Talk:Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant

New article
Added sources and content welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I did a light runthrough and copyedit (“reigns”, oh dear...). You did a nice job on this, I just cleaned up some things, and toned down a bit of the enthusiasm. It’s clear you enjoyed working on this article and it’s a fun addition to Wikipedia. If there are articles on Cincinnati and the other horses, I’d suggest you link them. If not, take a look at the ones I did on George Washington’s horses, Blueskin (horse) and Nelson (horse).  Maybe you’d enjoy doing something similar.  Montanabw (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and your edits. However, there is one item I would like to keep, that being the phrase "has been widely acclaimed".  This idea is by no means exaggerated by saying so. Nearly all Grant's biographers have written about his exceptional associations with horses in more than just a passing fashion. There are several books about Grant written on that subject alone. By simply saying that "Grant was acclaimed by his contemporaries and historian" suggests that he was so acclaimed no more than any other average good horseman. The fact that Grant was widely acclaimed and is famous as such is a fact that shouldn't be understated, and is an idea that helps to set the tone of the article. Also, I'm a bit curious about your comment that you don't feel "Grant’s horsemanship feats were particularly unique". He was riding bare-back on horses doing stunts standing on one leg at a full gallop, at five years old. He set a high jump record at West Point that stood for a quarter century. He could tame unmanageable horses that no one else anywhere was able to, for openers. I'm just curious about what it would take in your opinion to make someone an outstanding horseman. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s a line between “excellent,” which he clearly was, and “exceptional,” which implies myth. our neutral point of view standards and the need for an “encyclopedic” tone mean we have to exercise caution with  superlatives. 😉 It’s great to tell the stories.  But I’ve seen similar claims of exceptional ability made of Washington, and, for that matter, Alexander the Great. It’s kind of hagiography, and common in a lot of writing in his time.  Here’s my perspective: A reasonable number of people in his era (and even ours) made a good living by “taming the vicious horse.”  It’s almost a trope, the horse whisperer thing.  As for stunt riding at five, that’s also very cool, but see equestrian vaulting, And organizers claim kids can start as “preschoolers.” The West Point record was also impressive, but we know records are interesting things, subject to a lot of factors as far as how they were set, under what conditions, and how hard anyone tried to break them. So, I’ll gladly acknowledge he was very, very good, clearly loved horses, and was very effective with them.  But not mythic. 😎  Montanabw (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hagiography actually means embellishing something above and beyond fact. e.g.Washington won a "glorious" decisive victory. While the term "glorious" is certainly hagiographic, mentioning that the victory was decisive would not be. If one's performance, or acclaim, is far above and beyond the norm we are not really being less than neutral by mentioning such facts. If we intentionally withhold this fact it could be said we are employing a type of reverse hagiography. Given the fact that nearly all of Grant's biographers (widely as compared to a few) mention Grant's exceptional ability, often times at length, and was often times noted by many of his friends and contemporaries as such, we are being neutral by simply indicating this fact, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it was also “widely” known that he was an alcoholic. 😉 I guess where I’m coming from, and maybe the way we can find phrasing that we both like, is that a “decisive” military victory is defined not by us Wikipedians, even if firsthand primary sources said so (which could have been just propaganda at the time). The analysis that the victory was, in fact, decisive is made by respected historians that we cite. See WP:SYNTH. It’s kind of a tricky line between describing the weight of the evidence in a summary style (OK) and drawing our own conclusions (not OK).  Let’s grant (pun intended) in theory that, as far as horsemanship ability goes, he could have been in the 95th percentile. “Gifted” might be a good word, perhaps. (But are all gifted people also “exceptional” in the field in which their giftedness manifests? Not necessarily...)  How have historians summarized the assessment of his contemporaries? If it’s been done, mention it.  If it hasn’t, we only have primary sources and must confine ourselves to summarizing, but not analyzing them. “Widely” is kind of a weasel word. “Many of his contemporaries at different times in his life commented that he seemed to have an exceptional ability (with citations in text)” is clearer and more precise (if kind of wordy).  I hope I am explaining this in an understandable fashion.   Montanabw (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant was known to drink at times, esp when he was away from his wife while he was stationed at the isolated Fort Humboldt for almost two years. Other than that his drinking was highly exaggerated by his rivals, and of course by the press. If he was truly an alcoholic he never would have rose through the ranks and became a two-term president. There is much to consider behind that story, and I have, for years now. In any case, our first concern is giving the readers an accurate account on matters. e.g.When multiple sources say "decisive victory", or clear words to that effect, we should say so, esp when supported by the details. No SYNTH. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In another issue. I noticed you removed the italicization from the horses' names. As ship's names are italicized, to indicate that a name shouldn't be taken literally (e.g. the Constitution), the horses' names were so italicized. There is no mention in MOS:Text formatting of horses, but there's also no mention that this goes against guidelines. I've made an inquiry about this on the Talk page there. Since this involves horses you may want to chime in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Animal names are never italicized. I think the distinction is that they are living individual creatures.  Occasionally, people put them in “scare quotes,” but that’s not correct either.  Thanks for the heads up. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence
At present, the first sentence of the article states, "The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as the most exceptional in American history." Since the sentence states that there has been wide acclamation to this effect, at least one reliable source to that effect is needed, either here or later in the article, and more than one source is preferred. In addition, clarification is needed. Does this mean the most exceptional of any American in history? That seems unlikely; surely there have been professional horsemen who were better. If the comparison is to other presidents or to other generals, that should be stated. John M Baker (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree - this sentence is a really bold claim, and seems a bit out of place. The article only uses "exceptional" to describe Grant once. There's very little discussing his skill in a historical context, or in which he's specifically compared to other people:
 * Richardson: "altogether, one of the very best riders West Point had ever known"
 * Longstreet: "the most proficient in the Academy ... the most daring horseman in the academy"
 * These are definitely high praise, and I don't think anyone would disagree he was clearly very skilled, but they're a long way from substantiating "most exceptional in American history". They're also both quite old references - both were contemporaries of Grant. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nearly all biographies of Grant feature his exceptional horsemanship. This essay more than hints at that idea. While we may be hard pressed to find the term "exceptional", this is an obvious deduction, supported by the sources. e.g. Doing stunts on bare-back at a full gallop, standing one one leg, a the age of five -- Setting a high jump record at West Point -- taming and riding horse that no one could even get close to -- not to mention his numerous feats on horseback during battle, more than support the idea of 'exceptional'. Also, the statement in question doesn't say, as fact, that Grant was the most exceptional in US history, only that he has been widely acclaimed for being so, which is true. Both new and old sources support the idea. If the statement in question was some outlandish claim I could see where this my be a pressing issue. In any case, I added the term "probably" to the statement. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are going beyond the cited sources. The article clearly shows that Grant was an excellent horseman, and I'm not going to quibble at the word "exceptional."  You also assert that Grant was acclaimed as an excellent or exceptional horseman by contemporaries and historians, and that isn't really in the article right now, but apparently it easily could be; you just need to add a cite or two.  But the initial sentence also asserts that he was acclaimed as the most exceptional in American history, when there is no evidence that anyone acclaimed him as the most exceptional horseman in American history.  The easiest clean fix is to rewrite the sentence to say "The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed as exceptional by his contemporaries and historians."  Then add a couple of cites from historians.  John M Baker (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article employs the 'no citations in the lede' convention, where general statements are allowed if supported by the text, and the sources. e.g.James Longstreet, a fellow cadet of Grant's at West Point, said of Grant, " "In horsemanship, however, he was noted as the most proficient in the Academy. In fact, rider and horse held together like the fabled centaur...". This is well sourced and supports the idea of acclaim coming from contemporaries. Also, the acclaim from historians is impossible to ignore, as virtually all of Grant's biographers expound on Grant's great horsemanship, in numerous instances throughout Grant's life. There is even a dedicated book on this subject by Denise Dowdall (2012) Again, the statement doesn't present the idea of 'exceptional' as fact. I further added a short phrase so the statement doesn't sound so absolute. Last, the remark about US history is supported by this source, first sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem still is the claim that Grant's horsemanship has been acclaimed, by contemporaries and historians, as the most exceptional in American history. Apparently there is one source that says this, but that is not a contemporary and it isn't clear whether it's a historian, since it isn't signed, nor does it appear to be a reliable source.  I think you need to dial it back a bit.  I'm going to go ahead and make an edit to that effect.  John M Baker (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me add that the new language has, in my opinion, a more encyclopedic tone and is less likely to result in raised eyebrows. Grant was a great horseman, and the article makes that point.  Let his skills speak for themselves.  John M Baker (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Since it looks like the prior statement in question has the potential to cause issues, we can leave it like that for now. Will look into the issue further to see what comes up in terms of other RS's. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC).

Merger proposal
It is proposed that the Cincinnati (horse) article be merged into this article. The Cincinnati (horse) article is a stub, and all of it's content is better covered in this article, so there would be no need to copy text from that article into this one. All the images of that article are contained in this article. There has been no additions to the narrative in the Cincinnati article since 2012. The proposed article meets all criteria for merging with this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, for reasons outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, --Wow (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, unless demonstrated that Cincinnati can be expanded. Benica11 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, Per above. Puddleglum  2.0   23:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
This is about as far from NPOV as you can get. Sure, he probably liked horses and he possibly had a knack for dealing with them. But to blow that up to such an insane story where he was the horse whisperer who could do things no other man ever could is silly. At this point, the best we can do is delete the article because the topic does not meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a few sentences can be incorporated into the article about him. There are and were thousands of people who grew up around horses and enjoy(ed) riding and competing with them. Polygnotus (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Notifying involved editors in the Articles for deletion/Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant discussion.


 * Disagree with the complaint. This appears to be yet another unfounded attempt to criticize this article, and comes in the wake of the nomination to delete that is failing miserably.   There is a claim of a NPOV issue, but there was zero explanation as to what makes the article less than neutral.   The claim about lack of notability, has already been well addressed in the last discussion, so this appears to be a case of WP:IDHT, also. The fact that almost every Grant biographer has written, often at length, about Grant's exceptional horsemanship, more than puts the subject on the notability map. As such, the initiation of this discussion seems to be inspired merely buy the same stuff that the complainant exhibited in the first attempt to dump on this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Weird to act this triumphant when people have pointed out very serious flaws with the article. It is clear you don't understand the problems with this article and you appear to be unwilling to improve it. Like I said before, your ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a false accusation. I've already acknowledged that  was open to suggestions, but all you've done is make superficial complaints, and have yet to explain any "myths",exactly what needs to be rewritten.  etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC).
 * I can try to more clearly explain the problems if that helps you. If you are willing to improve the article I am willing to help. Polygnotus (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is starting to seem like forum shopping for your deletion nomination, but I'm going to extend some good faith here. My advice is to take some time between your replies, and ping people less.
 * I'll be following your discussion with Gwillhickers to see what kinds of edits you are suggesting. I'll be back later this evening to make some of my own! Carlp941 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is starting to smack of forum-shopping. You really need to drop the stick at this point and move on. Grant's horsemanship is discussed in recent biographies, and not just in brief. Horsemanship was a big deal prior to the advent of the automobile, and Grant's ability was exceptional. Intothatdarkness 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is just one way to fix the problems with this article. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You continue to ignore sources showing notability of the subject. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean anything. Intothatdarkness 18:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability is far from the only problem. Polygnotus (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The main problem I see is you don't like the article. You didn't get the result you desired at AfD so you're kicking up a fuss here. Intothatdarkness 18:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ad hominems are a waste of our resources. Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As is your campaign against this article. Notability has been established to the satisfaction of most. Cleanup is needed. Your particular vendetta is not. And now I'll stop wasting my resources on you. Please feel free to continue wasting your own resources here. Intothatdarkness 21:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but now we have two additional tags on the article that need to be addressed, and then removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't you just tone down the language a little bit? That is clearly not an unreasonable request. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Tone down"?? This, coming from someone who resorts to terms like "nationalist drivel", myths", false accusations of refusing to cooperate,and whats to "blow it up and start over", etc, and at this point has tagged the article with two additional tags, all in the wake of a failing nomination to delete? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, tone down. If you are willing to cooperate to improve the article, toning down the wording would be a great first step. Ad hominems are rarely constructive. Polygnotus (talk)
 * Difficult to take the advice of someone who falsely accuses others of the same thing he or she is guilty of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you try to avoid the ad hominems please? I don't want to talk to you if its ad hominem after ad hominem ad nauseam. Polygnotus (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually the ad'hom' is coming mostly from you. Please explain any "myths", (i,e,untruths) and why you are requesting such extreme (TNT) measures, something you have yet to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually the other way around. I did explain why I nominated the article, but I should probably word it differently for you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong yet again. It's all a matter of record now. Your opening statement at AFD resorted to ad'hom, even insults with the claim that "myths" have been used in the article.  Sorry. Your attempt at damage control here further demonstrates that  you're on some anti-nationalist vendetta, as at least one other editor has claimed, while your ' not notable' claim has been thoroughly refuted by a number of editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you stop the ad hominems please? They only serve to make your argument weaker. Polygnotus (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reminder. The article passed a DYK nomination, so if there was much basis to your as of yet empty claims, the article would not have passed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant it was almost 25 years (sourced to "Grant" by Jean Edward Smith). If that is true then the DYK is not. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The DYK hook makes the general claim of 25 years. Now you're simply being difficult because a source said "almost 25 years". To claim the statement is completely "not true" is just another one of your excessive and erroneous claims. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you try to claim that the fact that one false claim from the article was a DYK means that therefore the article must be perfect, then I am obviously going to point out that that claim is false. But even if that claim was true, it would mean little for the rest of the article. Jean Edward Smith was called "today’s foremost biographer of formidable figures in American history" so he probably knows what he is talking about. Polygnotus (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that people (well respected Wikipedians who have a lot of experience) agree with me. So to act like my claims are empty is a bit weird. Polygnotus (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a bit busy right now but I'll be back and explain it a bit more. Polygnotus (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The main thing you need to address is the accusation of "myths", which in effects says the article contains falsehoods, which more than suggests that I have resorted to lying. Yes, empty claims, with continued accusations of refusing to cooperate — this after I acknowledged that I was open to suggestions. Your tone has been aggressive and hostile right from the start. If you would please address"myths" then we can discuss your other opinions more seriously.  Until that is squarely addressed I will continue to assume that this is just an attempt at damage control, in face of a AfD nomination that is thoroughly failing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked you to stop with the constant ad hominems. You are refusing or unable to. Good luck. Interesting to see who you did not ping. Polygnotus (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Why have I been summoned here? I !voted keep in the AfD while suggesting an additional citation because in my judgment the subject-matter is WP:NOTABLE. I expressed no opinion on the state of the article because WP:AfD is not cleanup. It is most certainly not in so bad a state as to justify even contemplating WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. It just seems we're going to need more objective opinions about the recent two tags the article has just received. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It clearly has POV issues I want to point out that I did support keeping the article at the AfD because we don't delete articles just for being non-neutral but to put this in the lede without even one cite The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as among the most exceptional in American history., yeah, less than ideal. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article uses the no citations in the lede convention, as any statement in the lede is supported in the text. Having said that, it should be noted that the statement in question does not say that Grant, was exceptional, as an absolute fact, but says, widely acclaimed. This could be changed to, widely noted, or,  is often considered, if you think this is necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC).
