Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 41

100k
Cmguy777 and myself just got the prose down to 100k? Now what? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The accretions have been going on for five years, so it's hardly fair to ask people to jump to it, especially while there is no agreement on moving forward, and past agreements have been ignored and dispensed with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Several editors have made contributions during the last month or so. One editor added significantly to the prose. It's not fair to treat a guideline like a policy, and then continue to offer no solutions when you treat it as one when editors exceed that line in the sand by making good faith contributions. I ask again, now that you've identified this problem of adding text, and we're down to 100k where do we go from here? No more contributions? Musical chairs? If you're going to insist on a rigid line in the sand, you're not accomplishing anything by offering no plan to keep from going past it. That is the inherent flaw with this rigid allegiance to a guideline number. As soon as we accept the 'exception' clause allowed for all guidelines, for exceptional articles, the problem disappears. No, this doesn't mean we start dumping text back into the prose. We would just adapt the idea that we keep the prose from being redundant, not tangential or overly wordy, and abide by consensus anytime something is added. This way, article size will seek its own level. No? Okay, who do we appoint for being the page length cop for this article? Will you be the one to say to a contributor that he or she can't add information until we remove other information first?  Until you square off with that prospect, it will only be a matter of time before we go full circle and come back to the same table all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Stability evidences itself, when everyone is satisfied they will not want constant additions. 100K is not a fixed floor, it is evidence of too much.  I know I would begin with considering Bruce's ideas and Coemgenus has some, and I would suggest that the naming section could use streamlining for a start.  The article after all the additions over the years could still use a good streamlining copy edit preferably by a single editor.  That's often how articles are readied for review.  (Also, if we edit down and someone comes along and convinces others of more of something that makes it all the easier). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 100K should be the maximum per compromise. Good editing, saying more by saying less, could get the article lower. It will take the help of all editors, but there needs to be agreement, that the article needs to be reduced. Content can be discussed after the article is reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Alan's suggestion, I would glad to take a pass at it over the next week, if the editors are amenable. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will still stay out of this, but I am impressed that you guys are trying to work together. Best of luck.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't object to Coemgenus going over the article or making improvements. The narration needs work. Other areas of work, imo, are the introduction, Grant's presidency, and historical evalutation. I think the Civil War section has remained fairly stable. The time between Grant's presidency and the Civil War probably needs work, especially his break with Johnson. There were several Indian wars during Grant's interim generalship including: Powder River Expedition, Black Hawk War, and the Comanche campaign. The article focuses on Reconstruction, but nothing on the Indian Wars. Just a few suggestions. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment about the Indian wars prompted me to look at the pages about Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur, as well as that about Ulysses S. Grant. All of these have multi-paragraph sections about the subject's Indian (or "Native American") policy, and the section in Grant's article starts with a link to a "main article", Native American policy of the Ulysses S. Grant administration.  If there are subtopics that are not addressed to your satisfaction, would it be adequate to add more discussion of them to that other article?  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Improvements are welcomed by anyone. Sometimes, however, more information is needed, esp with new sources ever emerging. Grant was not some passing general in the Civil War. He was 'the' general. He was present in the Mexican War, and after the Civil War, and after dealing with Johnson, became a two term president. This icon, if I may, of American history deserves the best coverage possible. We are writing for history students and Civil War history buffs, not the readers of tabloid magazines. Along with the Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln articles, the Grant article should be among the biggest of them all. Perhaps bigger, as Grant saved the nation from falling into disarray while the foreign jackals and foreign banks were waiting for the chance to exploit the situation with their distorted propaganda. A great article to this effect should be something we should be proud of. It's unfortunate that some of us are more concerned with a guide line number. If the lot of us agreed on that note no one would ever challenge our solid consensus - a consensus of major contributors. No one ever has. The only objections over exceeding page length guidelines have never come from anyone else except a couple of us. No one. We still have a musical chairs issue to deal with, 'if' we subscribe to a rigid guide line number. Will we be back at this same table some months from now with the same issue, or will we realize that we can't squeeze a size ten narrative into a size six shoe if we're to be historically comprehensive? Again, now that we're at 100k, now what? All I'm seeing is touchy-feely words about improving the article, and only in a capacity of diminishing the narrative, all the while I'm hearing concern about not ignoring the new sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. Adding more information makes the article bulky and bloated, but what is clear, you don't want to follow the 100k guidelines. Why ? That is going against the grain. It creates anymosity in the talk pages and in editing the article. When everyone follows the guidelines then people work together. I don't think you are purposely causing dissention, you have a right to your own opinions. Adding more information causes dissention in the article. Now what ? Why not be satisfied with a 100k limit. Improvements are welcome by "anyone" yes. There is no central editor in this article. My goal is neutrality and improving article narration without adding more information. Improve the information that is already in the article. Focus on Grant's accomplishments. That is what is next. I tell it like it is. I don't use "touchy-feely" words. But a little bit of diplomacy can mend fences. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Going against the grain? I just helped to get the article back to 100k. My thoughts about guidelines are valid. The rigid adherence to one guideline, while others are ignored has caused the instability, as is evidenced on this Talk page. The article has gone months at or slightly above 100k with no issues. Stable, until someone comes along and makes an issue of it. Also, would you please kindly curb your words about "bloat"? We are talking about the contribution of several knowledgeable editors, including yourself.   Cavalieringly referring to it as bloat is spitting at their efforts. We have added and deleted text over and again because of a guideline, and you, sir, are no less responsible for the additions in text than several of us. Once again, now that we're at 100k, what do we do? Stop adding content and context? Stand over other editors and tell them not to make contributions until we remove other text? This will be the '10th' time this question has been avoided, which only exemplifies the inherent flaw of blindly following a guideline, ignoring the exception clause.  Now that we're at 100k, what is your plan, sir? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate, Gwillhickers, for getting the article back to 100k. Here is my plan: Say more with less words and get each paragraph under 200 words. So let's say the article gets to 95k. Alright, then you have room 5K to make additions with the 100K cap. That way you can add content without breaking the guidelines. Editors are happy. Add the most important content. Grant is an embattled president by historians. This article should mention Grant's successes while President. The articles has this content to a certain extent. Bloating means adding content without regard to the 100k guideline. What other guidelines have been broken ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems you're trying to advance invented rules again. Someone could come along and add something profound to the article, yet if it exceeded the 100k barb-wire, it would be "bloat"? Also, please drop this arbitrary 200 word limit for paragraphs. We're writing for the intelligent student, or history buff. You're only adding to the eggshells that we're walking on. Paragraph and Article size should seek it's own limit, per content and sources. As long as the narrative is not redundant, tangential, or in error, there shouldn't be any issues. Yet we have them. The article is stable until someone comes along and makes a royal issue of a guideline. There's a reason why WP made a set of 'Policies' and 'Guidelines'. There's also a reason why WP gives us the discretion to WP:IAR. Article improvement. Chernow came out with a biography that exceeded 1000 pages. Was it a "bloated" publication simply because of the number of pages? Yes, let's try to say more with less, but we can only reduce the grammar so much, as we've been doing for years. If someone comes along and adds e.g. 300k of good material, several sentences, that would force us to do a lot of condensing. Or it would require that we resort to the musical chairs routine, removing text to allow for other. Embracing the 'exception' clause allowed for guidelines, reasonably, per no redundancy, etc, would eliminate this slippery sloop we've been on for too long. It would be nice to see all the energy expended on this issue spent on spot checking citations/sources and looking through the latest sources you expressed a concern for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't expanding over the guideline making up a rule ? What I gave were my opinions for what is best for the article. Not rules. You had ask me for a plan. I gave one. A 300k addition to the article would cause the article to be split. Remember this a summary article. Readers can read books for more information. This is not a book. There is no royal issue. It is just common sense to keep an article within reading attention of the average reader or to keep paragraphs under 200 words. Readers don't like large pargraphs. I believe under 200 word paragraphs keep the reader's attention. My plan was not a set of rules. Just a suggested plan. We are going around in circles. Making the article over 100k creates dissention among the editors. So I suggest the article be kept at 100k or below between 95k and 100k. What is hurting this article the most is dissention among editors. Let's work together. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I had not known of the 100K guideline until ASW pointed me to WP:TOOBIG. I guess that, in the past 3+ years of editing, I had never done serious work with an article this large; not even Bobby Fischer, which I thought was pretty large because it had 600+ footnotes.  But now, I see that the major Presidential biographies are hovering near the limit:
 * George Washington 198K total size, 98K prose
 * Thomas Jefferson 192K total size, 90K prose
 * Abraham Lincoln 171K total size, 83K prose
 * Ulysses S. Grant 203K total size, 103K prose
 * Dwight D. Eisenhower 214K total size, 99K prose
 * I'll venture a guess that it is not a coincidence that these articles are all close to 100K prose; that is, that editors have noticed the boundary and striven to keep the articles under it. No matter that the boundary must be rather arbitrary; but there it is.


