to string together sources in that fashion, we are to rely on primarily secondary sources, and the consensus found in them. I'm sorry, you were mistaken there would be consensus, because as you can now see, there is not. (But you are no stranger to the long discussions contra adding, and adding, to this article - we have sub-articles that need work, though, and no doubt articles on the history of Christmas in the United States). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Two of the items were cited by White, 2016, while the Time source clearly says Finally, on June 28, 1870, toward the end of the legislative session, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into a bill designating Christmas a legal, unpaid holiday for federal employees in the District of Columbia. You object because this "mentions Grant in passing"?? The source specifically mentions Grant and passage of the act. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in passing, in a rather much longer article, it does not go into discussion of Grant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The first article, establishes the importance of Christmas in the 19th Century. The Time Magazine article does mention Grant specifically signed the legislation. The primary source backs up that Grant signed the legislation and says the legislation was approved. I was establishing the importance of Grant and Christmas. The removal of the White (2016) page 494 has not been explained, since White is a Grant biographer. Are we to conclude that Grant, Christmas, and Stanton's death in December 1869 is trivia ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

They do appear either trivia or tangential, with sparse, strung together, and/or weak sourcing, not supported by a consensus among scholars. Why this mourning? Why this party? Why this bit of legislation (out of hundreds) only relating to one city, with nothing showing Grant even thought about it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why ? It had never been done before in a dreary 19th Century Gilded Age corrupt backwards world Grant gave people a day off. Not just one day but four days a year. Times were changing. You will have to ask White (2016) why he put Grant, Christmas, and Stanton's death in his book. I don't speak for him. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

White does cite the mourning over Stanton's death, and says little about Christmas other than that Grant went to church and had dinner. All are facts, but both are not remarkable. A Christian went to church on Christmas Eve? And had family over for dinner the next day? Someone mourned a colleague's death? These are commonplace occurrences. I'd say maybe--maybe--add the mourning of Stanton's death to the judicial nominee section of the Presidency article (we moved it there, you'll remember, in an effort to shorten this one during the FA review.) But they're far, far too trivial to include here, just as they were too trivial for other biographers to include in their works.

I've been unable to find the unpaid holiday law in any biography, nor have I found any explanation of why Grant signed it, whether he proposed it or whether Congress came up with it on its own, or indeed anything else about it. Do you know how to tell if something is trivial? If it's just an "interesting fact" with no background and it stands out of whatever section it's appended on to. Like this does. Your justification for including it, likewise, is your own creation, not something in any scholarly source. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. White may add anything to his book length biography but we are summarizing scholarship, in an encyclopedia article - not just White, and not writing a book. There were many bills signed, many parties, and mournings of officials and friends - I was not asking anyone here why you think they belong, nor why White, I was asking for the evidence that the consensus of scholarship shows why and how these particulars are weighted for Grant's encyclopedia biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

So far I too can't find mention of Grant's holiday act in any of his biographies, but there are a number of other reliable sources that do mention it. Again, there are numerous sources in the bibliography that are not Grant biographies. In fact, most of the sources there are not biographies. Grant's first Christmas dinner, as President, at the Whitehouse, with many family and friends, in terms of American history certainly doesn't compare to Appomatox, but in terms of Grant's biography it is entirely appropriate to mention such a large event with a sentence, esp since it is cited by a Grant biographer and prominent Civil War historian. The objections to these items might sound a little more convincing, and understandable, if we were trying to write at length about these things with lots of embellishments. All that Cm' did was mention the facts while advancing no POV or unusual position. This should not be a gigantic issue, but it was made so for highly opinionated reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny. There is no original research here whatsoever. No one has done anything but mention and cite the plain and non-embellished facts. Grant's signing of the holiday act was a first for the nation and established national holidays and merits a sentence, regardless if his 'biographers' failed to mention it. There is no guideline or policy that says an item has to be covered by multiple (Grant) biographers. If we were to blindly follow this assumed policy we would have to omit Sarna's claim that Grant's G.O.11 was "notorious", for openers. None of his biographers make such a claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Trivial is very subjective. I don't speak for biographers. Do AlanScottWalker and Coemgenus speak for or have any communications with White (2016), Brands...Smith...McFeely ? If so, please state this. Full disclosure. I don't have any communications nor do I speak for any of those listed authors. I just reported the facts. I never made any claim there was a concencus of scholarship. That is not Wikipedia policy. No objections were given prior to the edits. Biographers don't have to approve of information found in all articles or sources for that information to be reliable. It was not trivial to the people who got four days off from their work each year, something unprecedented for its times. It would have been helpful and saved alot of time if Coemgenus and Alanscottwalker expressed their view that information on Christmas and Stanton was trivial prior to any edits made. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No one is asking you to speak for them just show by citation a good number of them discussing the importance of something in the Grant biographical scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have to cite again on this page the multiple scholarly sources that call GO11 "notorious" or similar. On the other hand, adding rarely discussed details in Grant biographical scholarship to this article is only POV pushing and Original Research. Re-read WP:NPOV WP:OR and WP:V, they do require mainstream consensus scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be a Grant biographer to have a neutral point of view. McFeely's views on grant are questionably neutral. I want to know if you AlanScottWalker or Coemgenus are in communication with the above listed Grant biographers. That question was not answered. I don't have any communications with these authors. There is no way in the world to know what "main stream concensus" is when research on Grant changes throughout the years or decades. Rjensen mentioned that he knew McFeely. I appreciate his candor. I don't know any of these authors or why information is left out of their respected biographies. No original research has been presented. No wikipedia rule says only biographers can be included in the article. Only reliable research. Why such personal hostility to Christmas and Stanton ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here, except your odd and wrongheaded questions about who we communicate with off-wiki. Read WP:ONUS - your claim that we put everything verifiable in an article is false. Your unwillingness or inability to come forward with more and weightier Grant biographical sources with citations is just failing your onus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it odd there is such open hostility towards Christmas and Stanton. Editors don't have to prove ONUS. That is editing under duress and hostile. Again, Alanscottwalker you are judge, jury, and executioner. Wikipedia forbids ownership of articles. You are making this discussion personal and obstructionist. I mentioned communication because Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus apparently know why biographers leave out information or put in information in their works. Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus are speaking for biographers. I have never heard of such a thing in editing articles. Obviously you two are colluding and want control of this article. You make Christmas, holidays, and Stanton controversies that don't exist. Futher discussion would prove to be useless. Christmas has been banned from the Grant article. I hope you two are proud of yourselves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I see two things wrong with adding this information to this article. First, it was added as part of a paragraph that had practically nothing to do with the subject, and second, this is a rather long article. It seems to me that it would better fit in Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant where there are already two short sections that are at least tangentially related. If that article is deemed too large, perhaps it is time to divide it. YBG (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

