Talk:Benjamin Harrison/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What did Benjamin Harrison's father do for a living? RickK 16:43, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• John Scott Harrison (1804-1878) was a farmer and a congressman (1853-57). - Nunh-huh 21:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I just edited the article which had his mother's name as "Elizabeth Irwin". According to "The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents" (William A. Degregorio) her name was "Elizabeth Ramsey". (Might this be a maiden vs. married name issue?) - Nunh-huh 21:15, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
    • It is... so now name given as "Elizabeth Ramsey Irwin". - Nunh-huh

I removed the mention of antibiotics, as he was ill and died in 1901, which was significantly before Flemming discovered penicillin in 1928. If anyone can find that antibiotics were in use in 1901, please undo my edit.

The First Lady and wife of Benjamin Harrison Harrison was originally Caroline Lavinia Scott before marriage to Benjamin Harrison. Reason of edit: full maiden name appears in most presidential bios. --65.73.0.137

If his grandfather was William Henry Harrison, then why does he get a suffix like this?? According to what makes sense to me, this means that his grandfather would have to be Benjamin Harrison IV, but that is certainly wrong. 66.245.29.239 13:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is the way genealogists often name people -- primarily so that records don't get mixed up with many family members having the same name in one lineage. This means that he has 5 direct ancestors named "Benjamin Harrison" (see his great-grandfather Benjamin Harrison V), but he shouldn't be listed here as VI, since that is not standard usage. BCorr|Брайен 17:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison V had a son named Benjamin Harrison VI. The president never had any extra title and if the other ones didn't, they were given nicknames. Jjmillerhistorian 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a popular cartoon about Congress fighting over Civil Service Reform and Harrison quoted as saying "What can I do when both parties insist on kicking?" There is no mention of Civil Service Reform in this article and there is no article on Wikipedia titled Civil Service Reform. Perhaps the cartoon is popular and the topic is too small to note. I was just wondering what the reform issue was and what Harrison had to do with it.

Pictures serve to highlight the subject at hand. If several pictures are included in an article, preferably they should be different pictures of the subject in different contexts. Why are there three pictures of Harrison which are nearly identical? It serves no purpose --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Would that be the same as a court reporter?--Kross^Talk 09:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Parts of this seemed to be copied word-for-word from the White House Bio of Harrison. Not sure if that is OK. For example from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bh23.html, this quote shows up verbatim near the end of this wikipedia version.

"Long before the end of the Harrison Administration, the Treasury surplus had evaporated, and prosperity seemed about to disappear as well. "

It's not a copyright problem, works of the Federal government are not copyrighted, so we don't need to remove it. However plagiarism, while legal, is also beneath our standards. The URL needs to be an a citition or in a "sources" list. studerby 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the erroneous claim formerly included in "Trivia" that B. Harrison "might have" been the first President whose voice was recorded, because the article here for Harrison's predecessor (and successor), Grover Cleveland, contains a media link to a recording of that President that was made a couple years earlier, refuting the previous claim. Michaeltmccorkle 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Vincent Voice Library [1], that recording was done in 1889. The media link you're referring to for Grover Cleveland was done in 1892, so how is the removed content erroneous? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the false info stating that the recording was done after his presidency and restored the line that he was the first president whose voice was recorded. The recording even starts "As president of the United States..." and mentions the first Pan American conference which was held in 1889. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison was first! Jjmillerhistorian 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a passenger list indicating that a ship named the President Harrison was in operation during the year 1940. It arrived in New York City from Kobe and Suez. It does not appear to be the ship currently indicated within the article, as the date precedes the Liberty ship by two years. Might anyone have any additional information on this? I will post this comment on the discussion page for the SS Benjamin Harrison, as well. --Thisisbossi 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) The ship you mention sailed for the American President Lines and was captured by the Japanese in 1941. There were three ships named President Harrison. See this link http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/americanpresident.htm Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Benjamine Harrison is my great-great grandfather208.3.137.104 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have integrated most of the trivia section into the article except this one:

Harrison gained several nicknames during his presidency such as "Kid Gloves", "The Human Iceberg" and "Little Ben". These mocking titles given by his political rivals. "Little Ben" was also a name so-called by his Civil War regiment, the 70th Indiana Volunteers.