 * The main advice I found in WP:TOOBIG is to split the article. This has been done to some degree with the Grant article; most sections start with a link to a separate article in which we go into more depth.  (I notice, however, that the section on Reconstruction does not.  Maybe it would be worthwhile to start a new article "Ulysses S. Grant and Reconstruction", and drain some of the detail from that section into the separate article.)


 * Separate articles by themselves are not necessarily going to keep the main article under the limit. What has to happen is that the main article must look less like a stand-alone monograph, and more like an encyclopedia article.  Your comparison with Chernow's 1000-page book is apt.  We can't go to 1000 pages.  Even to get down to where we are, from 1000 pages, 99% has been thrown overboard.  What's left is a mere summary.  To get it down further, from 103K to 100K (and a litte further to leave some wiggle room), does not fundamentally change what has already been done.


 * What about the future? But this is an article about history.  No matter that historians find new material, or new approaches to understanding old material, Grant still only lived one (eventful) life.  An article based on, say, Chernow, might be expected to be better than an article based on an older biography, such as, say, McFeely; but it wouldn't be expected to be much longer (or shorter).  As new insights are added, the older misconceptions that they replace can be removed.  Bruce leverett (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe incorporation of any new material or perspective by Chernow is appropriate for the article. All Grant biographies should be used in the article. Yes. Newer views of Grant can replace older views or any misconceptions of Grant. Possibly other articles on Grant could be created to help keep Grant at 100k or below. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777, exceeding a guideline isn't making up a rule, it's ignoring one. That you have to resort to wild stretches only exemplifies the failure inherent in rigidly subscribing to a guideline. If you can find an "out dated" or an otherwise error in the narrative we replace it. That's not the issue.  Concern is this repeated removal of text, by, in your case, the same people who add text, because of a guideline. Again and again.  And you're still avoiding the big question. Now that we're at 100k, will you allow other editors to make contributions without removing other text first?  And looking at you're last edits, I seen you're still added text, while you expect me to listen to your words about page length.--  Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bruce, As you pointed out, other presidential articles are almost as big as this one. Incidently, the Elvis Presley article is at 108k, Hillary Clinton is at 103k, yet there is no issues there because no one has ever made it an issue. I've no intention of adding any more content to the article, but it's a little difficult to sit still for some of the nonsense that's been piled on to the talk page, all the while the definitive question has been repeatedly ignored, which is understandable. If we're not to go beyond the 100k limit, we will have to block any further contributions by other editors, and remove other text first. Musical chairs -- any only because someone decided to treat a guideline as a rigid policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There's also another consideration you might appreciate. When one does a google search for Ulysses S. Grant, this is the article that comes up -- no other WP article on Grant is listed. As the main article, and given Grant's very involved role in U.S. history, this article is bigger than others. The idea is to give the reader the most complete basic picture without forcing one to hop to a half a dozen other articles.  If one wanted to make a PDF file of this article, it would come off funky if it required the reader to 'go fish' in other articles at every other section. There's really no reason to not give the readers the complete basic picture here, other than this guideline that allows for exceptions in article size, for exceptional articles. The Grant biography qualifies as an exceptional article more so than almost all others. Yet for some reason, the 'exception' clause for all guidelines is ignored, along with other guidelines. As I've said, I have no intention of adding other text, but only want this musical chairs routine to end, one and for all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers I added and reduced text to keep the article at 100k. We can't just add on information over and over. Books are made to have additional information that readers can utilize. I disagree with the casual inference that 100k guideline is dismissed just to add more content. That is why other articles are made on Grant. Put the essential information in this article on Grant. Additional information on Grant can be put in other articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * More talk. We've repeatedly have added and removed text in this article on the basis of a guideline. It needs to end.  Once again, what do you propose to do if, say tomorrow, or next week, someone comes along and adds a few sentences? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Readable prose
More articles exceeding 100k with no issues: These articles have one major comparison with the Grant article. They are general subjects that greatly involve themselves with history, and warrant the size required for good and comprehensive coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Napoleon -- 107k
 * Age of Discovery -- 102k
 * War of 1812 -- 118k
 * French Revolution -- 111k
 * American Revolutionary War -- 102k
 * Confederate States of America -- 118k
 * Joseph Stalin -- 121k


 * Not one of those articles is currently FA category. This article is FA. So it is appropriate to abide by the 100k guideline. Can we let Coemgenus have a turn at the article ? There are no commanding editors here. There is no reason to keep pushing a higher narration size for this article. It just creates dissention. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Insert : The Stalin and Napoleon articles are GA at least, with no issues, while none of the others have ever been nominated for FA. FA criteria says, Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Exceeding 100k doesn't mean it is not focused and doesn't employ summary style. A good summary is comprehensive. A good summary doesn't mean b-class writing. FA criteria only mentions length in terms of these things, not a guideline number. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

These presidential articles are FA category. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rutherford B. Hayes -- 53K
 * Barack Obama -- 80K
 * Richard Nixon -- 79K
 * Warren G. Harding -- 88K
 * Andrew Johnson -- 81K