 * "No citations in the lead section" is not a magic spell you can use to not have to provide citations upon request for disputed content. In this case, that sentence needs to be drastically toned down. So "widely noted" or "is often considered" would not fix the problem. Also see WP:WEASEL. Both sentences that got the cn contain claims that are not supported by the text. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, I wouldn't object to calling him an "expert horseman". But "as among the most exceptional in American history" is many bridges too far. Polygnotus (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Magic spell"? This is a practice commonly used in many GA and FA articles, and contrary to your claim, the idea is supported, and sourced in the text, so we should wait for more objective opinions from those who don't 't see the article as "nationalist drivel", "myths" that needs be dealt with in a TNT manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC).
 * If you would've had sources to back up that claim they would be in the article, right? But they aren't. So it is not unreasonable to conclude they don't exist. But if you do have sources that support the claim made in the article, please quote them. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. I'd need to see multiple high-quality sources with specific expertise in the history of equestrianship making such a claim before it'd be something that should be in wiki-voice. And, in general, it's these sorts of subjective superlatives that are to the article's detriment. Let me be clear. No TNT is needed here. But cleanup surely is. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't take a source about "expertise in the history of equestrianship", if such a source even exists, to make a general statement that Grant was a great horseman, and was noted as such many times throughout his life. And again, the article doesn't claim this as absolute fact, but only that he was widely noted for being so, beginning in his youth, and there are multiple sources that make this point in almost all his biographies, as several editors pointed out in the AfD discussion. Since this well sourced idea doesn't involve some incredibly fantastic and  hard to believe idea, I fail too see why there is such a controversy brewing about this in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is unsourced, not true, and drags down the rest of the article? We are talking about over half a billion people. See WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Polygnotus (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim doesn't accomplish much. All statements are well sourced, and "drags down the rest of the article" is obviously cut from the same cloth as your "nationalist drivel" and "myths" claims, so at this point, as has been already pointed out for you, we're going to need several objective opinions before most of us can take your hyper-speak tactics very seriously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not following policy is only an option in exceptional circumstances, and these are not. Polygnotus (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Extraordinary, means far above average, that's all. Nothing totally amazing as you would have us believe WP:EXTRAORDINARY "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". We have many high quality reliable sources that say Grant was exceptional, or if you prefer, far above average, and support the idea with one example after another, beginning in Grant's youth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * But above average is not the claim made in the article. Being among the most exceptional of over half a billion people is an extraordinary claim. Less ad hominems, more quotes from sources. "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.". I also wouldn't object  if it said "exceptional horsemanship". Polygnotus (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, extraordinary. i.e.Not a miracle. And again, all examples are well sourced. And yes,it's understood that the idea of "extraordinary" is in reference to Grant's horsemanship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If the claim is well sourced it will be easy for you to quote some reliable sources here that directly support the claim made in the article (not just good or great, but "among the most exceptional in American history"). How much time do you need? For example I can check back next week, if that suits you? I might be able to help you by looking at some sources myself if you want, but don't be annoyed if they get used to improve the article. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? -- "I might be able to help you by looking at some sources myself ..."??  IOW, you haven't even looked at the sources. Yet here you are with all of your questionable claims. No one in the AfD discussion, or at DYK, has claimed that any statement is unsourced.  The only issue made, besides yourself, at the AfD was over the neutrality of the wording, e.g. "extraordinary", not over lack of citations. Please research the sources before you continue any further.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2024
 * Why do you keep misinterpreting what I and other say? Also, you did not answer the questions? If you do not give a source for the unsourced claims they should be removed. Unsurprisingly, none of the sources support the claim made in the article. Polygnotus (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You are the only one making the claim about unsourced statements. The issue is over neutrality. . I have not misrepresented your claims, in print, for all to see, and certainly not those of anyone else. Speaking of misrepresentation, this will not be the first time you say one thing and do the opposite. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to follow policy, except in very rare cases. This is not one of those very rare cases. Unsourced disputed content should be removed. Can you please answer those 2 questions? If the claim is well sourced it will be easy for you to quote some reliable sources here that directly support the claim made in the article (not just good or great, but "among the most exceptional in American history"). How much time do you need? For example I can check back next week, if that suits you? You keep refusing to provide sources for that claim because there are none. To solve that problem I suggested describing him as an "expert horseman" or describing it as "exceptional horsemanship". Polygnotus (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . I believe the paragraph in question is appropriately sourced now. I also edited a statement to be more in accord with the source. Would you take another look? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the problems of course is that there is no such thing as a "natural riding ability". Human life is, in many ways, different from a computer game where you pick a perk or invest in a S.P.E.C.I.A.L skill. Polygnotus (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would honestly be good if both of you would bring your edits to article talk to discuss before continuing what looks an awful lot like an edit war even if absent a WP:3RR brightline. Simonm223 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers has been repeatedly re-inserting disputed content against consensus, but that does not fit the conventional definition of an editwar because there are long stretches of time between edits. It feels more like the talkpage is evidence of the futility of human communication. Some people are talented, which means they acquire a skill they aren't born with faster than others. Polygnotus (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV (2)
There is consensus against including this claim, and there are no reliable sources that support it. That is the reason for the canvassing and constant stream of ad hominems. There is no reason to believe this problem is limited to this article. Perhaps WP:NPOVN can help check other articles? People view historical figures similar to how others view football stars, and they argue who is the best of them all. Then they rewrite history to suit their view that Ronaldo/Messi is the best ever. It is very weird if you are an outsider. Polygnotus (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that someone is the best at or among the most exceptional at something in a group of over half a billion people is an exceptional claim. Quote: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."  My repeated requests for sources have been ignored. The Verifiability policy says: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." This claim has been repeatedly removed but Gwillhickers keeps adding it back in. Polygnotus (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Table