I can't find sources for this so I am moving here until I can. (I am trying to get the article ready for a GA review. Charles Edward 14:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see you integrate the trivia fact that he was the last president with a beard. 24.208.168.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not to be considered a GA-review, I'd just like to raise the issue of the overwhelming use of Wallace, which is over a century old, when a recent, scholarly work like Calhoun is available.

Agreed. Most of the article was entirely unsourced (as in no inline citation) when i started working with it. Wallace was the only book I was able to locate (online) that included detailed information on his early life. I will try look some more today to see what I can find online, otherwise it's to the library. Charles Edward 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was able to access more of Calhoun and used it to replace many wallace refs. Charles Edward 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an outdated source is better than no source, but I still think Calhoun should be the main source before it's considered for GA. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of other things I noticed that might prevent it from reaching GA-status: "Legacy" shouldn't be just about schools and stamps, this section should discuss his impact on American politics and history, and how previous and contemporary historians have seen him in the the context of his time. As for the "Presidential firsts" section, that seems mostly like a trivia section in disguise. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is

• Make sure words are wikilinked the first time they appear. For example, Indiana is wikilinked the third time it appears, not the first (not counting
  Indianapolis, Indiana
  . Go through all the sections and make sure everything is linked properly (and only once per section).
• The legacy section seems like a trivia section to me. This might be because it is in bullet form...try making it into prose. Also, most of the assertions need sources.
• The media sample seems out of place at the end of the article. I think it needs to be up in the presidential firsts section (next to where it is mentioned in the text). If you need help figuring out how to do this, take a look at some musical artists' articles, most of which have media samples integrated all throughout the article.
• The caption for The Raven image is far too long. See
  WP:CAPTION
  .
• Significant events: this list seems un-necessary to me. The events should be listed and explained in the prose itself.
• Likewise, I also think Supreme Court appointments and States admitted to the Union should be turned into prose and integrated into the article prose.
• There were a couple of citation needed tags that need to be taken care of. I also read the article and added a few more where I think a citation should be.
• The article needs copyediting, especially for the dash usage. "–" goes between numbers and dates. "-" goes in hyphenated words. "—" goes in the text instead of a "--".
• I question the notability of some of the facts, in particular: "On June 7, 1892, Harrison became the first President to ever attend a baseball game."
• In the middle paragraph of the lead, I'd add some more information about his major policies and goings on while in office. His signing of the Sherman Antitrust Act seems worthy enough to mention.
• Some of the images are far away from the text they illustrate (like the political football image). You can align some of the pictures to the left of the text, as well, which should help with this problem (and will decrease the long line of images on the right).
• While
  peer reviews
  are never mandatory, it is a great option to get some more feedback.

I have no doubt that the editors of this article will step it up and continue to improve the article. Feel free to renominate when these issues are taken care of. Happy editing! Nikki311 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that these issues need resolved, however, is it fair to give this a speedy failure? I can resolve all these issues in about an hour or so... I guess I will fix them and then submit again.. and wait a couple more monthes for someone to review it? Charles Edward 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Benjamin Harrison/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article. I will leave a preliminary list of issues within 24 hours. You will have ample time to respond, and to resolve any matters that arise thereafter. (I also did the William Henry Harrison review). Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I start my detailed review of the text, there are some general issues which I would like to raise.