 * Cmguy makes a good point. With millions of articles, you can find an example of anything. But I can't think of a high-quality article that exceeds 100k, much less a featured article. Everyone who edits here is happy to abide by the guideline except for Gwillhickers, and that has been the situation for years. There is a long-standing consensus that we follow the guideline on length. I'm not sure what else there is to talk about. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus, you say with millions of articles you can find an example of anything -- except a well written articled that exceeds 100k?? Nonsense. The presidential articles above don't involve themselves with history near as much as the Grant article, so there's not much a point being made on that account.  Yes, I've always gone along with  consensus, regardless of my objections over this mathematical approach to writing and the instability it continually brings to this article.  My concern here, once again, is the constant removal and addition of text. Let's not sidestep that point, once again. This needs to stop. None of the articles listed above have article length issues because no one is transfixed more on a guideline number than they are content. Once again, the question is avoided. Now that we're at 100k, what is the plan? Do we continue removing good faith contributions so some one else can come along and add their's?  That this question is continually avoided like the plague only solidifies my point about this guideline obsession and the instability it continues to bring to the article. Cmguy777 and myself were debating the content of one sentence. I didn't ask this for debate. Though I've added small items of text over the last few months it wasn't my contributions alone that took us over the 100k limit, so let's not make Gwillhickers your scapegoat. You can't create a consensus that forces any editor to stop making factual and well sourced contributions because of a guideline. If policies are at issue, that would be different. Do we now plan on standing over the article and reverting edits that take us over the 100k limit? Sorry. You just can't get around that. It's a valid consideration. As I said, I've no intentions of adding other text. But if there's something to be added, it should be added, and a guideline number should not be the idea that disallows it. One last question. Why is not the exception clause taken advantage of? They put it there for exceptional articles that need room for good coverage. -- Gwillhickers
 * Sure, that's a fine idea. Let's work on editing it down to size and then we can make sure it stays that way. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's at the agreed 100k limit. Don't appreciate the flip response. The question remains, are you going to stand over the article and revert new contributions, to "make sure it stays that way"? Apparently you're ready to. Thanks for finally answering at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's relax a little. Suppose you get the article to a good size and shape; then it will go back to being just an article.  Keep it on your watch list, and if somebody messes with it, take appropriate action, but while nobody is messing with it, you get a break.  At least that's how I think of all the articles on my own watch list.
 * Since both you and Cmguy777 have been very active with this article, perhaps you're each wary of the other. Am I right?  If that's the case, then either both of you have to buy into this peace treaty, or neither of you.  If neither of you, then we're back to square one.  But if both of you can see it as a finished effort, then it really is one.
 * Then what if a new biography comes along, or you get a good idea from any other source, what to do? I really don't know the answer to that one.  But I respect that you are both very knowledgeable about Grant and that you both have been bitten by the same Wikipedia bug as I have.  Bruce leverett (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No group of editors, can block contributions based on a guideline. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither is one editor allowed to control the article and force editors to go against the guidelines. Consensus Five pillars. You would be the owner of the article, since you are going against editor concensus. You just made a rule: "But if there's something to be added, it should be added, and a guideline number should not be the idea that disallows it." Editors don't have to abide by your rule. We need to tone this conversation. This article has reached its limit. Additional information can be found in books. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Who's forcing anyone? My debating is a reasonable appeal. I've recently made several compromises, and with you in particular, in the lede. Asserting that something should be added if it needs to be added is another appeal, not a "rule". You say let's tone it down, but in the same breath you infer I'm the lone controller of the article. And once again, you don't acknowledge the situation this guideline obsession has befallen this article. Seems you're also ready to block new contributions -- with "consensus"?  Now that we're at 100k, what is the plan? The only viable answer is, lighten up on this rigid adherence to a guideline number. No one plans on adding pages and pages of new text, but at the same time, if we happen to exceed the 100k limit by a few sentences, or even a paragraph, esp with all the new sources, this should not be something that involves a 'congressional hearing'. My plan is, let the article remain as it is, save improvements on grammar, citations, etc. And if someone should add something that warrants inclusion, the lot of us welcomes it, and moves on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not that complicated Gwillhickers. By saying more with less words, room is given to add information. That is how I have been editing. I encourage Coemgenus to improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasting everyone's time with the same debate for years and years is not "a reasonable appeal." It's tendentious editing. It takes up everyone's time, drives away good-faith editors, and does not improve the encyclopedia. No, you are not the "lone controller" of this article, but you do filibuster everything to death with talk page fights, which amounts to the same thing.
 * Does any other editor here believe we should ignore the length guidelines? If not, then I suggest that we have arrived at a consensus and should behave accordingly. Let's move on, after all these years. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been a clear consensus for years to abide by the length guidelines, but somehow Gwillhickers has been able to stop progress. Gwillhickers, if you truly don't "own" this article, as you repeatedly say, why not stand down for six months and give others a chance to get it in shape? YoPienso (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When editors are on the same page, this article can be improved. My idea was to reduce the article narration size, 95K-99K. This would allow additional information to be put in the article, and keep at 100K or under 100K. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, The same old debate was not initiated by me here, and I've made efforts to bring the article to the agreed upon 100k limit, so would you kindly cease with the weasel accusations about me stopping "progress"? Please look at edit history and tell me where I've stopped "progress", and then note who the editors are who added text while the article was over 100k, and then notice that same editor lecturing me about progress now. This is the same BS that has repeated it self over and again. i.e.Reducing the narrative so we can increase the narrative?  I have never dumped great amounts of text into the article while it was at or near the 100k mark, and i don't apprercaite the inference that this is what I've done, or plan to do. My contributions have been par, and less, with other contributors. Thank you.  There was an agreement, that I didn't approve of, but went along with, about bringing the article to 100k. The article is at 100k, thanks to Cmguy777's and my latest edits. Perhaps you're the one that needs to step down, instead of creating even more instability with these unfair accusations. Disappointed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus, I also suggested that the article is fine at 100k, save improvements in grammar and performing needed spot-checks with the cites and sources, and that we should move on. That is a plan I can live with. I still don't know what will happen if another editor comes along and adds a sentence or two, or more. Do we jump into the article and reduce the narrative accordingly? That seems foolish and only makes for a continually changing and unstable article. We can observe the 100k limit, but this should not take the form of a stone wall with guards walking back and forth. That's what's become of this article, and makes for a rather unfriendly forum in which to be making contributions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors are suppose to get along, abide by consensus, and work together. There is no need for anyone to take a break. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Lede
Way too many major details were removed from the lede, rendering the opening paragraph less than generic. Using shorter prose some of these have been restored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. Please allow editors to reduce the size of this article. Then let's talk about readding details. You are entitled to your opinions. It is my opinion the article can go down to 95K. That is reasonable. I will agree that too much information can be removed, but for now, we need to allow other editors have a free hand in the article without reverting their edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777, Your plan is to remove text, and then re-add details? As explained, this is nonsense. The agreed level was 100k. Now you're switching things again. We can reduce the article size without removing important details. I have made a number of reductions myself. Please allow editors to keep this FA contextual. The agreement was 100k. If you have intentions of chopping away text to lower that number, you can expect that it will be restored, in part, or in full. Please keep your word and abide by the agreement, and stop harassing other editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing was removed from the lead section. Everything I removed from the first paragraph was covered in subsequent paragraphs.  Two principles are involved:
 * Needless duplication in the lead section is to be avoided.
 * Just as the lead section is like a jacket blurb for the main article, the first paragraph is like a jacket blurb for the rest of the lead section.
 * This goes back further than the 5 pillars, it is just basic Strunk & White. To be effective, writing must be disciplined, and every word must count.  If a reader gets bored in the early part, he isn't going to read the later part.


 * I am not trying to reduce the size so much as to try to increase the coherence and the general quality of writing. By the way, I tried to pattern the first paragraph after the first paragraphs of other presidential biographies -- you can guess which ones.  I'm not trying to do something new and different here.  Wikipedia was around for, what, 16 years before I came along.  When I see good models for emulation, I try to emulate them.