 * Speaking of NPOV, your claim that there is "no such thing as natural riding ability" is absurd, and smacks of your own, highly opinionated, NPOV. By what reliable source(s) can you support this spurious claim? Further, the claim of exceptional, or any other such reference, is not made in comparison to other people, certainly not to  "half a billion people". It is a reference, not stated as absolute fact, but that Grant was considered, or acclaimed, as exceptional. This pans out in virtually all of Grant's biographies. As such, this general idea  can be made in the lede if supported by the text, which it does in several instances throughout the biography, backed up by a reliable source in every instance. In any case, why did you edit out the distinction "among the most  Doesn't this further the idea that Grant was not the only one, and was among others?  The edits-diffs which you outlined above only involve modifications of the same idea, and no where have I ever stated that Grant was the only one, only that he was exceptional in US history. Even the statement "probably the most exceptional in US history " does not put out the idea that Grant was 'the' best among everyone else. In any case, I will look for corroborating sources that support this idea, hopefully to the letter. .- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOV means neutral point of view. Again, please read WP:INDENT. Starting your comment with a star is for unordered lists. Babies don't have a natural horse riding ability because they are babies.
 * Further, the claim of exceptional, or any other such reference, is not made in comparison to other people, certainly not to "half a billion people" Haha. How can something be exceptional, but not relative? If we interpret "American" to mean "The United States of America" then there were over half a billion people part of "American history".
 * You stated he was literally the best horseman in American history. Out of over half a billion people. Without any source. Can you please admit that that was silly?
 * You should've had multiple high-quality sources before writing the claim on Wikipedia. You repeatedly claimed there were sources you based the claim on... But that was clearly not true, because if it was you could just quote them and you wouldn't have to "look for corroborating sources that support this idea, hopefully to the letter". Now you are trying to write WP:BACKWARDS. Polygnotus (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't read anything that is glaringly anti-neutral in the article. It should be rewritten in a chronological format, with factual statements, and references provided. I don't read any source that Grant was a horse whisper, or had any "special" connection with horses. But he was very comfortable with horses, and knew how to handle them, from his youth through the Mexican American War. Riding side mount shows some athleticism and bravery on Grant's part, during the MAW. Cmguy777 (talk)○
 * Yeah it used to say dude was literally the best horseman in American history (without any sources to back that WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim up). I changed it to say that his horsemanship was exceptional. Polygnotus (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe just using the word "exceptional" in reference to Grant and horsemanship is appropriate for the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , actually the article is written in chronological order, with factual, well sourced statements. The first section is entitled, Frontier youth, followed with the Military general section, with sub-sections that are entitled, West Point, and Mexican–American War, and Civil War, followed by the general sections, Presidency and World tour. Let's remember that even Grant's biographies  aren't necessarily written in absolute chronological order, per every detail, but generally speaking, they are, as I believe this article is. If you find anything that is way out of order, or perhaps a paragraph that needs better narrative flow, by all means, have at it. As for the entire article needing to be rewritten, well,I don't see that and it would certainly take a lot of discussion first, if any major changes are to be effected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My only concern was the need for the military section, section. It is two paragraphs. There seems to be repeat information. Why not just start with West Point, after Frontier youth? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Military section is just an overview of Grant's entire military career, per horsemanship. If you see something that isn't quite necessary and is better covered only in the sub-sections then I'd have no objections for its removal, or modification. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything would be covered, but just not repeated in the article, or jumping ahead to the future. Keep focus on horsemanship. There apparently is a copyright infringement tag on one of the paragraphs. That information should be removed from the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Military section is a general overview of basic statements, none of which are repeated in the subsections. If I'm missing something would you please outline it? As for the copy vio, while there are similar general phrases, regarding general facts, which can not copyrighted, per WP:FACTSONLY, the overall wording is quite different. Misconceptions about copy vios was already addressed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The recent massive deletion has been restored. Highly questionable, massive and disputed deletions need to be discussed first, with other editors chiming in. Also, the citation needed tag on a general statement in the lede is supported by sourced examples in the West Point, Civil War, and World tour sections, as was already addressed. If this sort of editorship continues we will have to take this matter to Dispute resolution noticeboard..  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Involved editors, , ,  -- objective opinions from involved editors are needed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any misunderstandings. I had voted to save this article from deletion. My edits were done in good faith. The article currently has neutrality and rewrite tags. I thought the rewrite tag gave me more liberties with my editing. A rewrite is a rewrite. Two of the sources in the military section are dated in the 19th century. The edits I made in the Frontier youth section used the White 2016 source. No objections were made there. I hope editors can work together to remove the tags. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * – The article's sections are in chronological order and contain general statements of fact. Yes, there was a couple of generic comments made about rewriting the article, but this idea was never explained with actual ideas. As said before, I've no objections with improving on any given statement(s), so long the editing is not meddlesome and unneeded. IMO, that tag needs to be removed also.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, a rewrite tag should give other editors freedom in rewriting the article. Rewrites can have major changes. My only concern was the military section. All I wanted was for that information to be incorporated into the article, with modern references, but not in its own section. The information was meant to be put back in the article. There are two references from the 19th Century that should be updated. The person or persons in who put up the tags should clarify what specific things needed to be changed in the talk pages. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We really don't need a rewrite tag to tell editors they have the freedom to edit. i.e.It's a WP precept that's already well understood. i.e."Anyone can edit". A rewrite tag sends the wrong message and more than suggests that the entire article needs to be overhauled. While there's always room for improvement, the article is far from needing a complete rewrite, which again, would require a lot of discussion if any such work were to proceed. If this was really the case, the article wouldn't have stood for four years without any such contention, and it certainly would not have passed a DYK review if needed to be rewritten. As said, if you can find an item in the Military section that would be better placed in the subsections, or if it needs other things added, then by all means, do what you can. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Military section needs a rewrite with modern references, not the whole article. To me the rewrite tag means the article narration needs improvement. Modern references would help in that manner. It also may entail changing the narration, or possibly removing parts of the narration. It might be similar to remodeling a home. Your just remodeling the article. But working together will help get rid of the tags. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the copy vios were added too. I am not sure how this articles neautrality can be resolved with copyvios unresolved. Nothing seems to have changed much with this article. I can add edits but until the copyvios are resolved, I don't see how the copyvios tags can be removed. All I wanted was the freedom to edit and improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the copy vios were added too. I am not sure how this articles neautrality can be resolved with copyvios unresolved. Nothing seems to have changed much with this article. I can add edits but until the copyvios are resolved, I don't see how the copyvios tags can be removed. All I wanted was the freedom to edit and improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio
Unsurprisingly, everywhere I start digging I find copyright violations. FML.