• Images: I believe that the article is over-imaged. You have five separate depictions of Harrison, not counting the postage stamp or his cartoon appearance. That is way too many. I suggest three as the maximum. The two to go, I would suggest, are Come on, boys in the Civil War section, and the seated portrait in the Presidential firsts section. You may also want to consider whether both the cartoons are necessary. The Raven image is not referred to in the text, and beyond the too-large hat its meaning is not obvious - there is clearly a Poe reference here, somewhere, but will your readers pick this up?. It may be better to lose it. Also, the two images in the Civil war section violate
  WP:MOS#Images
  in two respects: position of left-hand image under a second-tier subheading, and having text between two directly-facing images, and your recent shifting of the "football" image to the left creates a similar violation.
  • I think you have done the right thing in reducing the number of images, and the present balance between picture and text looks good. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Organisation of references: There are many opportunities to combine references. For example, [5] and [8] are to the same page of Calhoun; [25] and [35] are to the same page range in Calhoun; [10], [11] and [14] could be combined in a short page range, pp. 26-28. There are lots of similar examples. In addition, individual formats are inconsistent. [3] should read "Moore, p. 19"; [7] should read "pp. 11-12 and p. 23"; [9] should read "pp. 27 & 29". And so on.
  • There are further opportunities for you to combine references, but the position is much improved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Further reading: Why are your Further reading entries described as "sources"? If they are sources for material in the article, they should be listed as sources, and cited. "Further reading" means related works that have not specifically been drawn on in the writing of the article. Also, what distinction are you making between "primary" and "secondary", and why are secondary sources listed first?
  • This is OK now. But I've just noticed an unusually large number of External links. Are all of these necessary? If they are all good links, someone may ask the question why they weren't used as sources. It's not a major point, but I'd consider reducing this list to two or three of the most useful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Namesakes: This information needs to be rendered into text, not bullet points. I also have grave doubts about its existence as a section on its own. My present feeling is that the information needs to be shortened, and added as a paragraph to the post-presidency section, but I'll reconsider this when I go through the text.
• Presidential firsts: This is a trivia section under another name. The information in the first para could go into the Presidency section, that in the second para into the 1888 campaign section. The rest isn't notable enough to keep.

Perhaps you would respond to these concerns. I am starting now to go through the text in detail, and will report again when this is done. I will deal with typos amd minor fixes as I go along. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have removed several images as yoru suggested. I had already removed several, so there are about 6 images or so that could be placed back on the page. Would a gallery section be ok for this, or would you suggest leaving them out altogether? I have also removed the non-notable presidential firsts and namesakes and integrated the rest into the article, I was unsure what to do with them, I had already pared them down quite a bit and only kept what I could reference. I merged the further reading subsections together, the difference was the secondary sources where written by third parties, whereas the ones listed as primary where written by harrison himself or his campaign staff, none of them are used in the article though so they were not really sources anyway. I will try to organize the references as you suggested a little later today. Thanks for you initial review! Charles Edward 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::I have finished moving the images about and also fixed up the references as you pointed out. Charles Edward 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the number of images is just about right, now. The brigadier-general is still in violation of MoS (left-aligned directly under a subheading) and should be moved to the right side. I have slightly changed the left-aligned football cartoon to avoid a similar violation. I am troubled by the awkward placing of the stamp image, and will try to suggest a better site for it. My personal preference is against gallery sections; the main focus should be on the text, the images merely illustrating aspects of the text. Galleries of pictures tend to distract; my advice is, stick to the images you have. On Further reading, you need to format all the entries in the same way, i.e. surname first, then first name. I see you are doing as I suggested with regard to Namesakes and Presidential firsts, which is good. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the rest of the review, a detailed look at the prose.

• Lead

**"Legislation", in the sense that you are using it, is a mass noun that can’t be pluralized. You can’t have a "series of legislations". You can have a series of laws, and I suggest you amend to that.

• • • Changed to "economic legislation" named two major bills. Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph needs to be introduced with something like this: "Harrison, a Republican, was elected to the presidency in 1888, defeating the Democrat Grover Cleveland. He was the first, and to date only, president from the state of Indiana". (The last sentence of the para is at present misplaced).
    • Rewrote a portion of lead and added some additional information. Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify that the billion dollars refers to an annual level of spending?
    • I confirmed it to be the annual budget which surpassed 1 billion, primarily due to increased pention benifits for war veterans and their families. I will note that in the article. Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Early life

**The term "Englander" is never used - say Englishman

• • • Done Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph is a bit confused, with too any Benjamins and not enough explanation as to who they were. I have rearranged the paragraph for clarity.
    • Looks good Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest that these first three paragraphs be given the subheading "Family and education", rather than having them loose under the main section heading.
    • done Charles Edward