YBG: I agree. This article has grown by 29% since it was promoted to FA. It's time for it to drop weight, not add it, especially when the additions are tangential things that Grant biographers mostly ignore.

Cmguy: your question is bizarre and hostile, but I will answer it. I have never met any of the Grant biographers. Of all the authors we cite in this article, I have only met one, Russell Weigley, once, at a party. We did not discuss Grant. Also, he is dead. But discerning the basic consensus of mainstream scholarship doesn't require meeting people. It just requires reading the sources and using basic reading comprehension. I would further ask you to withdraw your personal attack before we move forward. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) No, I have nothing against Stanton, he has been in this article forever (I have probably written in some of those mentions), and I have nothing against Christmas, it has been in this article forever. My question was what are the sources that place Stanton's mounrning and Grant's biography above all other mournings. I could formulate a similar Christmas question, since this was added as a three sentence paragraph tacked on to another paragraph for Christmas. What about Grant and Easter, Grant and the Fourth, Grant and Memorial Day, Grant and Thanksgiving, etc., etc. to which per WP:BEANS, I might get the response that surely some source has mentioned those things and we should have three sentences on each of them, because we can cobble together on our own how vital those things are, and even a very long new section on Grant and holidays. A section on Grant and parties, a section on Grant and mourning. But the ONUS is, and will remain, on those who want to add content, it's nothing personal. I am interested in what the broad survey of scholarly sources says, not editor's personal ideas or their person, or personal communications. (YBG's comment is sensible, too) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC) As for Judge, jury, etc. that has already been responded to above, and rejected, so I refer to my earlier comment (no need to repeat), and as for ownership, that appears to be arguing by implication, the author of these three sentences asserts ownership of these sentences and this article. 13:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I make a simple edit that Grant created holidays, including Christmas, using a Times article source, and supplied the primary source of the actual law that created four holidays approved by Grant, and then I am accused of ONUS and POV and that the edit lacked verifiablity because it is not mentioned in by Grant biographers. And then an edit war ensues. My edits, including Grant and Christmas and Grant and Stanton were removed; readded; and removed again, not by me, but by other editors. I believe I was personally attacked so I responded in kind. I noted that this was a hostile editing environment. This should not be since Grant is a Featured Article and should not have any edit warring. Coemgenus and AlanScottWalker, I apologize on my remarks concerning "banning" Christmas from the article. I struck them from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I struck out other comments that were uneccessary. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The full dislcosure questioning was not meant to be hostile or bizarre. I apologize. I have not any communications with the listed Grant biographers. The only historians I have contacted other then RJensen was Hugh Brogan, a British historian, asking advice on writing good history narration. I enquired to Brooks D. Simpson once if he was going to write a Grant sequel. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Grant and Christmas, cont2