Comparing the source to the Wikipedia article:

Text added here. In the (unreliable) source this is a story told by a fellow cadet, but now it is reported in wikivoice as fact. Polygnotus (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio (2)
Comparing the source to the Wikipedia article:

Text added here. Polygnotus (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio (3)
To check whether this is a fluke or a pattern I checked another article. I selected Einar Holbøll because it was recently written and he has a silly name. I then picked the first reference containing a link (because references to books require me to find the actual book which takes more time).

Comparing the source to Einar Holbøll.

Text added here.

I know this is offtopic here but it is important to know that this is a widespread problem, and the tip of the iceberg.

These were relatively easy to find because they were online, but who is going to check all those books to find the rest of the copyvio? And the other 122 articles created by Gwillhickers and their sources? And the articles they didn't write but contributed to? Contributor copyright investigations? Polygnotus (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No copy vios

 * You should learn that general statements of fact, common phrases and such can not be copyrighted. WP:FACTSONLY, "Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected. The test of creativity is minimal. "    Since there is only statements of facts reworded, no outright copying of phrases, and no creative writing involved, you've failed to make any case of copy-vios, as your own display of the diffs readily shows us.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is illegal in basically all countries in the world. It is not writing an encyclopedia article; it is a form of theft.
 * You can't just remove and re-order a few words and use a few synonyms. You are infringing on these people's copyright. And you have done that for years in 120+ articles.
 * I could easily write a computer program that removes a few words from a text and replaces some words with their synonyms. But the resulting text would still be infringing on copyright.
 * You interpreted WP:FACTSONLY to mean that only fiction is protected by copyright, but that is incorrect.
 * If you want to write on Wikipedia, you have to write your own stuff, based on reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're disagreeing with WP Policy. Now you're speaking for "basically all countries in the world".
 * General statements of fact can not be copyrighted, in any country. How do you propose to relate general statements of fact without rewording them? Answer please. Given your hostile and insulting tone from the beginning, it is apparent that this episode shows us once again that you are merely reaching for ways to drag your feet through these discussions. I believe we're seen enough of your perpetual and reckless conjecture.  In the future, you need to quote the source in question and compare it to my editing, something which you failed to do, also.- after which you need to take WP policy more seriously.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to indent correctly (I fixed it)? Why? Quote: "Expressions must have at least a modicum of creativity to qualify for copyright protection.[8] The way an author describes a set of real life events in a biography may qualify as such an expression and will likely have copyright protection". you need to quote the source in question and compare it to my editing, something which you failed to do What do you mean? There are 3 examples above. There is a difference between copypasting and then changing/reordering/deleting a few words and writing your own text based on factual information in another text. Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was taught that simply changing/reordering/removing a few words is not enough to escape copyright trouble, even in non-fiction. But I have asked Diannaa to take a look. They know far more about copyright than I do. If they say that I am wrong I will set up a company that uses software to change/reorder/remove a few words from a nonfiction text and resells it. People always complain that college textbooks are expensive. Polygnotus (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no modicum of creativity involved, only simple facts. In any case, the wording is different from the source since before you began making any edits, and is that way at present.. If you can relate the same information any better, without leaving out important details, you are free to do so.  All we've gotten from you thus far is highly opinionated criticism, and no helpful suggestions of your own as to alternative wordings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , -- Thanks for your recent votes to keep. Since the three of us have worked long and hard on the Grant article itself, hopefully you can make any needed changes to satisfy some recent criticisms related here. Any help and opinion offered regarding so called copy-vios at this juncture would be much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Military
Grant also gained a reputation for excellent horsemanship during his military career, and subsequently would sometimes receive horses as gifts from admirers. In the Mexican–American War he performed remarkable feats on horseback during battle. During the American Civil War Grant owned several horses, riding them on scouting missions, while inspecting the troops and formations, and during battle. At times he would retire one horse and use another during long campaigns. Grant was known to take exceptional care of his mounts and always kept them brushed "smooth as silk" with all the trappings in perfect order.

A war correspondent having often observed Grant's self-styled horsemanship once characterized his overall military involvement with horses: "Roads are almost useless to him, for he takes short cuts through fields and woods, and will swim his horse through almost any stream that obstructs his way. Nor does it make any difference to him whether he has daylight for his movements, for he will ride from breakfast until two o'clock in the morning, and that too without eating. The next day he will repeat the dose, until he finishes his work."

I moved this section to the talk page. Seems to have repeat information. Jumps ahead to the Civil War. May can be reincorporated later into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As was explained, this is a section that contains a summary for Grant's entire military career. As such, it mentions, or "jumps ahead", to various points in that career. We need to discuss matters with more than general assertions that have yet to be explained before making such bold edits. Until such time, the section should remain..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mind letting the section being restored. I voted this article should be saved when it was nominated for deletion. Edits were done in good faith. There is currently a neutrality tag on this article. There is also a tag for a rewrite too. I thought that gave me some liberties with my edits. That section contained dated 19 century sources. I apologize. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The tags are kinda meaningless, any goodfaith editor should always feel free to make improvements anywhere. But sometimes you run into WP:OWN problems. Polygnotus (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Article improvement
I have been trying to improve the article with good faith edits. I removed the copyvio and copyvio2 information from the article. Moved military section to talk page. Could be incorporated later back to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for your good faith edits. However, the content in question contains general statements of facts, and with the exception of a few general phrases, are all reworded differently. Please review WP:FACTSONLY and the discussion here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am only trying to stabalize the article. The disputed copy vios were not adding stability. Started with a foundation article that can be improved later. The information in the Military section can be readded in the right sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have to get rid of that neutrality tag too. What exactly is not neutral with this article? Specific areas? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay –  Let me just say there were and are no copy vio's, and other than a few similarities with general phrases and facts, the statements in question are completely reworded, and in one case have a few items added. Yes, the neutrality issue, such that it was, concerned the lede statement regarding Grant's "exceptional" horsemanship, which is supported by (very) many Grant biographies and other related texts, all Reliable Sources. I tried rendering the statement a bit more neutral by confining the idea to American history, but it was reverted with the comment "back to consensus version per talk". So there is consensus on this idea now, and the tag should be removed. As for article stability, I can appreciate this idea on its face, but such a massive deletion wasn't anything that made the article stable.  If it's any help, below are a good number of sources that touch on Grant's exceptional horsemanship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the neutrality issue, such that it was, concerned the lede statement That is not true. Polygnotus (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you are saying. I moved the Military section to the talk page. The purpose was to read add the information back to the article with modern sources. I did this because of the rewrite tag in the article, that would allow a little more freedom in the editing process. Even though the information is back in the article, it still needs a rewrite, in my opinion. But I will endeavor to cooperate and work together on this. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources should be judged on a per source basis, not merely by the date of publication. Many modern sources have the older sources in their bibliographies. In any case, there is one modern source in that section, Dowdall, 2012. If you can find additional "modern" sources to cite the existing information, you can always add them as a corroborating citation. Feel free to make any improvements. As for the tags, there is no neutrality issue, as the statement in question is the consensus version. The rewrite tag, if needed at all, should be in the section it was meant for. IMO, it's inappropriate, as a "rewrite" means starting from scratch, which is uncalled for. Genuine improvements are always welcomed. Not to patronize, but since you're  one of the more experienced editors, esp where Grant is concerned, I've no issues with leaving matters in your hands.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * there is no neutrality issue That is not true, the neutrality problems are not limited to the first sentence of the article. You have repeatedly changed the first sentence to make it even more flattering, but a bunch of people have reverted that and even more expressed their disagreement.
 * The rewrite tag, if needed at all, should be in the section it was meant for. IMO, it's inappropriate, as a "rewrite" means starting from scratch, which is uncalled for. That is also not true, see rewrite. And this article requires a complete rewrite if we want it to conform to WP:NPOV. Polygnotus (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we have to first resolve the tags. We need to know what specific things are not neatral in the are. We need to resolve the copyvios. Find out what the editors who put in the tags wants specifically. Give them a chance to resolve the issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Failed discussion