 * Another editor removed the sentence about Grant's Memoirs. Opinions may differ, but I found the story of Grant racing with death, finishing his memoirs just days before he died of cancer, to be utterly compelling.  But I will defer to other editors as to whether it should be mentioned in the first paragraph.  Now that I have made the case for how special the first paragraph is, I can't blame other editors for taking me seriously.  Bruce leverett (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bruce, major details are placed in the lede, and then expanded on in the main text. e.g.You removed that Grant was a career soldier. That's a Major detail. We need to say something more than Grant simply led the Union to victory. Also, word about his presidency should get mentioned in the 1st paragraph. Yes, the one short sentence about memoirs belongs in the lede, it's a trademark of Grant's and deserves mention there. This was the sort of thing I was afraid of. i.e. The whimsical omission of text to sustain a guideline number. We had a discussion about what belongs in the 1st paragraph and settled on the prior version. I rewrote the 1st paragraph, mentioning the presidency, reconstruction  and corruption. These are landmark items that belong in the 1st lede paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain why I omitted things. I was not being "whimsical", and I explicitly mentioned that I was not trying to sustain a guideline number.  If you aren't reading what I'm writing, we can't have a discussion.  This was why I tried to quit a few days ago.  I returned because it appeared that everyone was pledging to work together constructively.  I'm now finding out what these pledges are worth.
 * At the risk of repeating myself, I did not remove anything from the lead section, that I know of. If I missed something, it can be corrected without defacing the first paragraph.  It seems reasonable to state that he was a career soldier in the lead section, but not in the first paragraph.  If it's not mentioned in the second, third, or fourth paragraph, it could be mentioned there.  It is not appropriate for the first paragraph.  Bruce leverett (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Career soldier who was promoted" -- the reader, knowing that Grant led the Union Army, can be trusted to infer that he was a career soldier. It is unnecessary (and not a good idea) for us to spell this out.
 * "Previously" -- You and I seem to agree that we have to mention his presidency in the very first sentence. But since we then mention the Civil War in the second sentence, we're out of chronological order.  Some other presidential biographies use "Previously" to help clarify this for the reader.  I will add it back, but if you don't like it or prefer to use some other method (such as saying "had played a central role" instead of "played a central role", I can live with that.
 * "played a central role" -- I prefer the wording I used, but your wording is OK. If I had known the author of the sentence was actively editing the article, I would have left it alone; sorry about that.
 * "As president, Grant worked with ... in his administration" -- I had thought that this sentence was just duplicating material in the third paragraph. But on closer inspection, I see that the third paragraph is not so clear about this.  I am very interested in getting this out of the first paragraph and down with its buddies in the third, but I'm not ready to do that.  I will leave it alone for now.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. Now you are for reduction ? I am not harrassing anyone. The reduction of text would allow the opportunity to add or readd important information. My objection was not to revert the reductions. Let that process proceed. I said the article could be reduced to 95K. Stop harrassing me in the talk page by accusing me of harrassment. The agreement is to reduce the article, but not go over the 100K limit. Again. You are acting like a controlling editor. Just let editors freely edit. Please. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777, as I've explained before, I am going along, reluctantly. If we can reduce the article without depleting the context, I've no strong complaints on that note. If and when context is removed, that will pose other issues. Why must things be repeated for you more than twice? The agreement was bring the article down to 100k. Now you're, typically, twisting this idea. When you say "let editors freely edit", does this idea include me? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus, you've been removing some biographical context for a biography about "Grant, the man". No one but a few editors around here are concerned about the exact word count. Let's keep some depth to the article and keep in mind the readers we are writing for, please. We are at 98k. Are we still in a state of emergency? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Every single editor besides you is concerned about word count. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus', the question remains: Why? This should not be a 'we against they' issue, which at this point seems what the debate has digressed into. We are well below 100k now.  The article was above 100k for some time, with no issues. Can you explain the urgency here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We've explained it many, many times. You don't agree, I know, but there is a consensus among the editors of this page that we should follow the rules on page length. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Another review called for?
As has been pointed out, many many times, Page length is a guideline, not a rule, and should not be used as the sole excuse to reduce the article, as is presently happening, and with consensus. This is troubling. There was a consensus for 100k. We are now at 98k. So far things don't look too bad, but if the trend continues and the article becomes radically different than it was previously, it seems another review might be called for to see how many major details are missing, among other things. With all the changes there are no doubt new errors that need tending to. Btw, every time I do spot checks on the citations, it's only a matter of a few minutes before an error is found. After years of playing musical chairs with the article the citations need to be reexamined. Unfortunately most editors are concerned with counting words and truncating sentences. Anyone can chop down a sentence. Even someone who never heard of Grant. Checking citations requires a lot of reading through different sources - work. With all the edits that have been added and taken away, because of page length, with the instability it creates I'm surprised no one has called for another review. Let's see where the article goes in the next week. For now I'm done and will just watch the article and see what happens to the narrative in the name of page length. Just for the record, I have no intention of calling for another review, no matter what, that's a promise -- my words are cautionary only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to insist on being tendentiously false about other editors, here. The other editors are interested in a well-written summary article consistent with our purpose. 100k is a project-wide consensus guideline that prefers shorter than 100k, that we the consensus on this page abide, because we are of the particularized editorial opinion that it promotes a well-written summary Grant article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has gone through continuous changes, back and forth, for years, spurred on by page length, a guideline. Lately page length, which I've made a number of efforts to reduce, has been the primary idea focused on by several editors, as if that alone was the magic recipe for a well written summary. Several legitimate concerns were expressed about the article, regarding constant changes, major details, stability, and what state the citations are in at this point. It would have been nice if you were more concerned about those things rather that spinning off an underhanded accusation about me being "tendentiously false about other editors". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * First page length is not the sole reason for reduction. The narration needs to be cleaned up. It is bloated. I cleaned up edited Grant's Pacific business ventures or failures and Pacific Indians information. Second, the article will read better at a reduced narration. Saying more with less. Third, Wikipedia guideline says 100K limit. An FA quality article should abide by that guideline as other Presidential articles, noted, have been edited. The 100K is a limit. There is no rule that an article can't be 98K. The narration has improved with the reduction of narration size. Trimming the excess narration. One could say. Freeing up narration space will allow modern research to have precedence. What I am finding odd is this continued push, or stick, to keep the article exactly at 100K, or to go beyond 100K. I suggest politely to drop the stick, let editors freely edit. Editors are constantly being interupted by another lecture on article size. Once finished, then there would be time for discussion about adding pertinent information. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reducing or cleaning up article size allowed my edit of Grant having emotional scars from poverty. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've no objections of removing overly worded or tangential prose. It's the removal of context that I strongly object to, as I've indicated many times. I've made efforts to reduce the word count, so my contentions are not along that line explicitly. As I've said, my concern lies in the ever changing narrative, and the removal of context for the sake of reducing a given number of k-bytes, and what we do when new/other editors come along and add information. This is a realistic concern. If you can reduce the number size, without cutting into context, you have my support, as I've indicated many many times. Please don't ask me to "allow editors to freely edit". That suggests I have some sort of power over other editors. At the same time, no one can freely edit, as we are all subject to rules and consensus. You're suggesting that I am somehow above that, which is of course completely ridiculous. Last, now that we're at 98k, we should also turn our attention to the citations. Years of constant changes have often left the citations in a questionable state. They often go unnoticed because most editors are too busy chasing after a page length objective to be bothered with doing the reading required to make sure the cites are in order. This is a legitimate criticism, based on the activity of the editors involved here. I can't remember the last time an avid page length critic has bothered with checking the citations and correcting errors. When I do citation spot checks it's only a matter of minutes before an error is discovered. Minutes. That should tell us many more are yet to be found. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Spot checks
For a short while at least, I will be confining my edits to spot checking. As there are many hundreds of cites in this article, help would make the task easier. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Footnote overkill in the lede
We had three footnotes, in a row, following the 2nd paragraph, in the lede, all lending themselves to Reconstruction, civil rights, and radical Republicans. We have general statements there that introduce these overall matters. i.e.We mention 'Radical republicans' in the 1st lede paragraph, and in the body of the text. We don't need footnotes about radical Republicans after the 2nd lede paragraph. This is not an article committed to Grant's Presidency, much less details about Reconstruction, so we shouldn't try to inject this topic into the lede to such an extent. These details should be represented with a general lede statement and then covered in the body of the text appropriately. Aside from an appropriate footnote about Grant's rank in relation to Washington, the three footnotes in question were the only ones in the entire lede. Not even a footnote about Appomattox, the end of the Civil War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with your assessment of both the footnotes about post-war politics and the footnote about Grant and Washington. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this article then committed to George Washington ? His footnote was left in. Why was that footnote kept and the others on Reconstruction removed ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "committed to George Washington". Do you have some further action in mind here?
