Talk:Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New article[edit]

Added sources and content welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Opening sentence[edit]

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

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

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Merge -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed that the Cincinnati (horse) article be merged into this article. The Cincinnati (horse) article is a stub, and all of it's content is better covered in this article, so there would be no need to copy text from that article into this one. All the images of that article are contained in this article. There has been no additions to the narrative in the Cincinnati article since 2012. The proposed article meets all criteria for merging with this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV[edit]

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg

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

  • Disagree with the complaint. This appears to be yet another unfounded attempt to criticize this article, and comes in the wake of the nomination to delete that is failing miserably. There is a claim of a NPOV issue, but there was zero explanation as to what makes the article less than neutral. The claim about lack of notability, has already been well addressed in the last discussion, so this appears to be a case of WP:IDHT, also. The fact that almost every Grant biographer has written, often at length, about Grant's exceptional horsemanship, more than puts the subject on the notability map. As such, the initiation of this discussion seems to be inspired merely buy the same stuff that the complainant exhibited in the first attempt to dump on this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Weird to act this triumphant when people have pointed out very serious flaws with the article. It is clear you don't understand the problems with this article and you appear to be unwilling to improve it. Like I said before, your ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false accusation. I've already acknowledged that was open to suggestions, but all you've done is make superficial complaints, and have yet to explain any "myths",exactly what needs to be rewritten. etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I can try to more clearly explain the problems if that helps you. If you are willing to improve the article I am willing to help. Polygnotus (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to seem like forum shopping for your deletion nomination, but I'm going to extend some good faith here. My advice is to take some time between your replies, and ping people less.
I'll be following your discussion with Gwillhickers to see what kinds of edits you are suggesting. I'll be back later this evening to make some of my own! Carlp941 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is starting to smack of forum-shopping. You really need to drop the stick at this point and move on. Grant's horsemanship is discussed in recent biographies, and not just in brief. Horsemanship was a big deal prior to the advent of the automobile, and Grant's ability was exceptional. Intothatdarkness 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is just one way to fix the problems with this article. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to ignore sources showing notability of the subject. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean anything. Intothatdarkness 18:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is far from the only problem. Polygnotus (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I see is you don't like the article. You didn't get the result you desired at AfD so you're kicking up a fuss here. Intothatdarkness 18:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominems are a waste of our resources. Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As is your campaign against this article. Notability has been established to the satisfaction of most. Cleanup is needed. Your particular vendetta is not. And now I'll stop wasting my resources on you. Please feel free to continue wasting your own resources here. Intothatdarkness 21:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but now we have two additional tags on the article that need to be addressed, and then removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just tone down the language a little bit? That is clearly not an unreasonable request. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tone down"?? This, coming from someone who resorts to terms like "nationalist drivel", myths", false accusations of refusing to cooperate,and whats to "blow it up and start over", etc, and at this point has tagged the article with two additional tags, all in the wake of a failing nomination to delete? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tone down. If you are willing to cooperate to improve the article, toning down the wording would be a great first step. Ad hominems are rarely constructive. Polygnotus (talk)
Difficult to take the advice of someone who falsely accuses others of the same thing he or she is guilty of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try to avoid the ad hominems please? I don't want to talk to you if its ad hominem after ad hominem ad nauseam. Polygnotus (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the ad'hom' is coming mostly from you. Please explain any "myths", (i,e,untruths) and why you are requesting such extreme (TNT) measures, something you have yet to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the other way around. I did explain why I nominated the article, but I should probably word it differently for you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong yet again. It's all a matter of record now. Your opening statement at AFD resorted to ad'hom, even insults with the claim that "myths" have been used in the article. Sorry. Your attempt at damage control here further demonstrates that you're on some anti-nationalist vendetta, as at least one other editor has claimed, while your ' not notable' claim has been thoroughly refuted by a number of editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop the ad hominems please? They only serve to make your argument weaker. Polygnotus (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder. The article passed a DYK nomination, so if there was much basis to your as of yet empty claims, the article would not have passed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant it was almost 25 years (sourced to "Grant" by Jean Edward Smith). If that is true then the DYK is not. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK hook makes the general claim of 25 years. Now you're simply being difficult because a source said "almost 25 years". To claim the statement is completely "not true" is just another one of your excessive and erroneous claims. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you try to claim that the fact that one false claim from the article was a DYK means that therefore the article must be perfect, then I am obviously going to point out that that claim is false. But even if that claim was true, it would mean little for the rest of the article. Jean Edward Smith was called "today’s foremost biographer of formidable figures in American history" so he probably knows what he is talking about. Polygnotus (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that people (well respected Wikipedians who have a lot of experience) agree with me. So to act like my claims are empty is a bit weird. Polygnotus (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit busy right now but I'll be back and explain it a bit more. Polygnotus (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing you need to address is the accusation of "myths", which in effects says the article contains falsehoods, which more than suggests that I have resorted to lying. Yes, empty claims, with continued accusations of refusing to cooperate — this after I acknowledged that I was open to suggestions. Your tone has been aggressive and hostile right from the start. If you would please address"myths" then we can discuss your other opinions more seriously. Until that is squarely addressed I will continue to assume that this is just an attempt at damage control, in face of a AfD nomination that is thoroughly failing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm I asked you to stop with the constant ad hominems. You are refusing or unable to. Good luck. Interesting to see who you did not ping. Polygnotus (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have I been summoned here? I !voted keep in the AfD while suggesting an additional citation because in my judgment the subject-matter is WP:NOTABLE. I expressed no opinion on the state of the article because WP:AfD is not cleanup. It is most certainly not in so bad a state as to justify even contemplating WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. It just seems we're going to need more objective opinions about the recent two tags the article has just received. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly has POV issues I want to point out that I did support keeping the article at the AfD because we don't delete articles just for being non-neutral but to put this in the lede without even one cite The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as among the most exceptional[citation needed] in American history., yeah, less than ideal. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses the no citations in the lede convention, as any statement in the lede is supported in the text. Having said that, it should be noted that the statement in question does not say that Grant, was exceptional, as an absolute fact, but says, widely acclaimed. This could be changed to, widely noted, or, is often considered, if you think this is necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
"No citations in the lead section" is not a magic spell you can use to not have to provide citations upon request for disputed content. In this case, that sentence needs to be drastically toned down. So "widely noted" or "is often considered" would not fix the problem. Also see WP:WEASEL. Both sentences that got the {{cn}} contain claims that are not supported by the text. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I wouldn't object to calling him an "expert horseman". But "as among the most exceptional in American history" is many bridges too far. Polygnotus (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Magic spell"? This is a practice commonly used in many GA and FA articles, and contrary to your claim, the idea is supported, and sourced in the text, so we should wait for more objective opinions from those who don't 't see the article as "nationalist drivel", "myths" that needs be dealt with in a TNT manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
If you would've had sources to back up that claim they would be in the article, right? But they aren't. So it is not unreasonable to conclude they don't exist. But if you do have sources that support the claim made in the article, please quote them. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I'd need to see multiple high-quality sources with specific expertise in the history of equestrianship making such a claim before it'd be something that should be in wiki-voice. And, in general, it's these sorts of subjective superlatives that are to the article's detriment. Let me be clear. No TNT is needed here. But cleanup surely is. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't take a source about "expertise in the history of equestrianship", if such a source even exists, to make a general statement that Grant was a great horseman, and was noted as such many times throughout his life. And again, the article doesn't claim this as absolute fact, but only that he was widely noted for being so, beginning in his youth, and there are multiple sources that make this point in almost all his biographies, as several editors pointed out in the AfD discussion. Since this well sourced idea doesn't involve some incredibly fantastic and hard to believe idea, I fail too see why there is such a controversy brewing about this in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is unsourced, not true, and drags down the rest of the article? We are talking about over half a billion people. See WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Polygnotus (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim doesn't accomplish much. All statements are well sourced, and "drags down the rest of the article" is obviously cut from the same cloth as your "nationalist drivel" and "myths" claims, so at this point, as has been already pointed out for you, we're going to need several objective opinions before most of us can take your hyper-speak tactics very seriously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not following policy is only an option in exceptional circumstances, and these are not. Polygnotus (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But above average is not the claim made in the article. Being among the most exceptional of over half a billion people is an extraordinary claim. Less ad hominems, more quotes from sources. "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.". I also wouldn't object if it said "exceptional horsemanship". Polygnotus (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, extraordinary. i.e.Not a miracle. And again, all examples are well sourced. And yes,it's understood that the idea of "extraordinary" is in reference to Grant's horsemanship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is well sourced it will be easy for you to quote some reliable sources here that directly support the claim made in the article (not just good or great, but "among the most exceptional in American history"). How much time do you need? For example I can check back next week, if that suits you? I might be able to help you by looking at some sources myself if you want, but don't be annoyed if they get used to improve the article. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? -- "I might be able to help you by looking at some sources myself ..."?? IOW, you haven't even looked at the sources. Yet here you are with all of your questionable claims. No one in the AfD discussion, or at DYK, has claimed that any statement is unsourced. The only issue made, besides yourself, at the AfD was over the neutrality of the wording, e.g. "extraordinary", not over lack of citations. Please research the sources before you continue any further.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2024
Facepalm Facepalm Why do you keep misinterpreting what I and other say? Also, you did not answer the questions? If you do not give a source for the unsourced claims they should be removed. Unsurprisingly, none of the sources support the claim made in the article. Polygnotus (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You are the only one making the claim about unsourced statements. The issue is over neutrality. . I have not misrepresented your claims, in print, for all to see, and certainly not those of anyone else. Speaking of misrepresentation, this will not be the first time you say one thing and do the opposite. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to follow policy, except in very rare cases. This is not one of those very rare cases. Unsourced disputed content should be removed. Can you please answer those 2 questions? If the claim is well sourced it will be easy for you to quote some reliable sources here that directly support the claim made in the article (not just good or great, but "among the most exceptional in American history"). How much time do you need? For example I can check back next week, if that suits you? You keep refusing to provide sources for that claim because there are none. To solve that problem I suggested describing him as an "expert horseman" or describing it as "exceptional horsemanship". Polygnotus (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223. I believe the paragraph in question is appropriately sourced now. I also edited a statement to be more in accord with the source. Would you take another look? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems of course is that there is no such thing as a "natural riding ability". Human life is, in many ways, different from a computer game where you pick a perk or invest in a S.P.E.C.I.A.L skill. Polygnotus (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would honestly be good if both of you would bring your edits to article talk to discuss before continuing what looks an awful lot like an edit war even if absent a WP:3RR brightline. Simonm223 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers has been repeatedly re-inserting disputed content against consensus, but that does not fit the conventional definition of an editwar because there are long stretches of time between edits. It feels more like the talkpage is evidence of the futility of human communication. Some people are talented, which means they acquire a skill they aren't born with faster than others. Polygnotus (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV (2)[edit]