• Cm', My sympathies go out to you for after doing so much leg work and adding only a sentence worth of mention for each item, well sourced, that they have been deleted from the article for the same reasons: Not covered by Grant biographers and page length. That many other items are not cited by and covered in multiple Grant biographies, or that many other GA and FA articles well exceed page length guidelines seems not to matter. I tried to restore, but that brought us to the brink of a serious edit war, one which I did not initiate without any discussion beforehand. Your efforts to invite outside opinion seems like a good idea at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Coemgenus, we need to start moving items to dedicated articles. With all due respect to you and Cm', you were the ones who filled up the article near or past page length guidelines instead of putting much of this content in dedicated articles. Now editors have to go through this calamity almost every time even a sentence is proposed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• ASW, once again you skirt the point. While many biographers cover G.O.11, as far as I've seen, none of them use POV terms like "notorious". White, p.251, Brands, p.218, McFeely, p.124, speak of the matter in neutral terms. Can you produce one Grant biographer who resorts to such POV terminology? Wasn't that supposed to be the big concern now? The items Cm' added were purely factual, non-embellished, short and to the point. Trying to stretch this into "original research", even when White and Time are used for the cites, simply because these ideas are not covered in multiple biographies only exemplifies the double standard and the lengths of unreasonableness resorted to in this discussion. The idea of "scholarly consensus" is also a slippery slope, as no two biographers cover Grant in lock-step fashion. Many of them cover things others do not, and expecting 'other' editors to mull through multiple 'biographies', before making an edit is unfair, as this standard is not used nearly consistently throughout the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not want an edit war over Christmas. I appreciate your support Gwillhickers. I mentioned things I regret saying and apologized. I had no issues with my edits being removed. My issues centered on being accused of POV, OR, and ONUS. I thought that was personal and hostile towards myself. Yes. It is true none of the biographers covered Grant and the Holidays, and if that was the only reason why the edits were removed, I don't have an issue with that either. At the same time I don't believe every edit has to come from a biographer or that biographers must verify every edit, such as the Times article. Are Christmas and the Holidays trivia ? If that was the only reason why my edits were removed, I don't have an issue with that either. If Stanton's death is not important enough for that article. I don't have an issue with that either. Talking about Grant and Christmas in the talk page is not OR. It is true Grant started the four legal holidays we take for granite today. And the real issue is not holidays or religion, it's just the simple fact that 19th Century workers in Washington D.C. got four legal days off. In my opinion that was ground breaking. If other editors disagree, that is fine too. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I've been adding things. I've sometimes acquesced in Cmguy's additions, mostly because I'm too busy to fight them, but I would be perfectly happy to return to the FA verision and start over from there. Certainly, a sentence or two could be added about White's 2016 book, but that's the only thing that has changed since then in Grant scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Page length

Page length has been made the issue too many times in this article. Instead of throwing the idea up in front of editors almost every time an edit or proposal comes along we need to take positive steps for resolving this reoccurring issue. What sections should we start removing content from to dedicated articles? Many of the Civil War battles are covered in several other dedicated articles. I propose that we begin there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

New comer input

There is no bona fide policy that forbids the inclusion of Cm's well sourced edits. All assertions to block these simple items were highly opinionated, esp "original research", "trivia", "scholarly consensus", etc. Trying to get others to weigh in at this point would be sort of futile if we expect them to wade through the volumes of debate on the Talk page here. With this in mind, and since there seems to be not even a hint of compromise, I propose that we state the problem in neutral terms in a separate section and back off, letting others weigh in without flooding that section with 'our' repeated opinions further. We can start by addressing one item at a time, beginning with 'Federal holidays'. We should begin canvasing, in an appropriate manner, for help resolving this prolonged issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Response

Gwillhickers: It appears tendentious that you ask for the GO11 quotes again, as a major reason Sarna is is in this article on that is because you wanted to replace the Smith, Grant biography quote (Whereas, I wanted Smith's Grant biography quote), but here again is a sample:

"Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." (Sarna, 2012)

"The Civil War was the context for the most egregious act of official anti-Semitism in US history." (Shevitz, 2005);

"This order, the infamous General Orders No. 11, is unique in the history of the United States: it is the one official overtly anti-Jewish decree in the American experience." (Chanes, 2004)

". . . Grant issued an order . . . one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history" (Smith, 2001)

"Grant's order was the severest attempted official violation-civil or military, federal, state or local--of the rights of Jews in the history of this nation." (Jaher, 1994)

As for the rest of your statements, they are also wrong as anyone who reads the above will already know, and it's again wrong that you ignore the "outside" opinion, given above, already by YBG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything and I am not the one holding up Grant biographers as the only authority or standard used for citing items in the narrative. Merely pointing out that the POV term "notorious", (or similar adjectives) isn't used by nearly all of Grant's biographers, yet we use it in the biography here and it's embraced by you anyway. Are Shevitz and Chanes Grant biographers, or are they partisan sources as is Sarna? Anyway, I'm merely pointing out the double standard you are holding Cm' and myself to when he used White, a Grant biographer, which was ignored where you jumped to other fuzzy arguments, like "trivia" or "original research", or verifiability, which you accepted then rejected when you hastily pasted a bunch of WP guideline links into the mix. Our discussion has not accomplished anything, while you continue to take a monumental stance over Grant's simple act, have accused us of a number of things, including POV and OR, and show absolutely no sign of compromising on any item, regardless of White, which is why we should step back and let uninvolved editors make the call. We did not ask for this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You misrepresent the Grant biographers and call historians "partisan", all signs of POV pushing and original research. It's because we prevented this stuff from going in that misinformation was not included in the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your obfuscation misrepresents my question entirely. I did not say Grant biographers were partisan. I asked if the sources you presented were Grant biographers and if they were partisan. Your repeated accusations and failure to answer a legitimate question says enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No. You called Sarna "partisan" a historian who wrote a biographical account on Grant. You also have been given these sources a few times now, all scholarly historians who wrote about Grant, but I am not going to participate in your disreputable attempt to slime them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you continue to obfuscate, vent accusations, depend on hyper-speak and continue to avoid answering direct and legitimate questions. Are Shevitz and Chanes Grant biographers, or do they just mention Grant in their works? And are they partisan, like Sarna, who is of Jewish heritage and a devoted Jewish historian. Referring to him as such is just a criticism in terms of writing history. Given the history against Jews no one blames him for his POV, however no one, for any reason, is above criticism. IMO, Sarna is biased and uses biased words like "notorious", however his POV gives perspective, so we included it in the section, with my approval. My only criticism then was that we were not balancing out his opinion with Grant's own words, which sometime after the mediation Cm' and Coemgenus were gracious enough to approve of in the section. Noting bias is not "sliming" anyone in the capacity you would have people believe, it is just noting bias, and asking about bias. You seem to depend on hyper-speak and need boggie-men to obscure your continued failures to address issues directly and honestly. Sarna is not a Grant biographer. He merely wrote about one aspect of Grant's history. Your position that we should used Grant biographers as a standard doesn't hold water given your glaring dismissal of using Sarna as a source. My position has been consistent, that we use a variety of reliable sources besides biographers, including Sarna. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Are they Jews? Shocking question. No. I am sure I have no idea. I don't investigate the religion of historians, and your abhorrent dismissal of them because they may or may not be Jewish is disgusting. Sarna has most certainly written good biographical history of Grant - whether you wish to call him a biographer is irrelevant, as irrelevant as Jewishness (and your slimy claims against Jews) - he has written scholarly biographical material, which is all I care about when I say scholarly biographer, and scholarly biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be shocking. IMO Sarna is biased when he says "notorious". I take into consideration any and all information about the background of any historian, including the idea that all humans harbor a fair amount of bias. If an account on the 'History of Israel' claimed that their policy towards Palestinians was 'notoriously' unfair, etc, and it was written by a Palestinian I would make the same call. You can wonder as much about that and continue to entertain your worst fears all you like. You waved the 'Grant biographer' yardstick around with a fervor, and then threw it out the window when it was convenient for you. It appears that none of the authors you dug up are Grant biographers, so let's not try to skirt that issue in the typical fashion once again. You were also the one that suggested we wanted to cover national holidays simply because we celebrate and 'want to talk about' Christmas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No. They all wrote scholarly Grant biography - I've thrown nothing out the window, and waved nothing around, just spoken in favor of scholarly biography. Perhaps you are just confused. As for fears, no one but you is talking about fears - perhaps you are afraid of something. You above said you wanted to talk about Christmas in this article, don't blame me for taking you at your word. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I'm "afraid" of is bias without balancing it with other context. This was resolved some time ago. But that wasn't the main point here. You spoke in favor of Grant biographers as a basis to keep Cm's edits out of the narrative, while you ignored the fact that two items were indeed cited by a Grant biographer, White, 2016. Then you accused him and myself of POV and original research on the basis these things do not reflect "scholarly consensus" (a highly subjective and opinionated idea) and Grant biographers, which is why I brought up Sarna, who is not a Grant biographer, as is Smith, White, Brands, etc, only to make the point that there were various items in the narrative not coming from Grant biographers, with which you had no issues with until it suited your purposes here. Then you tried to substantiate these accusations again on the idea that we celebrated Christmas and because we "want to talk about" it, and that we claimed it was "vital to his biography", which are not quotes from Cm' or myself -- not even close. All that I mentioned concerning Christmas was the question about whether there was some major event involving it with Grant, so once again, you've misrepresented matters coming and going. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No. One sentence was cited to an incorrect nonsensical press article of Christmas day, which mentioned Grant in passing, not any scholarly biographical material. I did not ignore that the other two items were cited to White. I specifically addressed those asking for similar high quality biography sources to show due weight, and high quality biography material instead of the nonsensical press article. It was POV pushing, OR, that you responded with. And that you wanted Christmas in the article on weak sourcing was also your POV pushing (not particularly CMguy, his was just responding to your POV pushing, with producing a poor source and giving undue weight to two other matters that had Christmas in them). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC) You then made the irrelevant and ghastly points about Sarna and others, because historian Sarna and other historians did produce high quality biographical material on Grant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As you must know, many cites are based on sources that are not "biographical material", and there's nothing in the Time article that is "nonsensical", and mention of something "in passing" doesn't make it less than truthful and is yet another weak argument to ignore this source. (There are several other sound sources also.) Again, I only asked if there was a notable event that involved Christmas and Grant. Your continued recital that this is "original research" and "POV pushing" is just that, a recital that reflects your own unfounded and apparent ill inspired POV. And what POV am I actually advancing? Are you claiming that I'm trying to promote Christianity in the article with the inquiry about Grant and Christmas?? That you had to also invent quotes like I just "want to talk about it" and that it was "vital to the biography" only exemplifies your continued and flagrant misrepresentation of matters. Sarna's opinion piece only covers Grant's General order. It is not "biographical material", which is yet another misrepresentation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"The Surprising Story of Christmas in the United States", the Time magazine Christmas press article, says "signed into a bill", which is nonsense. "Signed into a bill" makes no sense. The Congressional Research Service report on the law (so unnecessary, Grant not mentioned) shows the Time article, is also incorrect about the bill. As for POV, you said it up top, you were "sort of reaching for ways to mention Christmas in the biography" - that is exactly the same as 'just want to talk about' Christmas. The proposal was three sentences all of which discuss Christmas, and that is what you wanted the POV that talks about Christmas. Promoting Christianity? No. You wanted the point of view (POV) that discusses Christmas with respect to this article subject (three sentences on it). That the Time Christmas article mentions Grant in passing also shows undue weight for Grant's biography - truthfulness, even were it true (which Time is not), is not enough - it also must be duly weighted, and not editor's personal original and POV thoughts of importance on mentioning Christmas. (As for Sarna, Sarna is a historian, who wrote a well regarded book on Grant that is biographical material, as is his article (which contrary to your misrepresentations, even Sarna's article based on his book, covers multiple years of Grant's life - up to his death) - that is the only reason he is used in this article. You should stop trashing Sarna, its wrong, irrelevant, and untrue. Besides which, if you object to Sarna so much, we can go back to using Smith's quote which was in this article for a long time, and Smith wrote practically the same thing as Sarna). - Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I said I was reaching for ways, but qualified this by asking if there were any "notable events" involving Grant and Christmas, as pointed out to you already. Had I construed something or asserted a Christian POV in the article that would be a different matter entirely. I also have a bias for Grant, but I don't go around inventing ways to assert that POV, thank you. Sarna is biased imo. This is not "trashing" anyone, so you need to try stop relying on hyper-speak to carry these habitual accusations for you. The title of Sarna's work is "The Day Grant expelled the Jews". This is not a biographical work, regardless if he mentions Grant at various points in life. But this is a non issue. As also pointed out to you, I approved of this source in the article, as it is a significant POV which can't be ignored. In fact, I wanted to add another claim made by Sarna, that less than 100 Jews were effected by the General Order, but you wanted to keep that out, along with Grant's qualifying quote, ('no time to use kid gloves, etc) which would suggest you wanted to give the "notorious" POV as much weight as possible. Also, Grant signed a bill passed by Congress, which is S.O.P. for bills that go through the House. Where are you getting the idea that Grant didn't sign anything? The Time source is a RS and is factual. Other sources are also available. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No. That Time article is not reliable, as Cmguy said it is "inaccurate" when it says, "signed into a bill" - president's don't sign things into bills, and as Coemgenus showed it is inaccurate about the bill. Moreover, many things Grant signed, no reliable source discusses as part of his biography, so Wikipedia does not - we are not here to invent a new biography for him. (As for Sarna, none of that has any relevance to the Christmas issue but writing on Grant's life is biography - and the rest of what you say is not how I recall that. For example, you think the Grant quote is somehow helpful, but as the historian Ash discussed, it's not - and it does not have anything to do with how noted GO11 is). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Signed into a bill" means Grant signed a bill. You actually don't get that? I'll have to wait for a second opinion per your contention that no reliable sources mention Grant signing bills. During his eight years as president it seems he must have signed something that's mentioned somewhere. Again, there are other sources, so don't go doing a war dance around and around this one source. We got onto Sarna, who is clearly not a biographer and whose work is topic-specific, when you were using biographers as the single standard for scholarly consensus. As I already said, historians are a wide and varied collection of writers who vary on the topics they cover and in the way the choose to present them. You just can't up and speak on their behalf on every subject in such an obtuse manner, and you can't expect editors to mull through multiple biographies before making an edit, so long as the edit is factual, verifiable, and cited by a recognized source. Sarna is not a biographer, but his POV is significant and we use him in the section regardless. Presidential ratings are generally not covered by biographers, but this is also a notable idea and can't be determined as such simply by counting the number of biographers, most of whom concentrate on the Civil War, that happen to cover it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Time did not write "signed a bill" they wrote "signed into a bill" - presidents don't sign into a bill and even your sloppy inaccuracy theory or excuse for them shows how bad the source is - on top of its other problems. Your other claim that varfiability is enough is just not true (and certainly not based on inaccurate press articles), per policy. Signed something during his presidency? I noted Grant signed many things throughout his life including his presidency - they just are not discussed as part of his biography by the sources who discuss his life. And no, of the ones provided, there is no other accurate source that even mentions Grant in passing regarding this bill. Historian Sarna wrote about years of Grant's life, your argument, 'he's not a biographer, he just wrote about his life' is silly. The quote we use from Sarna is not unique, as Smith and the rest of the quotes above show (all saying practically the same thing) -- what is significant is his scholarship about Grant and his life - that's why he is used in this article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As we all should know, Bills when approved are signed by the President. What else could signed into a bill mean? And again, no need to get stuck on Time. As pointed out several times there are other reliable sources, listed on the page here. Your opinion that anything Grant ever signed is not covered by biographers assumes you've checked all the sources, and we know that's not likely. You have yet to explain your opinion that anything signed by a president isn't part of his biography, which sort of flies in the face of the idea that many political topics involving Grant are discussed here in his biography and by biographers. Also, I didn't say Sarna wrote about Grant's life, I said he was not a Grant biographer and his work, as the title to this source clearly indicates, is topic specific. But again, I said the source is good and presents a significant opinion, but you seem inclined to continue beating on the same dead horse regardless. I also didn't say that verifiability was the only requirement. Please address entire sentences. No matter, we have your opinion. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"Signed onto a bill" being nonsense is nonsense. Editor Christmas POV and varifiability are the only arguments that have been offered for placing this bill in Grant's encyclopedic biography. I have asked for accurate and better sourcing from Grant scholarship and everyone has looked but not found any discussion of this bill and Grant. Instead we get an inaccurate brief press mention (that unlike even that historian Sarna article you link, which extensively discusses Grant's life), does not discuss Grant's life -- or sources (some primary) that don't even mention Grant, at all. And indeed, one of the primary sources shows several bills on many different things but some Wikipedia editors just want to pick out this one, because they like it - and picking out things from primary sources, because we like it, is not how good Wikipedia articles are done, per policy. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It says signed into a bill. In any case, you're just repeating the same fuzzy and opinionated claims. A work doesn't have to be dedicated to a given subject (Grant) to be a reliable source, and there is no guideline or policy that says otherwise. The Time article is correct, you're just sniping at one item of grammar with a reaching opinion. Bills are signed into law. Sarna is not a Grant biographer. His work is topic specific, regardless if he mentions Grant in other capacities. -- Last, your contention that,  "I noted Grant signed many things throughout his life including his presidency - they just are not discussed as part of his biography by the sources who discuss his life.", -- ASW! Please review these items, presently in the our biography, all cited by a variety of sources in the bibliography, including Brands, Smith, Waugh, Waltmann, etc, etc.