 * I can't speak for User:Gwillhickers, but my own assessment of that footnote goes something like this: Unlike most military promotions, this promotion pushed Grant to stratospheric heights, as pointed out by various sources.  This is the sort of distinction one might like to mention in the lead section; but on the other hand, what Grant got promoted to just isn't as exciting as what he actually did.  So putting this in a footnote is a possibly reasonable compromise.
 * As for the other three footnotes, my assessment of them was: these are essential explanatory material for the reader who wants to know more about Grant's role in Reconstruction and related post-war politics.  But, the lead section is not where we put that material; the lead section is where we invite the reader to look at that material.
 * Of course, I'm not the arbiter here. This is Wikipedia, and we have to get consensus.  If anyone reading this has serious disagreement with my assessment, fire away.
 * I might add, by the way, that although Grant's presidency was not as successful as his Civil War generalship, I am finding it fascinating to read about the post-war period, and I am reluctantly concluding that I had better read more about Grant's role. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I can live with or without the footnote in the lede comparing Grant to Washington regarding their exceptional rank. As I said the material in the footnotes about Radical Republicans, Reconstruction, etc, esp since these topics are already mentioned in the lede, are more appropriate in the body of the text. We have a 'no citations in the lede' convention in place, as is often practiced in other Featured Articles. If there's consensus, we should hold the same for footnotes, keeping the lede general, but not obtuse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant was a Reconstruction President. I am not against pulling the Reconstruction notes. But I think there should be consistency of the introduction. The informaton on Washington can be in the article with a reliable source. You pull the Reconstruction notes, you might as well pull all the notes. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the note and put the information in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cm'. The three consecutive footnotes that were in the lede should actually be part of the main text, not footnotes that go unnoticed 99% of the time. However, this material is already covered generally. I've no objections if it's contextualized further if it sheds more biographical light on Grant, the man. Reconstruction, even if Grant could not bring it to complete fruation during his terms, should not be understated in terms of Grant's hopes and wishes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hopes and wishes" What about the hundreds of Klan arrested by Akerman and Bristow, and the 2,000 Klan running to the hills ? Grant was more than hopes and wishes. Grant was the most progressive civil rights president before the Kennedy-Johnson era. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was suggested that we could expand on Grant's efforts. Leave it to you to twist and turn this into an other one of your issues. Yes, Grant did what he could, per his hopes and wishes. You didn't get that? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it good to apparently make light of Reconstruction, calling it "hopes and wishes", when blacks were subject to violent attacks, segregation, and extreme racism by whites ? You are entitled to your political opinions. Let's say what Grant did or did not do during his presidency in the article. Let the reader decide. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, I suggested that we expand on Reconstruction in terms of Grant's hopes and wishes. No one has made light of anything. This is apparently another one of your notions. Your response was completely uncalled for. We were discussing what to do with the content contained in the three footnotes that were in the lede. If you have racial issues that are still eating at you here in the 21st century there are other places more suited for emotional release than on a Talk page meant for article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We have an entire section, quite large, on Reconstruction and civil rights, which includes "what Grant did or did not do during his presidency". Still, I suggested that we might add context to the section, and apparently you're still not happy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest an article on Grant and Reconstruction, rather than expanding the section. Again, as far as my opinions in the talk page, I want to be able to express myself freely without having to be approved. I was merely responding to the term "hopes and wishes". The "emotional release" comment was unnecessary. Can we please tone down the talk page talk. Let's not go around in circles. The Reconstruction and Civil Rights section probably needs work, possibly streamlining. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You asserted that I was making light of Grant's hopes and wishes. Sometimes it's best to step back and look at how others might receive your words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagreed that "hopes and wishes" was an accurate view of Grant and Reconstruction. I apologize. Let's drop the stick and move on. Please. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Introduction rewrite
I did a lede rewrite focusing on chronology, as suggested, and Grant's presidency. This is a presidential article. I also trimmed the bloated narration. I felt there were too many cooks in the kitchen so I made changes in good faith what I believed would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a presidential article, and it's not very encouraging to hear you make such an erroneous claim, esp when there is a dedicated Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article, as you should know at this late date. Grant is not world famous because of his tour, yet you had that stuck in the 1st paragraph of the lede. We have at least two editors who want the 1st lede paragraph changed, and with good reason, as was explained more than once for you. No one else but yourself has said otherwise. To avoid an edit war, and risk the stability of the article, I'll not make major changes, for now at least. Would you please fix the lede and give the topics the same weight as the sources do in their opening language? Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fix the lede ? I don't have to agree with your criticisms. You are more than welcome to make changes. My edits are not set in stone. There is a method to my madness. I am all for editors making improvements to my edits. I said in the lede that Grant was the first President to travel around the world. Please check the history of the references. I don't recall saying he was famous for the tour. I can check. This was a first for a retired President. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't blame me for something I did not do. Here was what I had edited : "In his retirement from office, Grant was the first president to circumnavigate the world meeting with many foreign dignitaries." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Eighteenth President of the United States This link goes directly to Grant. His article is one of an officeholder. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the lede looks much better. The second paragraph is a bit wordy, possibly could be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - If you did not mention the world tour in the 1st paragraph I apologize for saying you did. The lede is better. I still think the details about Grant's presidency, the only detail mentioned, in the opening lede paragraph, is inappropriate, but I can live with it. Don't want to force an edit with just a marginal consensus. If we get a clear consensus, we can take it from there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the world tour in the first paragraph, but did not mention that it made Grant famous. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The opening paragraph, to the lede, should be basic, covering DOB, etc, while also covering only those items that made Grant famous. We don't even mention the surrender at Appomattox in the first lede paragraph, an event that made Grant world famous, yet you want to mention one detail about Grant's presidency, one out of many, and one that didn't even amount to much. As Rjensen pointed out for us, Blacks were worse off when Grant finished his terms, of no fault of Grant's, btw, just for the record. Saying that "Grant's presidency made efforts to remove the vestiges of slavery...etc", while an admirable effort, isn't something that belongs in the first paragraph of the lede in the Grant biography. It was a failed effort. None of the Grant biographers put that detail up front in their biographies. If you insist that this statement should remain in the first lede paragraph, we should be honest to our readers and mention that it was a failed effort. Rjensen has added words to this effect, but I still have reservations that this belongs in the opening lede paragraph. I had hoped that such coverage would have been more appropriate in the third paragraph, --in the lede-- devoted to Grant's presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the average time a reader spends on Wikipedia is measured in seconds--so I think many people read the opening lede or just its opening few sentences. Therefore I added more basic info on war & presidency, with the rest covered in the rest of the lede and of course the long article as a whole. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjensen. The 1 paragraph looks great in the lede. The 2 paragraph is at 261 words. Can it be reduced to under 200 words ? That would help readability ease. It is not the content under dispute, but is their a way to say the same thing with less words for paragraph 2 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should be written for the intelligent reader who is interested in the subject, not for the readers with a grade schooler's attention span. Those individuals can stop reading any time they please if the article happens to tax their mental capacity too much. 1000's of college students read WP's history articles every day, and are looking for information. They should be our primary concern – not those who are only going to spends "seconds" on the page amusing themselves. Having said that, additions about the Civil War are of course welcomed, but the 1st paragraph is disproportionately committed to Reconstruction with some redundancy and secondary details there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will try to catch up with this discussion. But first, let me quote from MOS:LEAD:
 * The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.
 * So, I will refrain from using the word "lede". Bruce leverett (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Catching up very belatedly. I believe the lede should be strictly factual and without opinions about Grant. It should list his accomplishments without overstating them, and all opinions about Grant by historians should come later in the article. The historical reputation belongs in its own section further down. :The article has suffered in the past from too many unsourced opinions inserted by different editors.