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

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

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant
Name Link First sentence
Gwillhickers diff Ulysses S. Grant, a Civil War hero and a two-term U.S. President, has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as the best horseman in American history.
Gwillhickers diff The Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as the most exceptional in American history.
Montanabw diff The Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant was acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as exceptional.
Gwillhickers diff The Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as the most exceptional in American history.
John M Baker diff The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as exceptional.
Gwillhickers diff The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as among the most exceptional in American history.
Polygnotus diff The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant has been widely acclaimed by his contemporaries and historians as exceptional.
  • Speaking of NPOV, your claim that there is "no such thing as natural riding ability" is absurd, and smacks of your own, highly opinionated, NPOV. By what reliable source(s) can you support this spurious claim? Further, the claim of exceptional, or any other such reference, is not made in comparison to other people, certainly not to "half a billion people". It is a reference, not stated as absolute fact, but that Grant was considered, or acclaimed, as exceptional. This pans out in virtually all of Grant's biographies. As such, this general idea can be made in the lede if supported by the text, which it does in several instances throughout the biography, backed up by a reliable source in every instance. In any case, why did you edit out the distinction "among the most  Doesn't this further the idea that Grant was not the only one, and was among others? The edits-diffs which you outlined above only involve modifications of the same idea, and no where have I ever stated that Grant was the only one, only that he was exceptional in US history. Even the statement "probably the most exceptional in US history " does not put out the idea that Grant was 'the' best among everyone else. In any case, I will look for corroborating sources that support this idea, hopefully to the letter. .- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: NPOV means neutral point of view. Again, please read WP:INDENT. Starting your comment with a star is for unordered lists. Babies don't have a natural horse riding ability because they are babies.
Further, the claim of exceptional, or any other such reference, is not made in comparison to other people, certainly not to "half a billion people" Haha. How can something be exceptional, but not relative? If we interpret "American" to mean "The United States of America" then there were over half a billion people part of "American history".
You stated he was literally the best horseman in American history. Out of over half a billion people. Without any source. Can you please admit that that was silly?
You should've had multiple high-quality sources before writing the claim on Wikipedia. You repeatedly claimed there were sources you based the claim on... But that was clearly not true, because if it was you could just quote them and you wouldn't have to "look for corroborating sources that support this idea, hopefully to the letter". Now you are trying to write WP:BACKWARDS. Polygnotus (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

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

Comparing the source to the Wikipedia article:

−
a fellow cadet later recalled. "There was a dark bay horse that was so fractious that it was about to be condemned. Grant selected it for his horse. He bridled, mounted and rode it every day...and how he did ride! He handled the refractory creature as a giant would a child. The whole class would stand around admiring his wonderful command of the beast...."
+
Among the horses at the academy was a dark bay horse that was so untamable that it was about to be condemned. Grant selected this beast for his horse. Every day he would devote time to it, bridling, mounting and riding it about with ease, while the entire class would watch and admire in amazement his excellent command of this horse.