• Lawyer

**This heading is a bit abrupt. I suggest changing it to "Legal career"

• • • done Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You need to explain what a "crier" is (or was)
    • added Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (2nd para): I don’t think the redlink is necessary. What are the chances that someone will write a wikipedia article with that title?
    • Removed the link Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (3rd para): "Republican reporter of the decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court". Was this a party office, or a public office for which he ran as a Republican? If the latter, please make this clear. To say he was elected as a "Republican reporter" is confusing. And "the decisions of" is unnecessary additional wording.
    • The office is not really political, but it is an elected position and he was the republican candidate for the position. Charles Edward 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The link on Republican is unnecessary, since the term is already linked
    • done Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Civil War

**Washington DC needs linking on first mention.

• • • Done Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Last paragraph: This account of the Knights of the Golden Circle episode is seriously inaccurate. Harrison did not defend the conspirators; his role in the affair was entirely different from what you describe. Please revisit your sources and redraft this para in accordance with the facts.
    • Checked source and changed section. Seems less notable now though, perhaps it should be removed? Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You have the right facts, but in far too much detail and too little emphasis on Harrison's role. I think this incident is worth mentioning because of its effect on Harrison's public profile. I have replaced your paragraph with a much shorter one, which focuses on Harrison's part. I hope this is consistent with what's in your reference, which I have left. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Politics: This section lacks information as to Harrison’s political career. Here are some additional points you might mention – I’m sure you’ll find them in your sources:-
  • He joined the newly-formed Republican party in 1856
    • added in early life section along with his prior membership as a whig Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • He campaigned for John C. Fremont in the 1856 presidential elections
    • added Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • He was elected city attorney for Indianapolis in 1858
    • added Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • He sought the Republican nomination for governor of Indiana in 1872, but was defeated; this was before his 1876 defeat in the gubanatorial election.
    • added Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • While campaigning for Garfield and Arthur in the presidential elections of 1880, Harrison survived an assassination attempt in Bloomington, Illinois.
    • This is not mentioned in either of the two books I have. I have also not been able to turn anything up with a web search either. Is there somewhere you could direct me to locate this information? Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      • On reflection, this may be safely ignored. My one source says that an "unreconstructed rebel" brandished a gun, which failed to fire. Not much of an attempt, really - it can be left out. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

**It doesn’t make much sense to say that "After returning from the war, he was an unsuccessful… candidate for governor", since this was 11 years after he war.

• • • Changed Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • He turned down Garfield’s cabinet offer so that he could begin, rather than continue, his term as senator, which began on the date of Garfield’s inauguration.
    • fixed Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I have altered the section title to "Political career" rather than "Politics". I have also copyedited the section for more clarity, and have added a short sentence mentioning his 1887 Senate defeat, after an election deadlock. You should find a source for this in one of your books. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Presidency
  • First two paragraphs should form a subsection under the title "Election to presidency", or "Twenty-third president" or some such.
  • You should say his inauguration celebrated the centenary of Washington’s inauguration, not that it was the 100h anniversary. Washington’s first inauguration was 30 April 1789.
    • Done Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You have not addressed the point about the centenary dates. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Changed, I think i misunderstood what you mean originally. Charles Edward 12:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Policies

**It would help if you subdivided this section into domestic policy and foreign policy subsections.

• • • Done Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "For Harrison, civil service reform was a no-win situation". This sounds like opinion, unless you cite it. If the informal language "no-win situation" is in the source, put it in quotes. Otherwise I suggest you don't use it.
    • Changed Charles Edward
  • "Harrison was proud of the vigorous foreign policy he helped shape". Who said he was proud? Who called his foreign policy vigorous?
    • Changed to sound more objective Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Who said the most perplexing domestic problem Harrison had to face was the tariff issue?
    • It was in the source, but I changed it to be read more objectively Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Some short paragraphs, e.g. 3 and 4, should be combined.
    • Done Charles Edward
      • The one outstanding matter, in the Foreign policy section, is that the first Pan-American Congress meeting needs a citation.