• In the lede it says Grant "signed legislation ending the corrupt moiety system."
• In the Later Reconstruction and civil rights section it says, "in 1870 Grant signed legislation creating the Justice Department and he also signed the Amnesty Act."
• In that same section it also says "Grant signed an ambitious Civil Rights Act of 1875".
• In the Indian peace policy section it says, ",,,Grant signed a law establishing a Board of Indian Commissioners to oversee spending and reduce corruption..."
  In that same section it also says "Two years later, he signed a bill ending the Indian treaty system:"
• In the Gold standard and the Gold Ring section it says, "...Grant signed into law the Public Credit Act of 1869 ..."
• In the Panic of 1873 and loss of Congress section it says, "Grant continued to work for a strong dollar, signing into law the Coinage Act of 1873"
  In that same section it also says, "Grant signed the Specie Payment Resumption Act into law".
• In the Gilded Age corruption and reform section it says, "Congress passed the Anti-Moiety Act. Signed into law by Grant in 1874..."
• In the Election of 1876 section it says, "On January 29, 1877, Grant signed legislation passed by Congress to form an Electoral Commission to decide the matter".
• In the Historical reputation section it says, "in 1872 signed the law establishing the country's first national park at Yellowstone."

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This list of just 11 times he signed something, leaving out entirely hundreds to thousands of times he signed something, reinforces that this Christmas POV pushing is based on poor sourcing and editor original research. The very few times, out of hundreds or thousands, those are mentioned, they are sourced to Grant scholarship, Grant scholars like Sarna, (Brands, Smith, Waugh, Waltmann), not to an inaccurate brief press article, or primary sources that don't even mention Grant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Hundreds of thousands of times"? This is yet another hyper-exaggeration and one of your typical misrepresentations. Regardless, you claimed that things signed by Grant are not part of a biography when these items are not only covered numerous times in our biography but also covered by the sources, and only reveals how removed from the biography here and with the other sources your are in reality. Disappointing. Establishing Federal holidays is a national first and unique to Grant's presidency. And now you fall back on your tired accusations. The item about establishing federal holidays also included the Forth of July, 1st of January, etc. There is no POV asserted about Christmas, regardless if was the Pope who favoring this edit. Again, there is no policy that says we must use biographies, or that a particular work most be largely dedicated to a given subject. Time Magazine is a widely recognized source and its article is entirely factual. All you've handed us are one misrepresentation after another, opinion, propped up with other opinion and accusations. Given this last revealing episode you seriously need to lighten up and quit huffing-and puffing on your screen so you can see what you typing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Gwillickers, Alan said "hundreds to thousands" and "hundreds or thousands", which seems accurate to me. "Hundreds of thousands" would indeed be an exaggeration. (I agree on the larger point, as well, this is undue weight based on editors' preferences, not historians'). --Coemgenus (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I would dare say no one president passes more than one or two hundred bills or acts during his term, and the bill in question regardless is a national first and unique to Grant, and on this basis alone it has weight. If we try to determine weight simply by counting the number of sources that cover it we could get an erroneous picture as most biographers concentrate on the Civil War and a smaller number actually get into his presidency in a comparable capacity. Compared to the war, the bill, like most, is a topic that wouldn't sell as many books. Still, the act, or bill, is not some menial and inconsequential topic as it established federal holidays for the country. In any case, even though there is a split consensus I have no intention of pushing this into the article at this point unless there is a clear consensus, which doesn't appear to be forthcoming. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So, two terms would give you two to four hundred bills, according to you - I did not say "hundreds of thousands" - yes, you think it important based on what you personally believe - (you got the details wrong, it was only a holiday in the District of Columbia covering only some 10% of federal employees, not the some 90% of employees that worked elsewhere, let alone anyone else in the vast nation - federal employees then being a tiny minority) - but per policy, we go by what scholars think, not editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We can haggle about how many bills are signed by presidents all you line, but contrary to your hasty retort above, these things are frequently discussed in biographies, like ours, and by biographers. As for what I "personally believe"...I believe notable events should be mentioned, and if it so happens that one is not covered by a biographer then we look to other reliable sources. The Time article's simple statement about Grant is entirely factual. I got nothing wrong and made no comments about 10%, 90%, or federal employes outside DC, nor does the sentence about Grant in the Time article. Grant's signing of the bill set the precedence for national holidays for the entire country. All we were going to say however is what the article said. Many events are covered by journalists, curators, archivists, attorneys, etc, whose accounts are often reliable and are used as sources throughout Wikipedia. Often times we also look to topic specific works like Sarna's. As I said, there is no policy that says a source must always be a biography or dedicated work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No. It is you who are being hasty. Everyone including you knows what I said was correct, there are many things Grant signed, they are just not discussed by Grant scholarship. You responded trying to show there are a very few things he signed that are discussed by Grant scholarship, which does not contradict what I said at all. It also shows we do rely on Grant scholarship - and yes Wikipedia relies on scholarship to show us weight in good or featured articles covered as this history featured article is by vast amounts of Grant history scholarship. The Time press article, you rely on, shows that the holiday precedent was in Massachusetts not involving Grant - and then it is wrong about the bill - not factual. The Congressional Research Service that shows the Time article is inaccurate and extensively discusses bill, does not even mention Grant and shows the bill only applied to a small minority of District of Columbia workers - not the entire country. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