I believe that we should strive to be as factual and unbiased as possible throughout. All criticism or praise of Grant should be footnoted, and we should not insert our implied opinions. :Certainly there should be a discussion of his reputation, because one notable thing about Grant is the fact that his reputation went to the cellar and back. Carmelsuttor (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

More about lead paragraphs
User:Gwillhickers: I will try to cover two (or even three) topics here, but if you prefer, we could use separate subsections.

Grant's horsemanship does not belong in the lead paragraphs because it is not what makes him notable (I am using "notable" in the sense it is used in MOS:LEAD and other places). If Grant had not won the Civil War and gotten elected president, no one would remember his horsemanship. His horsemanship was an important factor in his success in the military, as all our sources acknowledge; so we follow our sources and acknowledge that in the article. But this is not material for the lead paragraphs.

In the article about George Washington, the lead paragraphs do not mention his horsemanship. In fact, that lead section sets a standard to which I would like the lead paragraphs of Ulysses S. Grant to adhere. It is short. It does not waste words. Yet, it hits all the things for which Washington is considered notable. If a reader just wants to find out who Washington was, or just wants to find out what all the fuss is about Washington, he can just read the lead paragraphs, and his few-minute sojourn with Wikipedia will be well spent. If, on the other hand, he wants to read a real biography, it's there in the rest of the article. Moreover, the lead section is in chronological order, except for the items in the last paragraph, which do not fit neatly into a chronology. It summarizes the principal source of difficulty in evaluating Washington (slavery), while leaving the real discussion to the rest of the article, and staying neutral. As you can see, our lead section in Ulysses S. Grant has a way to go to pass any of the above tests. But I see that you guys have been working on it, and I'm glad for that.

Now to "considerably, over the years". It is normal for biographers of a person to disagree about assessments of him, and in many cases we do not have to mention that. But in Grant's case, I will go along with mentioning it. From the fact that we are mentioning it, the reader may reasonably infer that the disagreement is worth mentioning, or, to repeat a phrase, notable. Beyond that, the adverb "considerably" adds nothing. Moreover, the claim that the variation is "considerable" is unsourced and unverifiable; it is only a judgment on the part of the editor. Judgments by editors are, as you know, frowned upon in Wikipedia. As to the phrase "over the years", it is about as uninteresting as "considerable" (biographers of Grant have been disagreeing with each other since at least when Grant died). If I may say so without insulting anybody, these two modifiers are just flaccid prose.

BTW, I have had second thoughts about an unrelated edit where I undid your edit. You added some text to, in effect, explain why we were using the word "nevertheless" in describing Julia's reception in the Grant family. It is true, as I pointed out, that some text two sentences previous explained that, but two sentences is probably too far away. Because a sentence has been inserted about who was at the wedding, and Longstreet being Julia's cousin, the word "nevertheless", as you understood, has become unclear. Re-reading that, I think that it would be OK to just remove that word. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Bruce, I agree, horsemanship is an odd tangent for the lede. No one, asked for a brief summary of Grant's life, would mention it. --Coemgenus (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus — I have to disagree here. Grant and his associations and involvements with horses is exceptional, and is present throughout his life, covered by almost all of Grant's biographers. It's hardly tangential to his life and merits a brief mention in the lede –in an article about Grant, the man. It's an idea which is carried further in various sections of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bruce leverett —If the lede in the Washington article doesn't mention Washington's horsemanship with at least a phrase, it should. Grant's associations with horses is mentioned by nearly all of Grant's biographers, and with more than just passing reasons. All I can ask is that you read the entire article here and see how Grant and horses, beginning at childhood, is hand-in-glove with his life's story. Some time ago the lot of us here were discussing how we should entitle an article about Ulysses S. Grant and horses. Imo, it's one item that depicts Grant's childhood, foremost, as well as defining his career in the military, beginning with the Mexican-American War. Some day soon, I hope to launch such an article. – Plenty of sources to go by. During the Civil War Grant was given horses as gifts, because of his noted love and ability with horses. Seems we could squeeze a word in about that overall idea in the lede. If anything, it exemplifies that Grant was more than just a general and a president. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There needs to be more information on Grant's early life in Ohio. Horses were part of everyone's life back then, just like cars are to us today. I am not a against saying Grant was an equestrian and he worked for his father. Did Grant work on a farm ? The horse whispering or taming, does not need to be mentioned. His horsemanship probably saved his life in the Mexican American War. Maybe just Grant was an equestrian at an early age. Maybe, "Grant was raised and educated in Ohio, and an equestrian." Cmguy777 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All that need be said here is that Grant, beginning in his youth, possessed an exceptional ability to manage and ride horses. This would cover training, working and performing with horses, as he did in his youth. At age 12 he was riding teams of horses to Cincinnati and back, carrying passengers. At an even younger age he was driving horse drawn wagons filled with bark many miles, from the forests to his father's tannery.  At times the townspeople would gather and watch the young Ulysses do stunts on a horses bare back. He set a high jump record at West Point that stood for 25 years. In the military, he was noted for his amazing feats on horses during battle, in both the Mexican and Civil Wars. As we know, horses were not just some ordinary part of his life, and he was much more than just another good rider, the details of which are covered in the article. There is only one statement in the lede about Grant's youth, and saying he was raised in Ohio and had a natural yen for horses, imo, would more than suffice, and sets the theme for Grant and horses in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you are a chess player, I will mention that Bobby Fischer is another article in which the leading section was edited to an admirable quality. My fingerprints are on that article, but I can take little or no credit for the lead paragraphs, which were already good before my time.  I have not touched the article about George Washington; it got that way because Wikipedia loves it, apparently more so than Ulysses S. Grant, I suppose.
 * The lead paragraphs of George Washington don't even mention his wife. It gave me pause to realize this.  But I guess it takes discipline to write a good lead section.
 * MOS:LEAD says that the average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. This doesn't mean we're writing for people with short attention spans.  We're writing for people who have careers and families and other silly activities that take time away from what they should be doing, which is, of course, reading Wikipedia.  Intelligence is not the issue -- I am fairly intelligent, but when I am not actually working on an article (in which case I might spend hours looking at it), my average visit is just a few minutes.  Lead sections are important -- more important than our own favorite subtopics.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's important to keep it tight for all of those reasons. But, like the rest of the article (which is now over the agreed-upon limit of 100k of readable prose) these things grow when each person tinkers to add his favorite subjects. It's hard to see how any of the edits of the past four years have improved the lede from this version, which passed FA review in 2015. Some of the edits to the article body since then have made sense, owing to the new scholarship and changing impressions of Grant, but the summary of his life has not changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was thought-provoking to look at the March 2015 version and to realize that it passed FA review. From counting pages in the edit history, I can see that this article has been much more heavily edited than my own favorite article, Bobby Fischer, in that interval.  But it was quite a presentable article back then.