• Reelection campaign
  • "…party leaders decided to abandon President Harrison". They may have considered abandoning him, but clearly they decided not to. You should reword accordingly.
    • I added a statement to clarify. They party leader, like Sherman and McKinley did stop supporting him during the primary, and blamed alot of the problem on him as a scapegoat of sorts.
      • Yes, but the word "decided" is wrong. They obviously didn't have the power to make such a decision. Instead of "decided to abandon" you could say "wanted to abandon".

• Post-presidency
  • Details of the marriages of Harrison’s descendents are irrelevant to this article. I suggest you delete the material after Elizabeth’s dates, resuming at: "Harrison went to the First Peace Conference…"
    • done Charles Edward
      • Not done, as far as I can see - nothing as been deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Got it this time, must have had an edit conflict. Charles Edward 12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That’s it for the present. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you to respond to these points. I am confident you will do so, and that Benjamin will soon be joining his uncle in the GA category. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed most of your points. Please let me know if there is anything more. I have also moved the images you suggested deleting, along with others I had already removed, into a gallery at the bottom. If you think that is unnecessary it can also be removed. Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I will re-read and check things out tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would respond to the relatively small number of points, above, which I have not struck out. Note: this includes one point in the preliminary review. There is one other issue that might need looking out, namely repetitive linking. Terms should normally be linked at first mention and not thereafter, though it is sometimes OK to repeat a link when the term is mentioned at a key point in the text. Since this issue was raised at the last GA review, can you go through and check that you are not repeatedly linking? After your responese I will proceed to the final review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just 4 things left

1. your rationale for so many external links, 2. a citation for the first Pan-American Congress meeting, 3. a citation for Harrison's 1887 senate defeat and 4. your assurance that you have checked for any overlinking. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I got the two refs added, i also removed a couple links and combined four into one, since they all pointed to the same site. I have also went through and removed the duplicate links that i noticed. Charles Edward 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has been improved considerably during the course of this review, and in my view now meets all the Good Article criteria. The one possible weakness, not actually raised during the course of the review, is the reliance on a very limited set of sources - three books, one of them published 120 years ago - when there appears to be a wealth of Harrison stuff available on the web. I haven't examined the reliability of these web sources, but I imagine that some are good. One or two of the Further Reading titles looked to me as though they could have been used as sources. But I don't want to spoil the moment, so congratulations on your second Good Article relating to the Harrison family. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! In regards to the sources, a large part of the article was wrote when I began with it, but there where no in-line citations, so it is likely that one of the further reading books was used. The two books I used were also part of that section but I looked them up to use for in-line citation . Thanks again! Charles Edward 01:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He was succeeded by the same person that preceded him. Clicking the preceded by link takes you to the 24th, when I want the 22nd. I think we should at least have a small page for preceded, with a link to take you to the main article, which is under the 24th. 88.104.2.247 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is actually Delta Chi not as reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.6.152 (talk • contribs)

I took it out. It's not terribly relevant to his biography, anyway. Coemgenus 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned to

Hi all, Awadewit showed me the shortage of visual media for this FAC. Good news and bad news. Bad news first: none of the conventional head and shoulders portraits that we could find of this president had the technical specs for featured picture consideration. Good news is that three lithographs at the Library of Congress could do it. Putting forth the candidates. Whichever consensus prefers I'll restore:

1. Republican platform and presidential nominees, 1888
2. Equestrian portrait in Civil War uniform
3. Republican national convention, 1888

Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the number two, but it pictures him as a military type.. the others are much more political. 62.195.181.15 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Benjamin Harrison was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody removed alot of information. I assumed this was an accident. I tried to undo it. I don't know if I was successful.--

Harrison has been put in the scot-irish american category. However there is no mention of this in the article, and the Harrison family is of English decent according the the William Henry Harrison article. Is there evidence or sources of a scottish or irish hertiage in Harrison? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For