 * An attempt was made to render the lede statement in more neutral terms, limiting the idea of "exceptional" to American history, not throughout all of history . So the claim "You have repeatedly changed the first sentence to make it even more flattering", is patently false. Adding a point neutrality is not making anything more "flattering". Also false is that a "bunch of people have reverted" my edits. Polygnotus is the only one who has reverted anything to do with neutrality, and only once, as readily demonstrated  in edit history. In the future, please collect your thoughts, review the discussion and article edit history so you can be more truthful in these discussions.
 * As has been explained three times, there are no copy-vio issues, as once again, statements of facts and general phrases cannot be copyrighted. Still no one has articulated any actual copy-vio, just the repeated empty claim and diffs that fail to make the point, all of which ignores WP:FACTSONLY. Other than a few general phrases, regarding facts, there has been no close-paraphrasing. Along with the wp:IDHT these allegations are becoming disruptive, as has been the attack on this article since the failed attempt to delete it, or blow it up and start over. The acute negative bias, evidenced by Polygnotus' behavior, as observed by,  , ,  and others, is becoming quite chronic and needs to be controlled. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So the claim ""You have repeatedly changed the first sentence to make it even more flattering"", is patently false. Not sure why you deny that, you can see in the table above how you have repeatedly changed the first sentence of the article to make it more flattering: Talk:Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant.
 * In that same table you can see that a "bunch of people have reverted"
 * You keep pinging people who you think will agree with you; but that is not really a good strategy. Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And you keep hammering on the same things over and over again, @Polygnotus. That doesn't tend to be a good strategy, either. I don't see any point in getting involved with this article until both you and @Gwillhickers take a step back. Intothatdarkness 00:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it got pretty repetitive and then I got bored and moved on. You can only ask so many times to stop with the ad hominems. Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not reverted the first sentence, but, once again, only added a point of neutrality, limiting the idea of "exceptional" to American history, to which you reverted. You also revered the point about natural riding ability, to which I did not revert. Before your first edit of 27 April 2024‎  my last edit was made 21 February 2021‎. There has been no episodes where a "bunch of people have reverted" any of my edits. You were the only one. Please take a close look at edit history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Tags
What needs to be done to resolve the neutrality and copyvio tags? Responses from the editors who put in the tags would be helpful. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, for one the article is very repetitive, the same stuff gets repeated over and over to hammer the point home. For example, if we have a bit of information like "Grant was great with horses". How many times is that point being made in this article? I don't have enough fingers and toes to count. Another major problem that, of course, Grant got mythologized (which makes sense in his position). But this is an encyclopedia, and WP:NPOV (which contains WP:DUE) is policy. Hero worship has no place here. Grant was a fallible mortal human like the rest of us, who happened to have well above average horsemanship skill; this article makes him out to be some kind of horse god. There is no reason for this article to exist, but if it does exist we should stick to the facts and get rid of all the non-encyclopedic fluff that only serves to further extol his virtues. Polygnotus (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have been using White 2016, bio on Grant. I know this article reads a bit like a western. Any worship of Grant wording is unintentional on my part. Can you give us specific areas where this "fluff" is in the article so we can remove it? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be easier pointing out the parts that I wouldn't consider to be fluff. I normally don't mind what some would call "flavor text" but I do when its an NPOV problem. Many of these anecdotes are not factual information and repeating them serves no encyclopedic purpose. They are sourced to people who claimed to be fellow soldiers, which are probably the least reliable sources one can find; with the possible exception of sailors. Polygnotus (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The hero worship started back when Grant was still alive, and since then dozens of people have repeated and amplified these stories. That is what the "Sources supporting the idea of Grant's exceptional horsemanship" section is. It started with perhaps a handful of people saying "yo, this dude is really good with horses" and thanks to citogenesis, tall tales from soldiers and ancestor worship they have blown up the story to mythical proportions. It is completely fine to write that he was the "best horseman in American history" on your personal blog. But Wikipedia is an attempt to write a encyclopedia. In order to introduce NPOV we would need to drastically shorten the article, but that is difficult because of the WP:OWN problems. Polygnotus (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the article needs to be reduced. What areas should be reduced in the article? Also, what should be done with the copyvio narration? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll need to think about that for a bit. For the record, I understand that writing an article like this is a giant amount of work (for very little pay) and I know that I come across as rude and unkind when I start criticizing what someone worked hard on. Polygnotus (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking forward to your answers. I don't mind criticism. Just want to get article back in order and tags removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to be impossible for me to communicate with the writer due to the constant stream of ad hominems and meta stuff. They seem to respect your opinion tho, so maybe you'll be able to achieve more than I have. I do not dispute that Grant was probably a cool dude, or that his horsemanship was exceptional.