editbreak5

It was just pointed out to you that there are many things Grant signed that are discussed, here, and in the sources. I was not "trying to show there are a 'very few' things he signed that are discussed by Grant scholarship", quite the contrary, I was demonstrating, not just claiming, that many such things are indeed discussed, contrary to your blanket statement that things signed are not discussed in biographies. Also, there are many reliable sources that are not written by professional historians, and scholarly ability is not limited to biographers.  (See ref 227, Jawort, a writer for a media network;  ref 405, Zimmerman, a writer for Chicago Tribune;   ref 409, a PBS article with no name to its credit;  ref 427, Allen Pusey, a writer for an ABA Journal;  Badeau, 1887, a simple author and a primary source used for three refs)   Once again, there is no policy that says we must use biographers, and RS's are not limited to them and used throughout Wikipedia in GA and FA articles, including this one. The statement about Grant is simple and factual. Grant signed a bill in 1870, establishing holidays for federal employees in DC. No one will be saying it pertained to the entire country, even though it led to that eventually. It had nothing to do with Massachusetts, regardless if that state is mentioned elsewhere in the Time article, which is just another one of your apparent diversions. We should move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You "demonstrated" very few things discussed by Grant scholarship - just 11 out of the many things he signed - that is not contrary at all to my statement that many things he signed are not discussed by Grant scholarship - it rather confirms it, Grant scholars only discuss a few worthwhile things he signed (those other things they do not discuss have no weight in Grant's biography). Similarly, the very few cites you have been able to pluck out, 5 of 446 source references, don't make any kind of case for including the incorrect Time press article - none discuss things that are not also discussed in Grant scholarship in depth, and all (except Jawort, who maybe an expert on Indian history, but the link to the Indian Country paper is dead) do appear to be experts in what they are writing - they are a presidential historian, a law journal writer writing on law, and a Grant biographer, who helped on Grant's autobiography, whereas the PBS history cite on Grant's funeral is joined with the Smith biography in this article - none are incorrect press articles, and they do not discuss things that are not already discussed at length in Grant scholarship, unlike the brief passing mention in Time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

All of those unusual sources are bad, with the possible exception of Badeau. I'd loved to see them all replaced with scholarly sources, if possible. If what they're cited for does not appear anywhere in mainstream Grant scholarship, that would be a good reason to remove it. I'm glad you pointed this out. These mediocre sources have crept in over the past year because I've been too distracted to fight against the diminishment of the article. I'm glad to be reminded of our need to stand fast against poor-quality scholarship in a Featured Article. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Continued debate by involved editors

• I support the revised wording by Cmguy777, except that I think the colon is superfluous. YBG (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• The statement may not even be accurate! This Congressional Research Service report says that they were paid holidays, not unpaid (at p.2). On p.8, that same document says "Although there is no indication in the authorizing statutes (or accompanying floor debate) for either the 1870 and 1879 acts that any federal employees were to be paid for such holidays, an analysis of holiday legislation subsequently signed by President Rutherford B. Hayes in April 1880 seems to support such a conclusion." So even Congress doesn't know if they created a paid holiday or not (they think they probably did). Maybe some historian could find out with greater research into contemporary reports, collected papers, etc. But for now, we hardly know anything about this Act of Congress or Grant's role in bringing it about. I'm glad this happened, in a way, because it's a good illustration of why we depend on the efforts of professionals in creating our summary work here. You went looking for something to justify talking about Christmas, found it in a Google search that turned up a non-peer-reviewed article from the popular press, and crammed it into the article without the slightest introspection. This is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. Finding a TIME article was quick and easy, true, but it made the article objectively worse by injecting false information about a trivial subject into a featured article. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, and Grant's role or relationship to this Act is not of any note, whatsoever, to the Congressional Research Service, further solidifying that this legislation and its particulars -- out of hundreds in his presidency -- would be given undue weight in his encyclopedia biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Here is a link to the orignial law: Certain Holidays Established in the District of Columbia It does not say paid or unpaid for the workers. It mentions the four holidays. Ironically, Thanksgiving in this law was a public fast. There are a few technical parts to the law that may be a bit hard to understand today. In essense the Holidays were treated legally as a Sunday. The best wording would be "On June 28, 1870 Grant signed into law Congressional legislation that established holidays in the District of Columbia: including Christmas, New Year's Day, The Fourth of July, and Thanksgiving". Since this has been controversial I would want this added only under editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Really, in a Featured Article (or any article really) you want to use an incorrect, press article as a source that even when it writes incorrectly about the bill makes little sense: ". . . on June 28, 1870, toward the end of the legislative session, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into a bill designating Christmas a legal, unpaid holiday . . ." "[S]igned into a bill" as that source has it, is nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  The original law I gave would be used as a reference along with the Times article. The Congressional Research Service could be used as a source. I said I would want this added only under editor concensus. Right now there is no concensus. The Times article has inaccurate wording. I agree. Obviously, if any reference or source has a mistake, editors at Wikipedia should not add these mistakes into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  And why should we use it as a source at all - it's facts have been shown to be wrong and it makes little sense - we should not rush (the press date is less than a week ago) such sources into good history articles, giving them prominence they do not merit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is an alternative source: New York Times: Disunion: Modern Historians Revisit and Reconsider the Civil War from Lincoln's Election to the Emancipation Proclamation Ghosts of Christmas Past Adam Goodheart (2013) page 29 It points out that Christmas was emerging during Grant's presidency. Again, there is no editor concensus. I would only want to add this if there was editor concensus.

