Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant

Ulysses S. Grant

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * It begins here: Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant. The sections following that one are mostly on the same topic.

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) How much space in the article should discussion of General Order #11 take up? The section was once quite small (here it is just after passing FAC). It has grown (here it is after the most recent edits). Some editors wish it to grow further, others would rather revert to the FAC version.
 * 2) What material should be included in that section? Should it be a bare recitation of facts, with a link to the larger article on the topic? Should it go into more detail about what may have caused Grant to issue the order? Should we write that scholars consider it anti-Semitic, or should we discuss whether Grant was anti-Semitic and whether his anti-Semitism caused the order?

Here is the proposed additions added on (in bold) to the current version. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1

Mediation is needed because Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus want to follow the abundant reliable sources that attest to Grant's anti-semitic mindset when he issued G.O. #11, while Gwillhickers perceives their desire to include the fact as a desire to smear Grant. My perception of this long-running debate is that ASW and Coemgenus are matter-of-factly telling what happened and that Gwillhickers is trying to defend Grant's honor. YoPienso (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional issue 2
 * This is not a forum to discuss personal "perceptions" of other editors. I acknowledged Grant's order was anti-semitic as do other reliable sources and only want to make clear that there were other pressing factors during this time of war that prompted Grant's decision to issue his general Order No. 11. Can we please keep the discussion focused on what is best for the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Coemgenus (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Acceptance of case and roll call
As a member of the Mediation Committee I have volunteered to moderate this case. Participants please sign next to your name below to indicate you understand the following:
 * This is a place for moderated discussion about content issues. We are not here to discuss anyone's past or present behavior or their personality, tendencies or alleged bias.
 * Disputes can create friction but that is not an excuse for personalizing our comments. Our comments should be about content only.
 * Mediation is voluntary. We do not have to participate but if we start the case then we start with the intention of seeing it all the way through.
 * We will check this page every time we log onto WP. Discussion will proceed 7 days per week but we all have real life responsibilities so we will proceed at a moderate but steady pace to maintain the momentum of the meditation.
 * The results of mediation are not binding but they do count and if you void them you better have a good reason. We are not here to waste each other's time.
 * Finally, a prolonged dispute naturally creates entrenched positions. However, we are starting fresh and the mediator is not going to declare one side right or wrong. So if we want to have a successful mediation it will require identifying common ground and then building a consensus agreement via compromise from the participants on both sides of the dispute.

I congratulate all of you for taking the time and making the effort to participate in dispute resolution! Please sign next to your name to indicate you have read the above and are ready to begin:
 * 1) Coemgenus --Coemgenus (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Gwillhickers-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Cmguy777 Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Alanscottwalker -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PS Once everyone has signed in we will start discussion on this case's talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Statements by involved editors
A section, Statements for consideration by the Mediation committee by involved editors, has just been added to the Grant talk page where involved editors can define their basic positions regarding this issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * can tell us but the usual is for statements to go on the mediation page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Will move my statement here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gwillhickers (talk)
The claim is made above, striken but still visible, that there are "…abundant reliable sources that attest to Grant's anti-semitic mindset when he issued G.O. #11", as if to say that it was anti-semitism that mostly or completely prompted Grant to issue Gen.Order No.11. In fact, there are no RS's (at least to my knowledge) that says Grant's order was primarily prompted by anti-semitism. If there are, now is the time to bring them forward. Most sources refer to the order itself as anti-semitic but also acknowledge surrounding circumstances. My position has been that the short paragraph in the Grant biography (which remains in the wrong section) doesn't cover the topic clearly enough, per FA policy that topics be well covered and comprehensive. There are several basic facts missing that would give readers a more clear picture, which is why I hope to add one sentence (outlined in bold) to the existing paragraph which imo includes two basic and important facts that occurred before Grant issued his General Order. Without such context and clarification, Wikipedia will be more than suggesting that Grant was some sort of enemy of the Jewish people, and imo this is entirely wrong. Grant was a General in the middle of a war at the brink of another major battle. I hardly think anti-semitism, such that it occurred in Grant, caused him to abuse his position, which he took very seriously, in such a way. Imo, it was pressing and extraordinary circumstances during a war that prompted Grant the most and we need to simply mention those circumstances by including the simple facts and let readers decide about matters of anti-semitism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by cmguy777
Moved from Ulysses S. Grant talk page:
 * In my opinion, the general research is that Grant and possibly others in the Union Army held anti-semitic views. The desperate situation of the Civil War and the cotton trade only exacerbated the issue leading to Grant's G.O. 11. Jewish families were dispersed and Grant's order was rescinded by Grant 21 days later upon Lincoln's demand. This was a real event that took place on American (Union-Confederate) soil. The real question is why Grant issued the order. This falls into speculation i.e. Grant's father visiting him at his headquarter lobbying for Mack & Brothers, or a gold shipments into Kentucky and Tennessee in Grant's department. Was Grant angry because McClerland his rival was going to receive troops rather then Grant? Grant did not specifically state, rather, he stated that Jews were violating every ordincance from the Treasury Department. No examples of violation were given. Did Grant hold anti-semitic views specifically ? As a General Grant was trying to win a war and he detested the cotton trade believing it only funded the Confederate War effort. Biographers McFeely (1981) and Smith (2001) both believe Grant held anti-semitic views. Brands (2012) is the most neutral on the subject. I am not against expansion per say, but I don't think the paragraph should expanded only with speculations. I am for expanding the G.O. 11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Accept. This case is accepted for mediation. I will now poll the members to obtain a mediator willing to handle the case. If no member accepts the case within a week (seven 24 hour periods from the timestamp on this acceptance), then this acceptance will be revoked and the case rejected retroactively. I have also added Yopienso as a party to the mediation; s/he should indicate his/her willingness to participate, above. Except for that, please refrain from further discussion here until the case is accepted by a mediator. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)