 * But Wikipedia articles are not (or shouldn't be) collections of anecdotes about how great someone was at one particular skill. I stopped caring about the copyvio because my concerns fell on deaf ears.
 * Looking at other important people in history, I could easily create a collection of anecdotes from the people in his life about, for example, how smart Einstein was. But creating such a list of anecdotes and ordering them chronologically would not make a good Wikipedia article. Same here. So the problems with this article are pretty fundamental.
 * I believe that focusing on the more important events (e.g. his military career and presidency) and leaving out minor details like Grant riding a pony as a toddler, or the time some women were transported across a creek swollen from heavy rain, makes the article stronger. Stories told by people who claimed to have known or met a famous person are rarely factually correct. Especially ~17 year old soldiers.
 * Fifty bucks says he will soon be the "the best horseman in American history" again.
 * I believe that Wikipedia's voice is supposed to be dispassionate and neutral. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Any "hero worship", (which presents its own NPOV issue as assessment of the article goes), is always in the context concerning neighbors, notable people, fellow soldiers and significant events. Grant was acclaimed as being exceptional in childhood, as a young adult, at West Point, during the Mexican-American War, a good number of times during the Civil War and in later life, so naturally, since this an article about Grant's horsemanship (there would be no article about Grant's horsemanship if he was merely average or good), we present his highly acclaimed horsemanship during the course of his life. As such we are going to see favorable assessments during the course of the article. That is not "redundant", but factual, and again, always in the context of time periods, events, etc. Any favorable assessment is always denoted in objective terms, and articulated with coverage of the given events, never stated as absolute fact.  For the record, Grant is still considered by many in modern times as something of a hero, as he was largely responsible for defeating the Confederacy, preserving the Union, his reconstruction efforts, for persecuting the KKK, etc. Having said that, if there is any phrase(s) that perhaps needs toning down a bit, or is less than objective, please bring it to our attention. It's always easy to claim this and that, but such POVs need to be outlined with actual examples, quotes from the article, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re:Copy-vios and neutrality allegations see my recent comments above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Here is my suggested proposal: 1. Keep the military section 2. Remove information on Grant riding a pony as a toddler. 3. Remove information on Grant helping a woman cross a creek. 4. Remove the two disputed copyvios information from the article. Start with a clean slate. 5. Then remove the two tags on top of the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I got tired of the ad hominems, removed the templates and I moved on, maybe you can ask if they want to collaborate with you? Polygnotus (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I put the information into two notes to reduce clutter and narration. Thanks for removing the templates. Does this meet your approval Gwillhickers? The templates have been taken away. The article is stable now. I hope this works. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Partial agreement. The first footnote is a definitive major detail and should not be relegated to some foot note. The second footnote is more than a footnote, it's part of the narrative outlining an incredible feat that the young Grant had accomplished.. Footnotes are intended to add minor points, and such -- not a place to be placing important paragraphs of the narrative. The article is not that long in the first place, so there really isn't any need to be moving major portions of text just to reduce the narrative on that account. Also, as I've explained time and again, there are no copy-vio's, not even close paraphrasing, save facts and a few general phrases. There would be no "hammering" away if there wasn't so much WP:IDHT. In any case, thanks for not deleting that, and many thanks for your efforts in getting the tags removed. Frankly I was quite surprised to see Polygnotus acquiesce on that and effect this. I suppose I should say thanks, but should also say, this whole ordeal, from nomination to delete, to this last episode was not called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We should go by the agreement above. Putting two pieces of information into footnotes, imo, does not upset the balance of information, in the article. It reduces the clutter of information in the article's narration. We don't have to prove Grant was a great horseman. I put the information in notes to honor the agreement with Polygnotus. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant, so yeah, we have to "prove ", or more appropriately, explain with definitive examples', how Grant was indeed a great horseman, which has been accomplished by means of multiple reliable sources. This 'agreement' was with an editor who had next to no subject knowledge, thought the subject  was not noteworthy, and referred to Grant's efforts as "myth". As already explained, the items in question involve major details, e.g.. Grant's first experience with horses, and simply referring to them as "clutter" is nonsensical. Unless there is some pressing reason to place major details in foot notes, then the items should remain as is.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Charlie