Better, but also incorrect, if it is talking about this law: no "national holiday" in this law. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It was a federal holiday to be correct...Is national a synonym for federal ? The law applied to the federal government in Washington D.C., the "national" government. I would not say "incorrect" but a statement that needs clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The idea was to get outside opinion and conduct a simple poll without the usual editors jumping in and flooding and obscuring the poll process. I moved the poll to below and removed the term unpaid and have included the other source if we must use it instead. Cm', the poll is for outside opinion, no need for us to vote as the poll clearly says two support, two oppose. Everyone, please let other editors weigh in so we can get through this. I am willing to accept the outcome either way. If involved editors here have further comment, please 'ping' the editor here and keep lengthy discourse out of the poll section. Please do not try to obscure the process with still more lengthy discussion mixed into the poll. Editors here have had the chance to express their opinions at length above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. It is not just a matter of voting, but a matter of concensus. This source explainsGrant and Christmas better: America's Favorite Holidays Richard T. Stanley (2013) page 3 Christmas was becoming poplular in the U.S. when Grant was president. I don't think Coemgenus or AlanScottWalker will approve unless a solid source is given. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I included the other source below. If you have a better source, let's use it. The question is however, 'Do we want coverage of Grant's holiday act or not?' I removed "unpaid" from the proposal. I trust that the below proposal is simple and correct? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

An alternative would just add that Grant turned Christmas into a Federal Holiday. Christmas was becoming popular in the U.S. It really was not a religious holiday until about the 1860's. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternative sentence: In 1870, as Christmas celebrations became popular in the United States, Grant signed into law legislation making Christmas a federal holiday. Stanley (2013) page 3 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Grant made the other holidays official also, so let's keep the existing proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I am finding there are not any sources that will satisfy Coemgenus and Alanscottwalker. Why his biographers skip Grant creating four holidays is beyond me ? One wonders if they even look at all the legislation he signed into laws. Unless an acceptable source is found I don't think there is going to be concensus. The primary source, in my opinion, is the best source. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there could be sources that would help me support this: 1) they should be scholarly sources that 2) focus on Grant's relationship to this law other than just signing it. Let me try to encapsulate why I am looking for those. Scholarly, in depth, research (good books or journals) would make for a more verifiable and correct presentation, and also help give the sentence due weight. And focus on Grant and the making of the law, would ensure this is not just a plucked out law of the many laws he signed in the closing days of that legislative session and every legislative session for eight years because we think Christmas or holidays important, again due weight for his summary biography. The Congressional Research Service wrote much about this law without a mention of Grant, so it is easy apparently to write Grant out of this picture entirely. The Time magazine article is incorrect, published in the last week, and contains the nonsense we discussed above. The New York Times book is a publication of daily blog posts about the civil war that was run during the 150th civil war anniversary, that if it is talking about this law is also incorrect, as we already discussed, and it does not support the sentence. It's not surprising the daily press articles might mention something about this at Christmas. Right now, I suspect that there could be good enough sources, out there, to place this in Christmas in the United States, because that's where it likely to comes up in written books or journals - it's Christmas not Grant biography, at least from what has been presented, so far. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's important to federal holidays in the United States, but it's not important to Grant. That, presumably, is why his biographers ignored it. Cmguy, you say "Why his biographers skip Grant creating four holidays is beyond me?" Even that inquiry is unnecessary. That they all left it out is enough. If one left it out and the others mentioned it, that would be one thing. That they all do speaks positively to the irrelevance of this event to the story of Grant's life. Unless you think your judgment about Grant is superior to all of his biographers combined, which is too ridiculous to contemplate. They do this for a living, we're amateurs. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this. As mentioned, establishing federal holidays doesn't compare to Civil War battles, Reconstruction efforts and the like, (subjects that tend to upstage almost everything else in terms of coverage) but it was a presidential first that set a national precedence whose legislation was approved and signed by Grant. As such, it deserves being mentioned with at least one sentence. One sentence guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Christmas and holidays deserves mention in the article because it was trend sending just like Grant and Yellowstone National Park. The best source for the Holidays law is the primary source found in Statues at Large. The Times article is correct that Grant signed the Holidays bill into law on June 28, 1870. I respectfully disagree that legal holidays are trivial and just belong in other articles. "Your judgement about Grant is superior to all of his biographers" I never made that claim. I don't claim to know why biographers left Grant and the Holidays law out of their biographies or that my judgement is superior to biographers. That in itself does not make legal holidays a trivial matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)