Sorry, but the caption that lists Harrison as a Union army Brigadier General is incorrect. That's an eagle he's wearing on his uniform, not a star, therefore he was a Colonel at that point in his military career. 125.174.225.3 (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right and I changed the caption. Coemgenus 14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland is being linked as the predecessor to Harrison and vise versa. Please adjust this error so Ben Harrison's presidential predesessor is correctly linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.252.69 (talk • contribs)

I don't see an error. Cleveland was president, then Harrison was President, then Cleveland was president again. So Harrison both proceeded and suceeded Cleveland, and Cleveland both preceded and Suceeded Harrison. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. See

List of Presidents of the United States. Coemgenus

14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The civil rights section was taken out of this page. There seem to be certain editors who do not want civil rights to be talked about on Wikipedia. I guess the controlling editors at Wikipedia are biased when it comes to civil rights.{66.81.242.253 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}

Its not that at all. This is a featured article, which means that content on it has continue to be of a high quality. You are welcome to add civil right information, but be sure you are properly referencing it. Check out WP:Citations for some pointers. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I did use a good source and it was deleted anyway.{{Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}}

What makes answers.com a

reliable source? Coemgenus

19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The reverse could be asked, what makes it unreliable? Answers.com does give a general source link. I know that book sources are the best.

{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

I appreciate all the help I have been given. Here is a proposed text for Civil Rights on Harrison. Please make comments.

One historian, Kirt H. Wilson, calls the period between 1875 and 1901, the ‘politics of place”, where African American segregation, at first a matter of custom, became a reality of law throughout the nation. From Hayes to McKinley there was a period of virtually silent rhetoric from each President about speaking for the citizen rights of African Americans. In 1883 the U.S. Supreme Court had declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. This act had allowed African Americans the equal rights to inns, public transportation, and entertainment facilities. The court had ruled that “individual invasion of individual rights was not the subject matter of the [Fourteenth Amendment]”, and “does not invest Congress with the power to legislate upon subjects which are in the domain of the State legislature”. In other words, states not the federal government, had the sole authority to determine the civil rights of their citizens. ^[1]

In December 1889, separate bills were introduced to Congress that protected the voting rights of African Americans. Henry Cabot Lodge drafted one, whom his opponents called the “Force Bill”. Harrison privately was in favor of the bill and talked with Senators to get the bill passed. The debate over the bill was very argumentative on both sides and such strong language had not been heard since the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The bill did manage to pass the House on July 2, 1890 by a vote of 155 to 149. However, the bill was defeated in the Senate with a Democratic filibuster.^[2]

Harrison continued to advocate for African American civil rights in subsequent State of the Union addresses to Congress. In 1892, Harrison went before Congress and declared, “…The frequent lynching of colored people is without the excuse…that the accused have an undo influence over courts and juries.” However, Harrison claimed there was nothing he could do constitutionally to relieve the practice of lynching. Harrison did question the authority of the states in terms of establishing civil rights. He argued that if states have the authority over civil rights, then “ we have a right to ask whether they are at work upon it.”^[3]

I could see a place for the third paragraph, but the first two don;t involve Harrison at all, except that Harrison was in favor of a bill that didn't pass. These articles are written in summary style. We can't include every fact or quotation, even if it seems relevant to us. How about this:

Harrison endorsed the proposed Federal Elections Bill written by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, but the bill was defeated in the Senate.^[4] Following the failure to pass the bill, Harrison continued to speak in favor of African American civil rights in addresses to Congress. In 1892, Harrison went before Congress and declared, "…The frequent lynching of colored people is without the excuse...that the accused have an undo influence over courts and juries." However, Harrison believed the Constitution did not permit him to end the practice of lynching. Harrison did question the authority of the states in terms of establishing civil rights, arguing that if states have the authority over civil rights, then "we have a right to ask whether they are at work upon it."^[5]

I think that sums it up nicely. Coemgenus 22:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It does. I am in favor of putting in the article. It shows that there was an actual bill in Congress and that Harrison was for the bill. Harrison also spoke on civil rights as President. A good summary! Does it matter who puts the edit in the article?{Cmguy777 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