 * I disagree that the 2015 introduction was a good one. It was riddled with unsourced negative opinions.  There is certainly room for debate regarding Grant, but the praise and criticism needs to be explicitly explained.  I could see a useful section in the article explaining the twists and turns of his reputation. --Carmelsuttor (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To what "agreed-upon limit" are you referring? Is this something in the WP: or MOS: pages?  I see that the official character count is at about 204K; this may be compared with the count of about 217K at Bobby Fischer.  Since the latter is a pretty mature page, I found that while I could reduce the bloat level to some degree, I didn't feel that I had the freedom to cut out whole topics.  Of course, the main article doesn't have nearly such a hard requirement for conciseness as the lead paragraphs.
 * I haven't yet looked hard at the main article on Ulysses S. Grant. I should note that my present collection of biographies consists of just two, Grant's memoirs (which in many cases cannot be used as a WP:RS because they are autobiographical) and the biography by Perret (which even I recognize is somewhat more opinionated than I would like); so until I go out and buy at least one other, I will have to be pretty circumspect about editing the main article. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No one has answered my question: what 100k limit?  Can anyone cite chapter and verse?  This is obviously something I should be clear about before I get too deep into this.  I have been editing for more than 3 years and never heard of such a limit.  Bruce leverett (talk)
 * See, WP:TOOBIG and WP:RPS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! Clearly I should have read this long ago!  So, Bobby Fischer is 217K bytes, but Prose only 79K, while Ulysses S. Grant is 204K bytes, but Prose close to 104K.  A very interesting result!  By and by, when I am done being the Angel of Death in the lead section, I will turn my attention to the main article.

A featured article, which requires good and "engaging" writing, shouldn't be too tight. The intelligent reader interested in the subject welcomes length. Cmguy777 is calling for more coverage of Grant's early life, to which I agree, per the Grant biography, i.e."Grant the man". I've never been a robotic slave to page length guide lines. I don't recall agreeing about a rigid 100k limit, though I've gone along so long as it didn't diminish the important context of the narrative. When it comes to improving the article, WP was gracious enough to give editors the WP:IAR clause. At one point, the article was way over 100k readable prose, and out of many page watchers and 1000's of readers (almost) no one even blinked. I've always maintained, that so long as the article is not redundant and obviously tangential, length is not an issue unless a given individual attempts to make it so. We are 2k over the guideline limit. Okay, where do we start chopping away to remove the 2k? Here we go again, for the '10th' time? It's unfortunate that this sometimes garners more attention than content issues, per the largely neglected last survey. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I want more clarification on Grant's early years, particular horses. He should be called an equestrian in the introduction section. Was he a horse breaker, horse whisperer, horse trainer. He always wanted to tame and ride the strong willed horses. The first paragraph in the introduction is information repetitive. Maybe paragraph 1 can be trimmed. 05:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The term Equestrian isn't necessary in the short phrase in the lede, though I've no strong feelings about its use. The important consideration is that this topic is not presented, all (the many) things considered, as some trivial characteristic about Grant, the boy and the man. In any case, I'm wondering when we can leave the article as it is, more or less. We've been at it for years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement. The term "equestrian" takes away the triviality of Grant and horses. I am not sure why you oppose the term. He was a fierce horserider. He liked the wild horses and apparently could ride them with skill. It takes Grant seriously. So should this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Who isn't taking things seriously? I said I've no strong feelings about the term. Content determines significance. Not a particular term. Add the (official?) term if you feel it makes any difference, but again, the subject isn't "trivial", regardless of the terms we use. Grant and his love and involvement with horses is by no means trivial in terms of Grant the boy and the man, and the Grant biography. No choice of terms can change that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant the Equestrian The Ulysses S. Grant Homepage (2006) Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The term equestrian is fine, but the sentence became something of a B-class statement in our Featured Article. We need to say something more than 'raised in Ohio', so the river is mentioned, at least. Both Grant's childhood homes were near the river, so this sets the context of his home environment. Also, the term equestrian pertains to riding horses, and in particular, doing stunts and exhibitions, it doesn't cover the management (training and working with) horses. Grant's ability with horses was exceptional, and encompassed more than that of the average equestrian, and dealing with dominant horses, a detail, which needs to be made clear. His ability served him in a number of capacities, both civilian and military. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. It is not that he just loved horses. He loved the untamable horses, he wanted to control them, and thurough breds. We need to be more specific. In War he allowed horses to be slaughtered to gain victory at Palo Duro Canyon, while he was President. He controlled stubborn horses and road fearlessly. We can't forget Grant was a general and desired to win. That is why he set aside their (horses) slaughter at Palo Duro Canyon. It is complicated because he punished a soldier for beating a mule or horse during the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede sentence should be general. You've returned it to mean that his ability only helped him with stubborn horses, overlooking his entire civilian and military careers. You also are only saying he had "equestrian ability" without making it clear that his ability was exceptional, far above average. As for "loved", many of the sources say this. Obviously "loved" is used in the context of horses, not in the same capacity that he loved his wife and children. Grant also 'loved' the soldiers under his command, yet sent them into battle knowing many would die. We should leave the statement in general terms and say what the sources say. The first sentence in the source you provided says Grant was probably the best equestrian in U.S. history, (exceptional) and loved horses. White, 2016 says Grant loved horses, and explains it on p.18. Chernow, 2017, p. 11 doesn't use the word 'love', but he goes one better, explaining that Grant would become furious if he saw someone mistreating a horse, as you also pointed out above in a different instance. We are employing the term, equestrian as you wanted, and we can simply say "near the Ohio river", per your edit, but the statement needs to be clear on his exceptional ability and love for horses and that it helped him throughout both his civilian and military life. This best describes the man in terms of horses in general. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, we need to specify Ohio, not just the Ohio River, as it runs along several different states. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My original edit was: "Raised in Ohio,". We don't need to specify the Ohio River. Grant was exceptional because he rode stubborn horses. He fearlessly road them. I have made solid, though under-appreciated, editing contributions. Please be respectful in the talk page. At least you looked up my source I provided. This article is suppose to be neutral.  We can't put Grant loved horses when he allowed over 1,000 of them to be slaughtered at Palo Duro Canyon while he was President in 1874. In many ways Grant was complicated. Grant was a pragmatist General and President.  We can put he loved to ride rogue horses, and loved thoroughbreds. That is true. He had an incident where he punished someone, while he was in the military, for beating a horse. But that begs the question why did he allow over 1,000 horses slaughtered at Palo Duro Canyon. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We've been over all of this. We want to keep the lede statement general, yet having a bit of context. Once again, we mention the Ohio river because simply saying "raised in Ohio" doesn't depict the homestead environment and doesn't do a featured article much justice. In fact, we may want to say something more about Grant's childhood in the lede altogether – his childhood is an entire chapter in his life. Seems we can say something more than "raised in Ohio". Once again, Grant was exceptional with horses all the way around, in his riding, managing, doing amazing stunts on horses when he was a young boy, not to mention some of his military feats. Managing stubborn horses, one detail, not covered in the main text, hardly gives us the general picture. We can put that Grant loved horses regardless of your interpretation of Palo Duro. You might want to try answering your own question, why did Grant allow it. This was addressed. i.e.He allowed his men to be killed in battle also -- this wouldn't negate any love he held for them. We can say that Grant loved horses simply because multiple sources say he did. However, I'll tone it down a notch on that note and say Grant had a passion for horses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, Chernow does not mention the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon. I could not find it in his book or the index. Grant had passions for thoroughbreds and wild horses, not horses in general. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Multiple sources, including the one you brought to the table, say Grant loved horses. What sources says he loved only thoroughbreds and wild horses, with no affection for all the others, including the ones he grew up with? Grant's first horse, as a boy, was not a thoroughbred, or a wild horse, a horse that slowly grew blind, and a horse Grant cared for until its end. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Grant's youth
As this is Grant's biography, I added a statement in the lede about Grant's general character, supported by many sources. As said, his youth is an entire chapter in his life, so we should say something else besides his being raised in Ohio by the river. We can qualify this further with a sentence or two in the body of the text, but first it seems we should discuss this further. Plenty of sources to go by. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph in the introduction is 253 words. That is difficult for the reader to read comfortably. It is bloated. I think there is unfounded information about Grant having a benevolent character from his mother. Now we are getting in to DNA ? Do Genes Influence Personality? Michael W Kraus Ph.D. (Jul 11, 2013) Neither Grant, Father, or Mother were genetically tested. There is no proof Grant inherited his personality from his mother. Yes. Personality is related to genetics. True. We are surmising the Grant's mother was benevolent and patient while his father Jesse was neither. It was his father who went out of his way to get Grant into West Point. Jesse was proud of Grant for riding a rogue horse at a carnival fair and winning $5.00. Let's drop the DNA personality theories. Interesting. But it is speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the biographies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Napoleon Bonaparte, I would say that mentioning the subject's youth in the lead section is optional. The lead sections of Washington and Jefferson both start in their adulthood.  The lead section of Lincoln has a single sentence about his childhood, and likewise for the lead section about Napoleon.  It is easy to understand these two.  Who isn't intrigued by Lincoln's rags-to-riches story?  And, it's also interesting that Napoleon was born on an island, not even part of mainland France.  Even so, they each only get a single short sentence.