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

Copyvio (2)[edit]

Comparing the source to the Wikipedia article:

−
When Ulysses S. Grant acquired ownership of White Haven after the Civil War, he set about turning the property into a profitable horse-breeding farm. Grant helped design this horse stable while serving as President and ordered his caretaker William Elrod to begin constructing it. When the structure was completed in 1871, it was large enough to house as many as twenty-five horses in livestock stalls... William Elrod cared for the numerous horses at this stable, all of which were either purchased by the president or gifted to him. Grant primarily owned Thoroughbred and Morgan horses, although he enjoyed raising other breeds as well.
+
After the Civil War Grant had gained possession of [[Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site|White Haven]] previously owned by his wife's father [[Frederick Tracy Dent]]. While he was president he transformed the estate into a successful horse-breeding farm and designed its large horse stable. Completed in 1871, the stable was large enough to house 25 horses, all of which were either received as gifts or purchased by Grant. Overall he owned [[Thoroughbred]] and [[Morgan horse|Morgan horses]], but also enjoyed raising other breeds.

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

Copyvio (3)[edit]

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

Comparing the source to Einar Holbøll.

−
This concept was quickly taken up in other countries, including the United States, and the association between Christmas seals and anti-tuberculosis campaigns persisted throughout the twentieth century.
+
Christmas Seals were soon adapted by other countries, including Sweden, Norway, Iceland and the United States. Subsequently, the association between Christmas seals and their usage with the fight against tuberculosis became prevalent throughout the twentieth century.

Text added here.

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

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

You should learn that general statements of fact, common phrases and such can not be copyrighted. WP:FACTSONLY,  "Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected. The test of creativity is minimal. "   Since there is only statements of facts reworded, no outright copying of phrases, and no creative writing involved, you've failed to make any case of copy-vios, as your own display of the diffs readily shows is.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm What you are doing is illegal in basically all countries in the world. It is not writing an encyclopedia article; it is a form of theft.
You can't just remove and re-order a few words and use a few synonyms. You are infringing on these people's copyright. And you have done that for years in 120+ articles.
I could easily write a computer program that removes a few words from a text and replaces some words with their synonyms. But the resulting text would still be infringing on copyright.
You interpreted WP:FACTSONLY to mean that only fiction is protected by copyright, but that is incorrect.
If you want to write on Wikipedia, you have to write your own stuff, based on reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're disagreeing with WP Policy. Now you're speaking for "basically all countries in the world".
General statements of fact can not be copyrighted, in any country. How do you propose to relate general statements of fact without rewording them? Answer please. Given your hostile and insulting tone from the beginning, it is apparent that this episode shows us once again that you are merely reaching for ways to drag your feet through these discussions. I believe we're seen enough of your perpetual and reckless conjecture. In the future, you need to quote the source in question and compare it to my editing, something which you failed to do, also.- after which you need to take WP policy more seriously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you unable to indent correctly (I fixed it)? Why? Quote: "Expressions must have at least a modicum of creativity to qualify for copyright protection.[8] The way an author describes a set of real life events in a biography may qualify as such an expression and will likely have copyright protection". you need to quote the source in question and compare it to my editing, something which you failed to do What do you mean? There are 3 examples above. There is a difference between copypasting and then changing/reordering/deleting a few words and writing your own text based on factual information in another text. Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught that simply changing/reordering/removing a few words is not enough to escape copyright trouble, even in non-fiction. But I have asked Diannaa to take a look. They know far more about copyright than I do. If they say that I am wrong I will set up a company that uses software to change/reorder/remove a few words from a nonfiction text and resells it. People always complain that college textbooks are expensive. Polygnotus (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no modicum of creativity involved, only simple facts. In any case, the wording is different from the source since before you began making any edits, and is that way at present.. If you can relate the same information any better, without leaving out important details, you are free to do so. All we've gotten from you thus far is highly opinionated criticism, and no helpful suggestions of your own as to alternative wordings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmguy777, Coemgenus -- Thanks for your recent votes to keep. Since the three of us have worked long and hard on the Grant article itself, hopefully you can make any needed changes to satisfy some recent criticisms related here. Any help and opinion offered regarding so called copy-vios at this juncture would be much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant&oldid=1222322431"