Let's let it sit here for another few hours, to see if anyone has any other ideas, then put it in. Coemgenus 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is in the article. I added that the bill was co-written by Senator George Frisbie Hoar and that it would be the last civil rights legislation attempted by Congress until the 1920's. (Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Nice work. If I have time, I'll try to get those references to work. If you want to take a crack at it yourself, look at Template:cite book. --Coemgenus 12:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The template style will make the references better, I agree. I can try and change the references to match the template.{Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)}

Why was the writings and sayings segment deleted? Why is that so controversial to be deleted? {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}

Biographical articles aren't a collection of quotations; that's what Wikiquote is for]. Why not add them there? Coemgenus 19:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. To further the understanding of Harrison it is important to know what he said also. He was President of the United States. I believe quotations from an Inaugural address are very important. Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington all have quotations in their articles. Even in those articles there could be more quotations. There is no such thing as a minor president and their words and writings are signifigant.{Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}

No one said the words were insignificant. I said that there is a better place for lists of quotations -- wikiquote. A biographical article is a summary of the life of the subject. Some things will inevitably be left out or abbreviated. Coemgenus 20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Got it. Thanks.{Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

Thanks for the edit clean up. Looks good. I can visualize Cleveland holding up that umbrella. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

I've added some cites to a scholarly text. FYI, the Chief Justice was Melville Fuller, not Robert Fuller. Coemgenus 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The source I had did say Melville Fuller. I appreciate the edit.{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

I would like to add a section on vetoes. There are three types: traditional, pocket, and overridden. I believe it shows how the President got along with Congress, particularly the overridden vetos. For example, Cleveland had 584 vetoes, while Thomas Jefferson did not have any vetoes.{Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

It would make more sense to work any information about a particular veto into the flow of the narrative. Users simply interested in the number of vetoes can look to List of United States presidential vetoes, after all. Coemgenus 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of discussing things on the talk page is to gain

consensus, not to announce unilateral decisions. Coemgenus

02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. My apologies. I suppose vetoes should be discussed if there is some milestone involved, such as Madison's first pocket vetoes, or Andrew Johnson's 15 overridden vetos. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

Yes, that would make sense. Cleveland's many vetoes are discussed in his article, as well as the Texas Seed Corn veto specifically, which is seen as historic. Coemgenus 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just running this one by to see if it is worth to be in the Article. In 1891 there was a scandal that had to do with the Interior department. Green B. Raum, Jr., allegedly, was giving jobs in the Pension office for a "consideration". Also one of the clerks had someone else take the Civil Service test to get a passing grade. There was also allegations of nepotism. My source is the New York Times. Any suggestions? {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)}

Unless Harrison had a hand in it, it seems a bit out of place in his biography. And we already have some info on his Pensions Bureau nominee, James R. Tanner, and the problems he had. None of the biographies I read mention this Raum scandal. --Coemgenus 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the New York Times Article:[2]. The date on the Times article is May 22, 1891. Harrison was not involved, but Harrison had a direct talk with Commisioner Raum about the scandal. You can read the article. The paper made allegations of Harrison Administration with nepotism. The New York Times calls it a "scandal". I am not sure how his biographers missed this. Every author has a certain focus on each President. In my opinion it is worth being in the article. Consensus is needed. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)}

Not everything that transpired in Harrison's four years in office should be in this article. Remember that it is written in summary style. The New York Times has articles in it every day about the Obama administration, yet most of them are not included in the Barack Obama article. If the scholarly sources pay it no mind, neither should this much shorter encyclopedia article. --Coemgenus 12:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unless Harrison played a significant role, or it can be showed the scandal had some significant impact on his presidency, it is not worth inclusion here. If we want to make a very detailed article on his presidency perhaps a new article call

WP:Article Length —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs}

) 18:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference for me in this regard is that it seems the New York Times is a legitimate source and captures the impact of the scandals. It also points out that Harrison had issues in the Pension department for some reason. The Tanner scandal occured in 1889, while this Raum scandal occured two years later in 1891. However, I respect your view points and there needs to be a consensus before adding to the article. It would also help if other newspapers of the time covered the story to get a different perspective. (Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.