Overall: A pair of well-sourced and interesting articles. AGF on the citations via ProQuest. Earwig detects a possible copyright violation for the arrest article, but this appears to be because of the extensive quotes included therein. The general thrust of the ALT is very appealing, but needs a little tweaking. Seeing West's image, his name mentioned first, and especial mention of his race (although it appeared not to be relevant to the arrest) led me to briefly misperceive this DYK nom being about him. If the syntax were reordered—say by first mentioning the arrest, then the officer involved, and finally Grant's tacit refusal to invoke presidential immunity—that would make the subjects of this DYK nom clearer to a reader. I would also suggest replacing the image used here with one of Grant; in this case, it's the arrestee and his office that make this incident notable and relevant. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
In case it's not obvious, the central claim of this article is in considerable question (Talk:Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant) and this can't run until that's well resolved. Also, why does the hook go to pains to point out that West was black? EEng 03:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel like it should go without saying why a Black man arresting the sitting president in 1872 is notable... Sources commenting on the event basically always emphasize this detail. That said, I've removed the detail from ALT1 for reasons of flow.And no, the central claim is not "in considerable question", at least not in any way relevant to how we write encyclopedia articles. You and one other editor don't think the arrest happened, which is a view that you're perfectly entitled to, and which may even be correct, but it's not one consistent with any reliable sources' analysis, including multiple high-quality sources that have examined the historicity of the event. No one seems to have been persuaded by your argument, and even if people were, a local consensus could not override the global consensus that we don't use articles to publish editors' personal theories, so I'm not sure what is left to resolve here. The article already notes, at length, the uncertainty regarding many details, but the hook focuses only on ones that, again, no reliable sources dispute. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Although I still strongly prefer ALT0, as I think it tells a more interesting story. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, there are at least four five editors (me, at least two IPs, Oooooooseven, and Cullen328 -- who I'm pinging here so he can help me gang up on you further) who have expressed skepticism about this story, and against that there's you and 4meters4. No one's suggesting we publish anyone's personal theories; the question is whether we should present this story as fact narrated in Wikivoice, rather than as a tale which has been circulating recently. While it's clear the article should exist (either in the former or latter form), and I'm uncertain of how to thread that needle, there's no way in hell that DYK is going to feature on the Main Page this obviously questionable "fact" until that issue's resolved.And no, it does not "go without saying" that we should point out in a strained way that West was black. Were black policemen unusual in Washington at the time? Were black policemen less likely to do their duty, so it's nice to point out one who did? What exactly is the point of including this fact? EEng 07:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Those jokes about West's race are in exceptionally poor taste and I would urge you to rethink them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
They're not jokes. I'm honestly trying to imagine why in the world your first impulse is to reduce this man to his skin color. Christ, you don't even mention he was a policeman. EEng 14:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The only known contemporaneous coverage of anything like this event was published in the The Alexandria Gazette on April 12, 1866 and in the Camden Weekly Journal on April 20, 1866, roughly three years before Grant became president. These reports are not mentioned or referenced in this deeply flawed article, although they are discussed on its talk page. In my view, this article needs a major rewrite based on good editorial judgment, setting aside credulity. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328: EEng has been pushing a narrative here that this article is built only on clickbait and credulous coverage. This is, quite simply, false, and it has been explained to him multiple times now, but for a week he has persisted in repeating the same speculative arguments. To be clear, several cited sources do mention the 1866 arrest; they treat it as separate. As to "good editorial judgment":
Rosenwald in The Washington Post acknowledges issues with West's narrative but finds the MPD's statements about an arrest to be dispositive.
Solly in Smithsonian explicitly endorses Rosenwald's conclusion.
Rashbaum & Christobek in The New York Times acknowledge the lack of contemporaneous sources but also find the MPD's statements dispositive.
Marszalek, one of the preëminent Grant scholars, as interviewed in NPR accepts a version of West's narrative as fact. (EEng's rebuttal to this has been an unsubstantiated allegation that one of America's most reputable news sources selectively edited Marszalek's words.)
If not for these four sources, yes, we'd be in the territory where editorial judgment governs. But the source analysis has been done for us here—by The Washington Post, The New York Times, Smithsonian, and John F. Marszalek. They all find that the arrest occurred. If we were judging based just on primary sources, of course we would be more cautious. And I have my own doubts about MPD Chief Lanier's statement in 2012... But that doesn't matter, because actual professional RS have weighed in on that statement and said they take it at face value. I don't see how we can second-guess that. That wouldn't be editorial judgment; that would be supplanting individual editors' pet theories for what reliable sources say.