 * What you have so far for Grant's youth is two sentences, and they need some work. I don't think his general character is interesting enough to appear in the lead paragraphs.  (Do you have another biography in mind, where the lead section talks about the subject's character at a comparable point?)  I think that if you wrote about his equestrian achievements in the right way, it could serve as an enticement for the reader to look for more about that topic in the main article; but it would have to be tightly written and snappy -- perhaps not even a whole sentence, just a clause you could add to some later sentence.  Bruce leverett (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The "good nature" part of Grant from his mother is derived from Waugh and Bunting. It is speculation, not verified by DNA testing, by two historians. It does not belong in the lede section. It is also said that Grant's mother was cold and uncaring, not an affectionate mother. Personality and genetics are related, but how can Waugh and Bunting be verified without DNA testing of Grant, Jesse, and Hanna ? Waugh and Bunting are reliable sources, but this type of speculation does not belong in a bloated introduction paragraph 2. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this is a biography, about the person, the subject's character gets top priority and merits some coverage in the lede. It's a topic that points completely and entirely at 'the' person. A statement about Grant's general character will carry through in the rest of the narrative.  DNA: Two children with the same parents, with the same basic DNA, can have very different personalities. None of the sources, and I'm assuming most psychologists, don't hold up DNA, as anything significant in forming one's character. Grant's mother was not uncaring, she was reserved when it came to showing signs of affection. She was kind, unpretentious, gracious, never gossiped and was devoutly religious. Seems that's a basic recipe for being a good mother. Grant's father, Jesse, otoh, was loud, often cantankerous and acutely opinionated -- completely different from Grant, who was, like his mother, reserved, unpretentious, etc. In any case, the lede doesn't present the idea as fact, and is only reflecting why two RS are saying. If we have to dig further on what should be sort of straight forward, I'm sure the other main biographers will have to say something about Grant's character.  Also, anyone with average intelligence shouldn't have trouble digesting 235 words.  In any case, I split paragraph two, as it covered two topics. Childhood and military. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a non sequitur to say that "because this is a biography … the subject's character gets top priority and merits some coverage in the [lead section]." Most of our Wiki biographies do not, in fact, discuss their subjects' "character" in the lead paragraphs.  When this article qualified for FA, it didn't.  Above, I have linked to four other biographies that are more normal for Wikipedia.  I don't understand why you insist on making this biography an outlier.  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to information on Grant's personal character, but to throw in genetics, such as Grant inherited patience and calmness from his mother, is speculation that does not belong in the introduction. Neither Waugh nor Bunting are experts on DNA. I gave a link on DNA and personal characteristics authored by an M.D. This article is not on Jesse nor Hannah. It is on Grant the individual. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't about Fish, yet he is covered. The article isn't about Robert E. Lee, but he is mentioned, in the lede, etc, etc. Grant's parents can be mentioned when making comparisons in character. Yes, we don't bother with DNA. All we are doing is relating the comparisons made by historians. I reworded the statement, saying only that Grant resembled his mother's character. This idea will be picked up in the text. Jesse was opinionated, Hannah was quiet and reserved, like Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chernow p.7, makes the same comparison, referring to Grant as emotionally blocked, not out spoken like his father. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant resembled his mother's character ? That really is another way of saying he genetically inherited calmness and patience from Hannah. Genetics and personality are controversial and speculative subject. Let's not go their in the introduction. We can say that Grant was calm and patient, but that is not true. He was livid at Sumner for the Senate rejection his Santo Domingo treaty. He was livid at Custer for the defeat at Little Big Horn. He was livid at Bristow for his investigation into Babcock. Grant was Grant. Let's just accept him for who he was without bringing in his mother's and his father's personalities, or lack thereof. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We can say Grant was "emotionally blocked" but let's leave his parents out of it. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No viable reason has been presented as to why we should not mention parents like other biographers do. Making a comparison in characters is not anything about genetics. We are merely saying what the sources are saying, regardless if they got their information from Mars, and we don't present the idea as absolute fact. Once again, children with the same parents can have different personalities. That all by itself throws the DNA theory out the window. Man is a social creature, largely a product of his social environment. Other things can factor in, like deaths in the family, and other acts of God, but overall, character is the product of upbringing and prevailing circumstances. Let's see what the other sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Speculation of Grant's character or comparison of Grant's character to his parents character does not belong in the introduction. We should leave DNA out of this article, but once you bring in parents you bring in DNA. It also affects the neutrality of this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777, no viable reason has been presented as to why we should not mention parents like other biographers do. Making a comparison in characters is not anything about genetics. DNA is your speculation. We are merely saying what the sources are saying, regardless if they got their information from Mars, and we don't present the idea as absolute fact. Once again, children with the same parents can have different personalities. That all by itself throws the DNA theory out the window. Man is a social creature, largely a product of his social environment. Other things can factor in, like deaths in the family, and other acts of God, but overall, character is the product of upbringing and prevailing circumstances. Let's see what the other sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bruce, many things weren't mentioned when the article became a FA. Biographies are about 'the' person. If other articles don't mention character in the lede, they should, esp when there are plenty of sources that do so. Will look into other sources.  We're not advancing anything unusual here. At this point I am flexible about removing the comparison to parents, but let's look a little further. - Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the editors of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Napoleon, etc., are wrong, and you, sir, are right. Well excuse me for intruding.  I was hoping to join another Wikipedia crowd by editing Grant, and to have as much fun as I had editing chess, but it would be a better use of my time to move elsewhere.  Bruce leverett (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777, once again you're digressing to edit warring in the middle of the discussion before any sort of clear consensus has been established. We say what the sources say, regardless of your personal opinion about genetics, etc.  For now I removed the statement in question. However, a concern was expressed about a long second paragraph, so this has been split, again, per the two different topics involved.  Mentioned the tannery. We need to say soemthing more about Grant's childhood in the lede other than being raised.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We should be very careful about describing Grant’s character in comparison to those of his parents. Little is objectively known about Hannah Simpson, and the few sparse anecdotes are interpreted different ways by different people (e.g. her reaction to the toddler getting in among the hooves of the horses has been described as uncaring by some or calmly confident by others). Given the uncertainty we should not attempt this.  Jesse is better known but also open to interpretation and like most people complex, as was his relationship with Ulysses.  Carmelsuttor (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)