 * All I am saying is we should respect other editors opinions, whether we agree with them or not. There may be another Grant accident with a horse named Charlie: A Series of Unfortunate Events Grant Thrown By His Horse and Defeat at Chickamauga Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Coverage of any other accident would be welcomed, per reliable sources. Bear in mind that even expert race car drivers have accidents -- not so much because they were deficient in their handling of the car, but because it was an accident. Being an expert, or gifted, in any endeavor or field doesn't preclude the possibility of an accident. I think it's safe to say that someone who has never had any sort of accident driving a car over a life time never drove one that much in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the incident above, Charlie was spooked by the noise from a train. Grant was thrown from the horse and injured. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be an interesting addition. Was this during youth, military life...when? Also, iIn what source did you come across this? I'll check some others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Dowdall, 2012, chapter XII, pp. 62-66. Charlie, was an energetic, high-strung and hard to manage charger. The episode occurred shortly after the Vicksburg siege.. According to this account, the horse indeed spooked at the sound of the train, lost its footing and toppled over, giving Grant the worst injury he ever received riding a horse. I'll tend to this later, unless you'd like to have the honors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have to check other sources on the horse Charlie. Yes. The Charlie incident was a serious injury on Grant's part. This brings up another issue. Did Grant ever actually stop riding horses? Did he just use carriages? Did he ride horses on his world tour? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's doubtful Grant stopped riding horses altogether. Don't know the specifics of the injury other than a swollen leg, but none of the sources say he actually broke a leg. Even if he had, such an injury is rarely a life long impediment to one's activities. During his world tour, where he received a number of horses as gifts, which he had shipped back to the states, it would seem he rode the given horses for a short spell. In any case, we should mention the horse, Charlie, by name, per Dowdall, 2012, which has now been done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. Mentioning the horse Charlie by name is a good thing. Thank you. Did Grant take horse rides while President? It seems there would have been sometime Grant actually stopped riding horses. I don't recall Grant actually riding a horse during his world tour. Did he ride a horse at Yosemite on his return trip? Maybe he had lingering pain in his left leg from the Charlie incident. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that after the war and during his Presidency, Grant switched from single horse mounted riding to riding and driving a fast single horse pulling an uncovered riding for two. I believe Grant road and drove the riding carriages in New York during his retirement.
 * Ulysses S Grant in a carriage pulled by Dexter Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)