Keep in mind, the article makes almost no claims about the arrest in wikivoice—just the broad strokes, the ones that are accepted by these four sources (and by many others, but I stress these four since one is an expert and the other three all demonstrate they looked at the story critically). Verifiability issues are stressed in both the lede and the body. I don't know how else it could possibly be written. To say anything other than that Grant was arrested would be a violation of WP:NPOV, failing to represent the consensus of reliable sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you ought to step back for a day or two. EEng is not pushing any narrative or POV, and we should AGF. In fact, it's a position that is based on research (admittedly original, and so cannot be included as such) and very soundly calls into question these sources. I and two others have very similar positions to it as well. This is without an RfC or post to the NPOV board or something. Which is actually what I would want to suggest at this point. We need more eyes and evaluation on the issues I, @EEng:, and @Cullen328: have raised. But the source analysis has been done for us here actually, we are challenging that notion entirely. A relatively light dive into the topic leads to a great deal of skepticism for us that these sources have actually lived up to our editorial judgement expectations. actual professional RS have weighed in on that statement and said they take it at face value. I don't see how we can second-guess that. That wouldn't be editorial judgment; that would be supplanting individual editors' pet theories for what reliable sources say. Don't stretch the bona fides here. Marszalek is the only source reasonably called "professional", but his venue for this source is a pop culture interview which we don't even have the full audio for. If he put it in one of his books, then we'd have something. Actually, the fact that no one seems to have put it in their books about Grant should tell you something. These concerns are not "pet theories", and I don't think any of us are advocating OR or Synth be in the article either way. Instead, it's concern over the fact that clear evidence from the primary sources shows that these secondary sources are not being rigorous with their assertions. As you say, they simply take it at face value. I don't know how else it could possibly be written. Well, I agree. WP rules are what they are, which leave me with the only solution that it ought to remain unwritten on WP. And the onus is on you for inclusion. From WP:verifiableWhile information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This article contains much information that very possibly could be false. This is the objection you have to overcome. See my reply to 4meter4 for more on this. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment. The criticisms being raised here by EEng are not found in any of the published literature, and are entirely original research. The 1866 arrest is addressed in the current published literature as a prior arrest to the later arrest while he was president, and has not been used in any sources to challenge or check the historicity of the 1872 arrest as editors are trying to do here. WP:WEIGHT policy states, If you can prove a theory that few or NONE currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. The article as written is balanced and is an entirely accurate reflection of all published literature anywhere on this topic. The fact that Eeng and a few others are questioning the historicity of the event in a new and novel way not found anywhere in published literature should be dismissed as entirely spurious for wikipedia's purposes. We are not interested in what may be true but what is verifiably true. Wikipedia isn't the place to bring original analysis or material and promote one's own original pet theory.4meter4 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
You are obfuscating the issue by overstating the verifiability of the story and misapplying what wp:verifiable policy comes from. It comes from the evaluation of the sources themselves, not an authoritative decree that some sources are always right (ie GREL). This issue is specifically addressed While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Do you believe it's ok for WP to make articles based on secondary sources that are not supported by primary sources? This is the crux of the problem. I think it's a bad idea. Verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. When we click through and down the rabbit hole on this article, we find what I put in the other talk section. Primary sources that are like this story, but a far cry from it. This should be a concern for technically verifiable content from GREL sources, but very possibly false information. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
: Getting back to the DYK nomination, thank you Tamzin for your reply. Approval for ALT1; you're all set to go! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but while DYK reviews are a lightweight, one-editor process in straightforward cases, where issues arise it becomes a consensus process just like everything else on WP. There are three editors here objecting, and at least two more on the article Talk. This cannot run until that discussion is resolved. EEng 00:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
That's fine. I will say that this debate would be better served by keeping it at the article, rather than letting it spill over here. The discussion here should be about the merits and qualifications of this DYK nomination, which, at least to me, seems OK. So—my approval stands, albeit contingent on the fracas over the Grant article being settled in its favor. If this is going to turn into an internet shouting match, however, then I withdraw from reviewing this DYK nomination. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
There's no shouting. I simply noted above that there was a dispute on the article Talk. Others decided to fork the discussion here. EEng 03:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
A pair of well-sourced and interesting articles. AGF on the citations via ProQuest. Earwig detects a possible copyright violation for the arrest article, but this appears to be because of the extensive quotes included therein. The general thrust of the ALT is very appealing, but needs a little tweaking. Seeing West's image, his name mentioned first, and especial mention of his race (although it appeared not to be relevant to the arrest) led me to briefly misperceive this DYK nom being about him. If the syntax were reordered—say by first mentioning the arrest, then the officer involved, and finally Grant's tacit refusal to invoke presidential immunity—that would make the subjects of this DYK nom clearer to a reader. I would also suggest replacing the image used here with one of Grant; in this case, it's the arrestee and his office that make this incident notable and relevant. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
: Getting back to the DYK nomination, thank you Tamzin for your reply. Approval for ALT1; you're all set to go! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but while DYK reviews are a lightweight, one-editor process in straightforward cases, where issues arise it becomes a consensus process just like everything else on WP. There are three editors here objecting, and at least two more on the article Talk. This cannot run until that discussion is resolved. EEng 00:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
