Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable topic, not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography. Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the standard story people use to make heads of states seem cool, more a metaphor for their leadership of their country than a thing that they pretend actually happened. Famously, Alexander the Great tamed Bucephalus and George Washington tamed a colt. All so-called untameable horses that were tamed by a horsewhisperer with near-magical powers. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you mentioned, by Dowdall, is self-published. That is, it was published by HistoryEye, and looking up HistoryEye on the Web [1], we find that it is "managed by Dublin-based genealogist, Denise Dowdall." According to WP:SELFPUBLISH, if material in a self-published source is worth citing, one is expected to find the same material in a more reliable source and cite it from there instead. This goes for all 11 of the citations of Dowdall in the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep   First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case.
    The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.
    It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This anti-nationalist (aka pro-factual) bias is the same bias that would make me remove claims that Kim Jong-Il made 11 holes-in-one at his very first round of golf. The examples given in the article are not proof of exceptional skill, they are clearly made up stories to make him look cool. There is no way Ulysses had the most exceptional horsemanship in American history, and there are no sources for that claim (as noted on the talkpage). Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every recent biography of Grant devotes space to his horsemanship. The tone of the article may need some work, but trying to dismiss the topic as "nationalistic drivel" misses the mark entirely, as does attempting to link it to Trump. Intothatdarkness 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have time this evening to follow up by examining your citations, but will try to get to that later. AfD discussions often turn on the quality of the sources. If sufficiently many reliable, secondary sources give significant or in-depth coverage to the topic, not just passing mentions, then the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. That's the one-sentence summary; what "sufficiently many" and "significant or in-depth" actually mean in this case perhaps can be answered only by looking at the sources.
"Reliable secondary" sources include the likes of Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow. You should specifically be circumspect about the use of sources such as Brisbin, Fuller, Headley, Grant's son, and other contemporaries. The quoted passage from Brisbin in the "Military" section is evidently hagiographic, and even just including it in the article betrays a generally hagiographic approach.
The question is not about the horsemanship; it's about the coverage of the horsemanship. Through an assortment of anecdotes passed down through the years, we can be fairly sure that Grant was an accomplished horseman. But how much attention do the serious modern biographies or the modern Civil War historians give to this topic? The answer to that is what determines whether or not this topic warrants an article of its own. And if it does, the sources for that article had better be good ones, and they had better be enthusiastic about the topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Smith and White mention Grant's horsemanship over twenty times in their biographies, often at length and at various points during his life. I'd certainly say it's not a trivial subject. Intothatdarkness 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources exist so has significant coverage in reliable sources. Article quality (whether it is hagiographic or not) is completely irrelevant at AfD. Summary style says that notable sections of articles can always be spun off into child articles. Deletion claims under vague assertions of What Wikipedia is not ie I just don't like it are always suspect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep U.S. Grant's horsemanship is indeed quite notable, established by ample sources. I also agree that the nomination to delete this page is flawed by sheer, blind bias. TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an American equestrian, I strongly dispute this interpretation and reading of the article, and vote to Keep the article as a result. The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant is particularly notable, especially among U.S. Presidents, and appears to be written and intended for primarily an American audience. However, even many Americans are unaware of Grant's exceptional equestrian skills, which have also been noted by several historians. Additionally, "according to Wikipedia policy, editors should only nominate an article for...deletion under limited circumstances, such as pure vandalism, and not mark legitimate pages without good faith discussion". (See: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.) I also strongly dispute the assertation that the article is "nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual", as the topic has been covered by both biographers of Grant, as well as other professional historians. Obversa (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by User:Intothatdarkness, both biographers and many professional historians have covered the "Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant" as a notable topic. While the article may need to be overhauled, the topic is notable in of itself to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would also note that the Wikipedia article for Cincinnati, Ulysses S. Grant's primary Thoroughbred mount and favorite horse during the American Civil War, also ridden by Abraham Lincoln, was already merged into Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant some time ago. Deleting the page would be a disservice to not only the topic itself, but also the decision to merge the two articles. I also agree with User: Gwillhickers in questioning whether this suggested page deletion is in good faith or not, as Wikipedia policy dictates. Obversa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Obversa: So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reply comes across as aggressive and uncivil, as well as your comments on my User talk page. Please do not comment on my User talk page, and keep discussion civil, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:How to be civil or Wikipedia:Civility. I stand by what I said in my original reply, and still vote to Keep the page based on my previous reasoning. Obversa (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced and easily meets GNG, and per discussion and the historical fact that Grant was both known for his horsemanship and his horses. Besides, if he were alive today, and faced with the politics of 21st century America, he'd be a jockey. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite but the sources exist and don't appear, at a surface level review, to be synth. We don't delete for bad writing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polygnotus — The fact that you automatically equate anti-nationalist bias with facts only serves to demonstrate, further, the lack of objectivity with which you assessed this article. Grant's horsemanship is largely a positive affair, and simply because there isn't coverage of his failures or short comings with horses and horsemanship is for the simple reason that there are no such episodes. His horse did lose its footing once, fell over, and landed on Grant's leg, but that was not Grant's fault entirely, if at all. — I once had a history professor claim, that history is mostly "written by the winners of wars", to which I commented, "what would history read like if it was only written by losers". In any case, much of history is written objectively, and again, simply because an account of a particular chapter seems positive, it doesn't automatically mean it's less than factual or over stated..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To everyone else. Thank you for your support. I am perfectly willing to improve on any sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that may need it, and am perfectly open to fair suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INDENT. Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? Polygnotus (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy was point on, given your assessment. The only straw man around here was the one you stood up in front of this article.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough indents! Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
giddyup? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've mislaid my copy, but as additional source British military historian John Keegan discusses Grant's horsemanship in some detail in his 1987 book The Mask of Command ISBN 0-7126-6526-9 and compares it to that of the Duke of Wellington, another noted equestrian. Narky Blert (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
"Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird" - Okay? We don't delete articles for being weird to readers born outside the US, as far as I know. This AfD reads as reflexive anti-nationalism. That isnt a bad impulse, but I believe it is misplaced here.
I don't personally care for his horsemanship, but I've read enough biographies of Grant to know that it's important to every biographer of this massive figure in American history. Calling it nationalistic drivel unworthy of an article by comparing it to horses - horses that have articles of their own (you linked Alexander's horse, and here's Washington's horse)- seems to negate your point. Myth or no, it is a notable subject covered by reliable secondary sources. Comparing it to North Korean leaders' alleged golf prowess is also off-base - because Grant was actually good at riding horses.
I can't find good cause to delete this article. Though I agree the article certainly needs clean up. Happy to contribute to a clean up. Carlp941 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We must bear in mind that a "nationalist" is someone who loves and is loyal to one's own country. This doesn't mean that there is a dislike for other countries. Calling someone a "nationalist", by using terms like "nationalist drivel", "myths", etc, reveals a hatred or contempt for a given country, and in that case this is not good. Now we have the same apparent tendency behind the complaint just made on the Grant Talk page, here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The writing isn't great, but the subject is notable -- which is what matters here. Grant's horsemanship is no mere myth, it's something his scholarly biographers all mention. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Refocus, Rewrite: The information is worthy of being an article. I would focus on Grant's use of the Union Calvary during the Civil War. Confederate Calvary under Van Dorn (Holly Springs) and Forrest, may have influenced Grant to use Union Calvary under Sheridan. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't have anything to do with Grant's use of cavalry. It's focused on his horsemanship, which isn't the same thing. Intothatdarkness 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cavalry has to do with soildiers on horses. Grant was a soildier and a General. He convinced Lincoln to appoint Sheridan, head of the Army of the Potomac Cavalry. After Forrest and Van Dorn attacked Grant in Mississippi, Grant learned the importance of having a strong cavalry. I respect your opinion. I understand what you are saying. Your point is taken. This was just a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying and respect your opinion as well (although Grant's larger fight was to get Sheridan appointed to command in the Shenandoah Valley, and Sherman was the one who developed an obsession with Forrest). But we already have some serious feuding going on the article's talk page. Trying to add cavalry in would in my view just make things worse. And for the record, Grant didn't champion cavalry in any major way after the war, nor do historians write much about his overall use of cavalry being visionary or exceptional. He understood cavalry, including its limitations, and was very good at using it in the wider strategic sense...as he was with all his forces. Intothatdarkness 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Five Forks was a Union victory in April, 1865. Sheridan led the Union Cavalry. Grant's most humiliating defeat was at Holly Springs in 1862, when Confederate General Van Dorn and his Conferderate Cavalry sacked Holly Springs, Grant's Union supply depot. Grant believed cavalry should be under stong leadership. That is all I am saying. Aside from this, I am for keeping the article, but trimmed down and rewritten. I hope this issue can be resolved in the near future. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say at this point the article is clearly a Keep. But the campaign has now moved to the article talk page. Intothatdarkness 14:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant