Talk:Benjamin Harrison/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Harrison on US Postage

I restored some of what was striped away from the section, as it was left reading like a dictionary with no introduction and background material offered to the average inquiring reader. Also, the section name does not have to have United States spelled out, as the full name is already on the stamps and many page sections highlighting stamps use 'U.S.' instead of the full name, which is usually used in page titles. Examples: Grant on US Postage - Sherman on U.S. postage - Scott on U.S. Postage - Franklin on U.S. Postage - Garfield on U.S. postage. Also, as wikipedia is not a dictionary editors are encouraged to include perspective and background information so long as it is relevant to the section. -- See: Writing better articles -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What you've written is fine for an article about Presidents on stamps, like the one linked in the "See also" section. This, however, is a biographical article about a man's life and times. A lot of bio articles on wiki attract these lists of everything named after the man, commemorating the man, every time his name is mentioned on The Simpsons, et cetera. What we're trying to do is build an encyclopedia of top-notch articles, not of exhaustive lists of all things related to various subjects. This article, in particular, is a Featured Article, which means it should be kept to a high standard of prose, citation, and structure which, no offense, your additions do not meet. I'd like to reduce the whole section to one sentence in the "Post-presidency" section, with maybe one picture of a stamp. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Coemgenus 12:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coemgenus, thank you for your prompt reply. The article about Harrison, or any President, is much more than a simple biography, as to tell his life story is also to tell about a major chapter in American history. One could very easily take the approach you suggested with presidential biographies and apply it to other areas. Ie. Battles, Court cases, etc are not about a President's biography per se and these topics could also be reduced to a simple list with a few sentences about each. The section covers US Postage only to the extent that it reflects the president's popularity, with a couple of examples for background. There are a number of featured articles (Daniel Webster - William Tecumseh Sherman) where a short passage about the stamps that honor these individuals has been well received, as Postage stamps are in of themselves part of American history and involve the very same government that these individuals were a part of. The section has three stamps, out of six that were issued in his honor. This advent should get more coverage than just one or two sentences, per Writing better articles. In any event, I hope the section is a welcomed addition. I have trimmed the original passage down a bit. I am of the school of thought where I try to give the reader more than enough about any given topic, within practical limits of course. I believe the section with its few sentences is within those limits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's ignore, for the moment, whether the subject matter is too tangential for inclusion in a biographical article. Even if it is relevant, the paragraph you've written is full of unsourced statements that would never survive a Featured Article Review. You write "The length of time between a president's death and the issuance of a postage stamp in his honor is often indicative to the popularity of the president." What source do you have for this other than your own opinion? "The controversial Andrew Jackson didn't receive a stamp until 18 years after his death." Besides having more to do with Jackson than Harrison, what source do you have for the assertion that this fact is due to Jackson's "controversial" nature? It seems to me that Jackson was far more popular in his day than Harrison was in his: Jackson won the popular vote three times; Harrison never won it once. You write above that you've added similar passages to other featured articles, but haven't these all been added after the article achieved featured status? Questions like the ones I've asked here are the type you'll get at FAC if you tried to add this sort of information. That's what I meant when I said, above, that it wasn't up to FA standards. --Coemgenus 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Full of unsourced statements"? There were only a few sentences in the passage and the only item that was unsourced was the bit about Jackson's controversial status effecting the delayed stamp issue in his honor, for which I replaced it with a similar statement about Harding, which is sourced. Again, the article is more than a biography, it is a chapter of American history. This is why there is much material that goes far beyond that of a simple biography. As for the stamp sections in the other feature articles, yes they were added after FA status was awarded but nonetheless have been there for some time and have received no objections from the thousands of viewers that visit those pages every day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not a biography? It's entitled "Benjamin Harrison" and it's about Benjamin Harrison. If it were a "chapter of history" it would be entitled something like "History of the United States (1865–1918)," which is about a chapter of history. --Coemgenus 22:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a biography, I said the article is more than a biography, as is evidenced by the material and photos of David Josiah Brewer and USS Baltimore, for openers. Those items could also be removed/reduced for the same reasons. Again, if we take the strict biographical approach to the article, it would reduce the scope of the page considerably. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to a section about the President on postage stamps, I do stand by my edit that has been reverted. I see no relevance at all of "The first Lincoln stamp was issued only a year after his death; Warren G. Harding received a memorial stamp only one month after his death at the insistence of a grieving nation." to Benjamin Harrison. I am also rather confused by the tildes in the image caption. They do not serve any purpose and seem quite out of place; there is no other precedent on Wikipedia to use them other than your placement in other stamp sections. There is also excess formatting in the images. There is no reason for the captions (or even the images) to be centered, and table syntax (see Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Galleries) or a WP:Gallery tag should be used instead of bulky html. Reywas92^Talk 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The time elapsed between the death of Harrison and when his first stamp was issued was compared to Lincoln and Harding to give the reader a perspective of this affair. Had I mentioned the Lincoln stamp by itself it would in that event be somewhat irrelevant. As for text centering, this is usually employed under paintings, portraits and the like and works very well with stamp images which are very similar to a portrait and gives the text a much better appearance and I see no reason why it should not be employed in such cases. After all, Wikipedia gives the editor an assortment of tools to work with in the overall formatting of an article. As for 'bulky html' anyone who has trouble with a simple 'table' arrangement should not be editing articles in the first place. I don't mean to sound curt but it seems too many editors assume that the text and formatting should be employed with the mind that the common denominator of the average reader/editor is at the 3rd grade level. I was hoping that the extra care that went into image/text appearance would be welcomed in a Featured Article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I had trouble with the html, but it's all but gone from the rest of Wikipedia and brackets and pipes are a hell of a lot more concise and easier. I think that people can understand that the time shows Harrison's importance without the comparisons, especially with the use of "only". The excessive "at the insistence of a grieving nation" is what really brings it to irrelevance. And it's the tildes I really hate. Are they for decoration or something, because they just don't work. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Reywas. I'm willing to compromise and accept some stamp talk in the articles, but not the whole section you've added here and elsewhere, and not the weird formatting. Why not add a sentence or two, integrated into the flow of the rest of the prose, with a picture or two and a link to your larger stamp article? Coemgenus 12:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What is this concern about centering? It looks nice and doesn't look auto-generated like some captions and gives the page a distinguished look apart from the average article. It certainly doesn't look "wierd". I will remove the part about 'length of time comparisons', even though I have already explained it was included for perspective. I will also remove the tildes. This will be my second compromise. Also, this is the first time I have had objections about a stamp section on a presidents page. National leaders have always influenced a nation's stamps and currency. Again, they have been well received and have have had no objections from editors and the many thousands of readers that view president's pages every day. I certainly hope you are not more concerned about 'status' than you are about the average reader who would like to see this material. Also, if you feel stamp info should be on a separate page, that opens the door for a lot of things to be on a separate page, beginning with photos of people who are not Harrison. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, you can't assume that thousands of readers support you because they aren't complaining! The "average reader" wouldn't necessarily "like to see this material." I like philately, but I doubt the readers are as interested in stamps as you are. You possibly didn't have objections on other pages because they do not have people who maintain it like this one, and we aren't counting compromises. In terms of conciseness, the following markups look almost identical but use much less formatting:

• Selected issues
• 
  1st Harrison stamp
  Issue of 1903
• 
  Harrison
  Issue of 1926
• 
  Harrison
  Issue of 1938

Selected issues

1st Harrison stamp, Issue of 1903

Harrison, Issue of 1926

Harrison, Issue of 1938

I'm not opposed to centered text in itself, but it doesn't really create a "distinguished look", nor is it necessary. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If there was a real issue about centering or choice of markup in all of these articles 'someone' would have said 'something' by now, as many of the applications have been there for months. Again many thousands of readers and many editors have said nothing, and as you must know, people are more prone to make objections first than they are about making compliments or constructive suggestions, unfortunately. Also, there are stamp sections on several other feature articles and other president's pages that get thousands of views per day, as I have already pointed out earlier in the discussion. Unless someone has plans about tinkering with the image markup on an every other day basis, choice of mark-up / html should not be an issue to anyone who knows how to edit an article. There are many types of mark-up / html applications that are far more complex than a simple table arrangement. Shall we begin purging all markup that is inconvenient to a few novice editors? As for what is necessary, that can include a whole range of things that are commonly employed in the articles. i.e.Color, text size, image size, not to mention all of the material that someone could also claim is 'not necessary'. Unless we are dealing with clear MOS and other violations, I think our efforts would be better served in building articles, rather than striping them down so they read like a dictionary. The yardstick you are advocating could be used throughout any article if one was so inclined. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument that readers are saying nothing is utterly meaningless; if they don't like something they don't even know what to do. That editors are saying nothing shows that they don't care; some, however, do. Honestly, I don't care if the images are centered, it does look nice when presented as a small gallery. Yes, inconvenient markup should be purged: WP:MOS#Miscellaneous does say "Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing." It also says "Formatting such as font size, blank space, and color...should not be set in articles except in special cases." Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Styles and markup options. I think it's great that you are providing information about stamps in biographies, but I ask that you use simple wikiformatting and refrain from using large fonts. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I replaced the HTML with our usual wiki language. Coemgenus 22:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the galley doesn't look bad (esp with the centering!  :-), so Okay, no big issue either way so long as the end result is just as nice. As for not receiving any objections, I wouldn't say this is "meaningless", as so many editors are quick to undo items with little to no valid reasons and too often with no discussion. Both of you have been more than fair. Hey, what do you think of the stamps? Check out the detail and artwork on the 1st Harrison stamp. Beautiful aye? Merry xmas, or other blessings!! All the best. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Harrison on US postage continued

OK, as far as I can tell we've agreed on the formatting of the images, but the larger issues are still undecided, viz., (1) is this section trivia, or should it be included, (2) if it should be included, should it be re-written to exclude original research, and (3) is it adequately cited? --Coemgenus 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not trivia as it represents official US government acts. Collect (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Further, the postage was issued in the president's honor by the very same government that president was a apart of. A president's influence on the nation's stamps and currency, while not as sensational as perhaps other events, is still a feature item in any president's legacy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not every act of the government is non-trivial. We don't list, for instance, every vote he took in the Senate or every ambassador he nominated. And these are acts by the subject of the article. Coemgenus 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this: he's also on money and had a Liberty ship named after him. What if we consolidated all of these, with approrpiate references, into a "Honors and commemorations" section like the one in Grover Cleveland? Coemgenus 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Lumping stamps, ships, money, voting records, etc into one section is sort of reckless don't you think? More thought needs to go into that one. Each one of these topics deserves its own paragraph(s) or section. Can you provide us with an example of something the government did (aside from having the Whitehouse lawn mowed) that you consider trivial so we can better understand your opinion and your apparent attempt to trivialize the history and the issuance of stamps and coins? A president's voting record is hardly a trivial affair and is not an adequate comparison, as these records can and have effected various outcomes in history. It would be nice to see a Nav-box or chart with presidential voting records on every president's page so students and investigators of history can have access to these things also. As you just pointed out the B.Harrison page is lacking various information some of which deserves its own section. FA status doesn't mean the page can not improve, and acting out of fear of losing FA status alone is no excuse to stand in the way of a page's further development. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Further development

I think the stamps a person appeared on is great information that should be included, but I wouldn't be opposed to having a section for all honors and namesakes that would incorporate stamps. However, I don't see any others in the article yet, so a stamp-only section is fine. The short Post-presidency section could also be expanded to be Post-presidency and legacy. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The information exists, but I didn't want to add it without discussing it first here, lest it provoke an edit war. If no one objects, I'll add it this weekend. --Coemgenus 18:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The advent and history behind 'presidents on postage' is directly affected by a president's passing and also involves acts of the government and deserves its own section and should not be ignorantly lumped in and compared with misc items that occur outside of this realm. i.e. statues, a Harrison T-shirt' etc. As for items like a president's 'voting record', this is by no means a trivial affair. Absence of this info, (esp landmark votes) would leave quite a void on any president's page and also deserves a section or some sort of special attention. i.e. a chart or nav-box. As for a legacy or memorial section, there should be enough relevant material, in hand, before it is given a section. Gwillhickers (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you saying? That stamps are so important that they always deserve their own section, never to be "ignorantly lumped in and compared with" anything else? Why? I understand that you like stamps, but a biographical article shouldn't be reshaped to meet the demands of philately. And don't call me ignorant. You're becoming uncivil. --Coemgenus 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse the frank tone, but the questions you are asking all over again have been addressed several times now. When you attempt to relegate the topic of a nation's stamps, or currency, to that of statues, or whatever, it should be pointed out that the idea is not very well thought out. And again, the article is more than a biography, it is a chapter of American history called Benjamin Harrison, and as such the article involves all the history effected by his presidency, history that goes beyond the biographical. If we approach the article strictly from a biographical point of view we would have to eliminate or reduce the content of a number of things also. If you are going to prescribe use of a 'yardstick', please make sure you are ready to apply it everywhere, not just to a section of your choosing. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

The Scott catalogue has six volumes. The first volume, which I believe the citation in the article is meant to mean, has 1294 pages. On which page is the information in the cited sentence mentioned? --Coemgenus 13:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Scott catalogues use a fairly consistent numbering system from year to year, while the page numbering is less consistent. The main one for US stamps is the "Specialized Catalogue of US Stamps." In philatelic circles, the use of a "Scott catalogue number" is generally sufficient. Collect (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If the catalogue number is the standard way of citing these things, then that's fine with me. I just meant that there should be a citation more specific than just to the catalogue. Coemgenus 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Coemgenus has a point. While the numbering system for the Scotts Catalogue has remained unchanged (ie.The Alexander Graham Bell stamp will always be Scott #893) the page numbers do change from year to year. In any event, one doesn't need a page number to check on a given stamp, all one needs is the name, date and denomination of the stamp, (ie.Washington, 1908, 3-cents) and with this information you can not only inquire into any year edition of Scotts but also use the info to search the web or any of a number of other stamp and postal history catalogs. One could site a page number, but unless one has the same year edition it won't do much good. Also, while the US edition of Scotts catalog has a volume number, the Scotts US Specialized Catalogue edition is a stand alone volume, unnumbered, and it is to this catalog I make reference. Also, though I refer to Scotts I don't use any commercial reference number for any postage issue discussed in the pages of an encyclopedia, I use, name, date, etc. as these items remain consistent per any given US stamp catalogue.

As for my mention about a president's popularity in regards to the length of time his stamp appears, while the US post office has no official policy regarding this affair, the advent has been demonstrated a number of times. Among the most notable would be Warren Harding, who from overwhelming public pressure was honored with a memorial stamp only three months after he had died. The 1st Lincoln stamp was also prompted by public pressure. I originally made a comparative reference to Lincoln is support of the idea, but that item was striped from the article for 'biographical' reasons that don't seem to be enforced elsewhere on the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the USPS uses Scott numbers - making all this rather moot :). Collect (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jan.7: Actually, the USPS doesn't offer images and info on stamp issues that go back quite that far, if at all. Their main page doesn't even hint at any sort of stamp archive or list. Current stamps are available, but I didn't see any use of Scott numbers. Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect: either would be great. I just wanted something that a reader could use to look it up. Is the USPS system online? It might make it easier to look up. Coemgenus 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia's pages there are many references to various published texts that are not available for viewing on-line, but because the references are generally recognized names they are usually more than adequate as a reference. A good example of many references to published text (w/ no link) is on the Alexander Graham Bell page. If a reader wants to research an item further there is usually other areas he or she can check. For example, an excellent online philatelic reference can be found at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum. Just type in the name of the subject (ie.Benjamin Harrison) and click on 'search'. If you do a google search, all one has to do is type in 'US stamps' and a number of sources will present themselves also. I have provided two references in the postage section of the page: One to Scotts, one to the Smithsonian. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another compromise proposal re:stamps, etc.

I've come up with another proposal for a compromise with regard to the stamps section. I think this draft here adequately summarizes the history of Harrison on stamps, currency, and other notable memorials. The facts are, I believe, adequately cited and the prose is up to FA standards, but I'd certainly be interested in suggestions. What do you think? Reasonable compromise? --Coemgenus 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We have already been down this road. Stamps and currency are not memorials. Again, please introduce more material regarding memorials, etc, with an adequate write up, before you start thinking about taking what little material you have, just so you can lump it all in together with the postage section, which, btw, is a topic that has had no issues in any other presidential page. -- Also, the gallery format does not work very well when used in among the text. 'There is just too much space around the captions, and your current sample arrangement runs off the right side of the page, and the text is not centered. btw. So I am thinking about bringing back the table format, as it works much better, as it does everywhere else. Using the one 'table' command is using html sparingly, and there are good reasons to use it. This should not have been an issue in the first place. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that in response to my compromise proposal, you've added even more stamps information to the article. Why don't we hold off on any more changes until other editors have had a chance to weigh in? --Coemgenus 13:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what you call a compromise? I have added historical information that was missing from the article. No mention of Harrison's postmaster general even! There was not one item in that section than didn't belong on Harrison's page. Please define the reasons/MOS issues why you, again, have stripped factual and relevant information away from the article. I will wait until this evening before I restore the damage done to the section if you haven't done so already. Also, the section is not just about 'paper postage stamps'. You need to familiarize yourself with the role the PO has played in US history altogether, starting with Benjamin Franklin, the first PMG. Under Harrison, the nation's first commemorative postage was released at the 1893 'expo. That is history. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I only wish to find consensus before making these major changes. There is no need for your ultimatum. You and I have said our pieces: you want more about stamps, and I don't. Why not wait for other editors to add their opinions? --Coemgenus 20:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually think that this draft is a much better way to summarize information about the way President Harrison was honored and memorialized. You get much more information in the draft proposal about a wider range of topics than just about his stamps while still keeping the visual art from the stamps in the article. I like the draft table, and I think centering the caption-text would actually make it a bit more difficult to read. The table does appear to run wide on my screen, too. So maybe removing the 1938 stamp (there are already two other stamp images, both of which show his face better) would solve the spacing problem and still allow users to see the $5 note. In any event, I think the draft is a much better and cleaner way of displaying the most noteworthy of Harrison's honors. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I made the draft section on a widescreen monitor, so I guess I'm not surprised that it's a bit wide. Maybe pulling one of the images would be best -- I'd even be willing to ditch the banknote if it would help secure more editors' agreement. In 2012, his dollar coin comes out and that image, when available, should fit better since its dimensions will be the same vertically and horizontally. I agree about the centering, too; it matches the formatting on other articles, so readers will find it easy to understand. --Coemgenus 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite a bit is being overlooked here. All I did was add some info to an existing section that has already been established through discussion and consensus. Presidents and US Postage (not just stamps) have always been hand in glove issues to begin with, the Post Master general being a cabinet member, for openers. Historical information was omitted about Harrison's Post Master General and the fact that the Harrison administration pushed the production of the nation's first commemorative stamp through in time for the Worlds Fair, better known then as the Colombian Exposition of 1893. This is an event that Harrison attended and gave a speech for. This is one of the feature events in Harrison's history, whether it relates to 'stamps' or not. You can't try to block it with such narrow reasoning simply by saying 'it's about stamps'. The Expo' was not just about stamps either, but its mention was well placed in that section, per the postmaster and the nation's first commemorative postage stamps being issued at this event, thanks to Harrison and his Postmaster General.

Unlike most other Presidents it was Harrison and his cabinet that made major post office history. Why is this information not welcomed? Because it's about 'stamps'? This is a unreasonable. As a compromise I omitted one of the stamp images and changed the section title from Harrison on US Postage to Harrison and US Postage because the section was now including material about the PMG and one of the nation's landmark events that occurred during Harrison's term, the Colombian Exposition of 1893, for which the nation's first commemorative postage was made, thanks to Harrison. We need to find a way to include this information AND include the memorial/legacy section that was previously suggested. That would be better than a compromise, it would be something that would benefit everyone. If someone wants to include a memorial section and put statues and other things in there, feel free to do so. But please do not create a section with ulterior designs on a section that has already been established through discussion and consensus. Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have anything against stamps or postage or whatever. Why I think it should be left out is that it's tangential (at best) to Harrison and his Presidency. None of his scholarly biographers mention it for even one sentence. This is an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of every thing the man ever did, and certainly not of everything done after he was President (like the Expo) or after he was dead (like the stamps). Further, I don't think there was ever consensus to add anything; I and the other editors here just got tired of arguing with you. --Coemgenus 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it has been you all along that has introduced 'arguments' none of which has ever held much water. You first made a deletion without discussion and argued that the page is a biography. It was pointed out to you twice that the page covers info that goes beyond Harrison's personal biography as the man was a US president. When your argument failed you then complained about 'centering' calling it "weird" and it was pointed out that there was no MOS issue here and that it looks nice. When that approach didn't go anywhere you tried to trivialize the advent of US postage stamps. When it is pointed out to you by another user and myself that US Postage and stamp issues are official US government acts you ignore that also and go off on another venture: "How about this:.." and start entertaining the idea of a memorial section, which now you are doing all over again. All along you have not introduced one solid reason that justifies the major deletion of relevant historical material. Now you have deleted information about Harrsion and his Postmaster's role behind the nation's first commemorative stamps thinking that affairs of the US Post office is just 'stamp' related, which also ignores the idea that the World Expo' was a national landmark event that Harrison attended and gave a speech for. You speak of compromise all the while you want to remove the section entirely and lump everything into a memorial section and in the process are willing to omit/ignore major historical events directly involving Harrison. Again, you need to supply viable reasons for your actions and explain your illegal deletions. You have to offer more than 'I would like to see', you need to supply legitimate reasons. I am still willing to work on a fair compromise, again. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Coemgenus's draft to the present section. The draft is broader and covers more ground, and the current section includes a trivial and unnecessary statement hedged about with too many qualifiers ("only relatively few US Presidents": so, it isn't unique, special or particularly notable) and an unsourced assertion ("indicative of his high popularity"). Also, on minor points, the formatting is wrong as there shouldn't be spaces between footnotes or between footnotes and the punctuation. The word "postage" in the section title should not be capitalized. On the draft, you could wrap images by using Template:Image gallery.

On the insertion of more details on Harrison and postage, I note that the citations used are specialist sources. But this is not a specialist article; there is one here. This is a general article, and should employ summary style with specialized details given in daughter articles. Only the most important points, which are covered in major biographies, should be covered here. In sum: follow the sources: If reputable scholarly biographies do not cover the material, then it is unlikely to be suitable for this article. DrKiernan (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You are saying the sources are too good? In any event, no specialized stamp information was covered. If the article ventured into 'quantities issued', 'paper type', printing methods, etc, then your concern for 'specialized' information' would be warranted. As it is, I would like to mention that Harrison and his postmaster are responsible for the nation's first commemorative postage stamps, that they were pushed through in time for the 1893 World's Fair and that Harrison and his postmaster general were present there and Harrison gave a speech. This is history, not some trivial affair.

No, I didn't comment on the quality of the sources. My point on the sources is that they are stamp-based not Harrison-based, which indicates that the material is interesting or relevant from the point of view of stamps but not from Harrison. So, the information is better suited to an article on postage rather than one on Harrison. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. K: I'll try that adjustment to the template to make it display better. I hope we can put this issue to rest soon. --Coemgenus 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) I disagree that the stamps are "tangential" considering the circumstances of thier issue, and the fact that there is no subarticle abut Harrison into which they would rationally fit. If sufficient material for a subarticle on Harrison is found, then this article would only have a paragraph summarizing the subarticle, and a wikilink thereto. And since "otherstuffexists" is well-known on WP, the mere fact that a fact is found in two articles does not mean it should be excised from one of them :). Collect (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Insert: Good points. The issue of the nation's first commemorative postage occurred under Harrison and his Postmaster General, a cabinet member. This is indeed "tangential to Harrison and his Presidency". Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not tangential? Then find me any scholarly biography of Harrison or encyclopedia article about him that mentions stamps. I've looked. There isn't one. --Coemgenus 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have to and you can't judge the relevancy of an event simply by 'claiming' it's not covered in any "scholarly biography" which btw, you have yet to prove. Do you have a list of what sources should be considered and which should not, along with your explanation that provides actual justification for such a narrow approach to information? Coemgenus, you have clutched at one straw after another and have yet to put one solid reason on the table to support your ever far-reaching and ambiguous arguments, such as they are. It's time to let writers move forward with the article. It is understood that we are dealing with a Feature Article and that extra care and consideration should be employed, which has always been the case here. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I prove it's not in a scholarly biography? I can tell you that I've read the biographies cited here, and it's not in them. If you want to add information, you have to prove its veracity and justify its relevance, not I. Find an encyclopedia article about Harrison that mentions stamps with his picture on it. Find a biography. Find a history textbook, even. Other editors and I have given lots of different reasons why your contributions are wrong because there are lots of things wrong with them. But instead of listening to my arguments, or Reywas92's, or JasonCNJ's, or DrKiernan's, you just accuse us of inconsistency, or bad faith. These editors and I have worked on featured articles like this one for years and know what goes into them. What you've added is, for all of the reasons we've listed above, not up to those standards. What you're doing is not making a better encyclopedia article, but making a worse one. --Coemgenus 04:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Section move

The 'Cabinet' section was moved to the location proceeding 'Inauguration', as this is a more appropriate location. Why it was listed after 'Foreign policy' and several other sections I don't quite understand. I checked history to see if the TOC order was this way when the article became a F.A. in July of 2009. -- It was. So now I have reservations about such a move only because it seems that any change to what was in place when the article became FA is met with automatic opposition. I also understand that user Coemgenus and others have helped greatly in the effort to achieve FA status and have been naturally watchful and (perhaps over) protective of the page. So on that note I am of course very flexible. Also, if you think this is a better location then I would also move 'Judicial appointments' after 'Cabinet', both of which should follow the 'Inauguration' section in my opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The way it was is the same on every president's article. That doesn't mean it has to stay that way -- there's no rule or anything that says cabinet sections go at the end -- it's just always been that way. I think it looks better not to have a chart right in the middle of the prose, but if there's consensus to move it, it won't break my heart or anything. --Coemgenus 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I get what you're saying about the cabinet appointments occuring early in a president's term, but judicial appointments happen throughout the term. It's not a big deal, but I think it looks better at the end. --Coemgenus 18:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding "specialist sources", please be reminded that most reputable publications often refer to 'specialist sources' to cite their own information. The Scott catalog was referred to for the stamps themselves only, as 'Scott' is one of 'the' best sources to quote. Scott is not a specialized work. It is a catalog of US stamps in chronological order. Its information is general and also in summary format. As for the Smithsonian Institution, they present postal history and all other history involved with it (there is much) also in summary like form for the average reader, and the Smithsonian Institution's archives altogether are among the most reputable of sources when it comes to American history. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Scott Specialized Catalogue" is, indeed, specialized. And it is not just a "list" by any means. Collect (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the point about specialist sources. No one is saying they're not reputable or accurate. We're just saying that a general article should have general sources. An article about presidents and postage should use sources specific to it, as you have done correctly in that article. This more general article about Harrison's life and times should use sources that pertain to that. --Coemgenus 13:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I always thought one should use the best sources available. It seems all you are doing now is trying to block sources, knowing that information regarding postage stamps and the post office is not usually covered in general texts. As an editor you must know from your own writing experience that sometimes in order to provide a citation for an item one most look to other than general sources. This does not mean that the history associated with it is specialist, or the references are any less accurate, so this whole approach is really academeic and does not begin to impeach the credibility of the sources provided, which btw are among the most reputable. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, no one has said that the Scott catalogue is not credible. What we're saying is: use specialist sources for a specialist article and general sources for a general article. That long presidential stamps article you've put so much work into is a specialist article. Specialist sources make sense there. This article is a general biography. General sources make sense here. --Coemgenus 13:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet you present no actual reason why one can't use a specialist source to cite a point in a general article. Using Scott or the Smithsonian's Institution as a source is in my opinion, is a more credible source than most. Credibility should be the major consideration, all others are academic. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be a section on stamps and postal history?

An editor wants to include a section on stamps bearing Harrison's visage in this article. Others disagree, wanting rather less information on stamps and wishing instead to include it in a general section on honors and memorials to Harrison. Coemgenus 04:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Coemgenus again misrepresents the issue. First, not everyone is in complete agreement with Coemgenus. Secondly, he insists that the section is nothing more than a section for 'stamps', continuously ignoring the history and what has been explained to him several times now. Harrison's stamp section was already in place, through discussion. Other information was added about Harrison and his postmaster, and how they pushed the nation's first commemorative postage through in time for the Worlds fair of 1893 which Harrison and his Postmaster attended and which Harrison delivered a speech for. Stamps are involved but obviously only in a topographical manner. There is much US history here, and Coemengus continues to assert that its all about 'stamps'. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A section about the stamps is certainly reasonable. As stamps are not "memorials", such a section would be odd in catenation of differing topics. Collect (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I believe that if a stamp has been created for someone then that should be mentioned in the article. However if there is enough content to create an article for it more than a stub then that would be good as well but there should still be a mention of it to some degree in the article. --Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The section in question formerly had enough info' for a stub(+) but I think this material would be better presented with its own small section here. User:Gwillhickers/Reference|This is the layout I had before]]. It covers Harrison on postagestamps, and a bit about the role Harrison's wife and postmaster played in the production of various US postage. This former section also covers the role of Harrison and his Postmaster who attended the World's Fair of 1893 where the country's first commemorative postage was issued. Whatever format we chose some if not all of this historical information should be made available to the average reader. Memorials and statues should have their own section or subsection. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion was this draft here. Do you think that would work? --Coemgenus 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We could also make a 'Legacy' section with a sub-section for postage related material ('Post Office') and one sub-section called 'Honors and memorials', as again the former are acts of government involving the president, the postmaster, and others, while statues, etc, do not relate to any history involving Congress, the Postmaster, the public, etc. I still feel lumping all of these topics into one small section does a disservice to each of the topics that is stuffed into this one small space. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you're going on about statues. The draft I wrote concerns stamps, coins, and a ship (all "acts of government") and his home being made into a museum. They're all roughly equivalent to the average reader --Coemgenus 19:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, postage (and currency) are acts of the government (i.e. the President, Congress, the Postmaster) and are not to be compared to a statue or some other memorial. As for the ship, I would bet the average reader would love to see a small (sub?) section about this vessel also. These items deserve more than a cursory mention and should not be lumped in with statues or whatever other sort of memorial. Again, there is just too much history here that is being suppressed. Clearly this is not the best course of action and clearly this is next to no compromise. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not rehash the whole thing. The point of listing this RfC is to get other editors' opinions. Yours and mine already cover this talk page. --Coemgenus 22:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but since you made reference to your draft to the new member of the discussion it is only fair that he see what the alternative approach is all about. Also, I would like to add a couple of sentences to the intro to the section, as there is no need to have the section poorly written (because of the interruption/deletions/debate) while we wait for this to be resolved again. I suppose you can delete it, also, but at least there will be a record of the historical and background info that was offered for this section while it also serves as something to refer to for those who want to consider other approaches. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You added even more? I thought we were waiting for consensus and all that. I'm not going to revert-war over it, but I will recommend you make use of the "show preview" function when you edit. The text is riddled with errors. --Coemgenus 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Even more"? The entire section is only a few sentences long. As I have already explained, when editors make a decision about the section they should see what it is you are trying to delete and stuff into a memorial section. Between the misrepresentation it received with your RfC request and with the way the section presently looked people might tend to think it is nothing more than a 'stamp page', rather than a notable segment of Harrison's history. As for any text errors, it would have been helpful if you were more specific, and why didn't you fix them? When I encounter minor errors in text, spelling, etc, unless it's a flagrant violation or some such, I simply fix any problems, i.e. in the spirit of Wikipedia, without trying to create yet another issue. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Regarding your "riddled with errors" claim. there was one textual error ('importance' changed to 'important'). One. Please be more careful/fair with your representations. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the other two. --Coemgenus 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Under scores are a syntax issue. i.e.Yet another issue? In any event characterizations like "riddled" do not help matters, Coemengus. You have presneted some legitimate concerns, no need for this sort of thing. Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a request on my talk page that I comment here, I think this is is the discussion meant. Personally, I would reserve philatelic tributes for a sub article and leave a see also. I just don't see stamps as a part of a high-level biography of a prominent person. This is my personal opinion, not fully MOS-based. Make of it what you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in and leaving your input, however, could you to look into this a little bit further than the paper postage stamps involved? The stamps themselves are only a small part of the US history that is involved here and involves Harrison, his postmaster, etc. This is the layout I had in mind before it was reverted. If you have any second thoughts they would be appreciated. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph places undue weight on matters which are not particularly relevant to an understanding of Harrison's presidency. The first five sentences relate to Wanamaker not Harrison. The sixth sentence is simply the usual presidential pleasantries that grace unimportant speeches at social and public events. The final two sentences are relevant to the postal service but not to Harrison. I would not support the inclusion of such material as it is not important or relevant enough to the topic of this article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying for months now: it's all a bit tangential for a biographical article. --Coemgenus 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reasserting/updating your opinion. I am willing to make any necessary edits, per the compromise that Coemengus had originally introduced. The question now is whether or not all/most of this material should be eliminated and cursory mention of the topic(s) be put into a memorial section along with statues or other memorials. Not all presidents merit a section about the Post Office/stamps, but in my opinion Harrison clearly does. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, per your argument: The second paragraph places undue weight on matters which are not particularly relevant to an understanding of Harrison's presidency. This assertion is highly discressionary, as the same argument could be used regarding several items on the page. i.e. It could easily be 'argued' that the photo of Walter Q. Gresham, on Harrison's page gives this individual undue weight. On the same note it could also be said that the section on the Civil War, along with its numerous links, are also "a bit tangential" to Harrison's presidency. However, this 'biography' is about a US President and therefore its scope isn't/shouldn't be limited to things strictly biographical, and has already been addressed several times now. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

(They sure are taking their sweet time over at RfC). I am having second thoughts about the postage/stamp section on the Harrison page, that perhaps there is too much mention of various items. I still think a 'catch all' section is not exactly the best approach but instead I have something else in mind that perhaps will make all parties comfortable. We could make a 'Legacy' section, with small sub sections for 'postage' (of course) one for 'currency', and one for 'memorials', and maybe one for paintings and other items. I am going to edit the current postage section on the Harrison page, remove two of the stamp images and try to condense some of the info' making cursory mention of the nation's first commemorative postage stamps. This is what I hope will be a sub section to a 'legacy' section. Below is a rough draft/outline of what I have in mind.

Legacy
Harrison has a long and interesting legacy..

Postage

More than most presidents, Harrison...

Currency

Currency material, images, etc.

Memorials

Harrison has been the subject of many paintings and statues, etc...

Your thoughts please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The discussion we've had here over these past few months has made me consider what should and should not be in a biographical article. The life of a famous man like Harrison could fill many pages -- indeed, there's a three-volume biography of him cited in the references. But, as an encyclopedia, we must be succinct and include only truly relevant content. Things that affected the subject's life should be explained, briefly, where necessary. Things that affected him not at all should be left out. I realize now that even the short, well-cited draft I proposed is nothing but a gussied-up trivia section. Every biographical article used to carry such a section and the project is much improved by their deletion. I don't want to retard that progress by re-adding them. My opinion (and, I believe, the consensus among the editors who have commented since the RfC was launched) is to keep this tangential material out altogether. Where postal history is relevant, like in that article on U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps, it should flourish, but where it is not relevant, it should disappear. --Coemgenus 14:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how personally involved Harrison was with the actual promotion of the nation's first commemorative stamps, but I think this one event is worth a brief mention, esp since his wife was involved and should get at least a mention in a legacy (or whatever) section. I know the event didn't alter the course of history, but it is sort of a nice way to bring the page to a close: Harrison's stamp with his wife and all. I know if the page was an essay it would be sort of a poetic way to close, but alas the page is not an essay (grumble). Bear in mind, it is the last section, a legacy(?) section where things that are perhaps "tangential" are often touched on briefly. And remember, this is a president's bio' so its scope is somewhat broader. RfC seems to have forgotten about us. I'm sure they haven't but it seems so. We haven't heard from a whole lot of people, but we do seem to have an idea of consensus. Some agree, some don't, with varying degrees of agreement/disgreement. I considered some of DrK's comments and agree that the postmaster stuff was getting a little too far afield. I even asked him to come back after editing/scaling down the existing section for another comment. At this point I am very flexible. Let's do something! I can't hold my breath much longer. :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Other thoughts: -- It should be remembered that 'postal history' is still history, just as Civil War history is history, each can involve trivial things, each can involve significant events. This is what I think should be weighed foremost. The issuance of the nation's first commemortive postage was no trivial event and was met with much national fanfare. Perhaps a trivia section isn't the way to go, as I have all along objected to the idea of cramming a lot of stuff into one such section -- esp the postage material, which is not trivial in this case. Perhaps the section as it is now, scaled down with Harrison's first stamp, making mention of this one landmark event is not a bad way to go after all. It involves postal history, but it also involves 'plain ole' history. The stamp itself should be displayed just because it is the first Harrison stamp. Gwillhickers (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat myself -- this page is long enough. I think the material you've added is tangential because it isn't about Harrison's life, nor did it affect him in any way. I think it should be removed. If there's not consensus for complete removal, I'd recommend this as a compromise (though I think even that is mostly trivia. --Coemgenus 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Length of the page is far from a consideration 'here' as the Harrison page is only 59 k, much shorter than most president's pages. It would seem the Harrison page, which has not seen a new section or any substantial additions since it became a FA, is lacking information, as many of the sections are short and possibly incomplete. There are also other areas of the page where perhaps the info becomes too tangential to Harrrison's life. It can easily be said that the info/photo of Walter Q. Gresham is somewhat tangential, perhaps an UNDUE weight issue even, as all he did was run against Harrison for the senate and lost. Yet he gets one of the largest photos on the page(!). The image of the 1st Harrison stamp of course has Harrison's picture and is much smaller. The idea that info/photo's of people who are not Harrison can be allowed, while the info'/image of his postage stamp is not seems to defy all reasoning, also. The proposed section should be weighed with the same considerations. It seems that conditions are being presented for this section that are not used in some of the other sections. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Page lengths:

Harry S. Truman, 144 k

Gerald Ford, 142 k

Warren G. Harding, 140 k

Woodrow Wilson 105 k

Dwight D. Eisenhower 101 k

Ulysses S. Grant, 102 k

Herbert Hoover, 92 k

Grover Cleveland, 90 k

Rutherford B. Hayes 81 k

Calvin Coolidge, 79 k

James A. Garfield, 63 k

Also, your proposed section is just about as long as the one I am proposing: very short. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have perhaps lost some objectivity here. Looking at your proposal you have included more stamp images than are in the existing scaled down section and have included many more links (six!) to specialized stamp related information. Great links I might add. Well.. as it seems you can live with a 'catch all' section that has more stamp images and about the same amount of 'stamp' info' than does the section I have authored I now don't quite understand this prolonged issue. -- Also, the idea of 'trivial' in this case is without any actual defined basis and runs contrary to several national events and to the various acts of the US government, not to mention Harrison's wife, that were all involved. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the difference: Gresham was Harrison's political rival. They knew each other. They interacted. And, most importantly, all of Harrison's biographers discuss Gresham's role in Harrison's political career. Gresham is someone who actually influenced Harrison's life. Now, consider the stamps. Harrison never laid eyes on them. They were published after his death and had no impact on him. And, again, most importantly, his biographers never mention them. Gresham intersects Harrison's life; the stamps are tangential to it.

I think I wasn't clear when I said "this page is long enough". I meant that the talk page was very long, not the article. Sorry for the confusion. --Coemgenus 15:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

insert: Well, you did say 'this' page, so I should have caught it. You were expressing concern for a page so accordingly I assumed you meant 'the' page, the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While Harrison and Gresham knew each other, they were just rivals in the senate. Yes, he impacted Harrison's life, by losing, just as any other may have done if they had run against Harrison. Does this merit a picture bigger than the Harrison stamp? btw, Harrison also knew his wife, and if I'm not mistaken, they 'interacted' frequently. The only time she (2nd wife) is mentioned is when she marries Harrison, and when she dies. The article should offer 'something' about this women besides the fact that she was married and then died. Gresham gets a rather large picture and much more coverage than her. The small stamp section does this (mentions wife and a role she took part in), which I will admit, by itself doesn't sell the section, but it is quite an item and belongs in (the final chapter of?) Harrison's biography. Finally, the article covers more than those things that impacted Harrison's life, as it also covers things that 'Harrison' impacted on the nation. i.e.First commemorative stamps, the first 13c Harrison stamp. Again, it's the last section, a few sentences long, with one image.. and a nice way to close the page. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as the postage stamp section is concise, I have no issues with putting postage stamps in Presidential biographies. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- I've trimmed the section down considerably. If the section gets any more concise it will read like a dictionary. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As one of the past primary editors of this article, and editor of other presidential and famous American political biographies I am generally opposed to a separate postage stamp section. Generally, I prefer to see a more generic "Memorials" or "Legacy" section. Legacies discussing impact of his work beyond his lifetime, and Memorials to discuss tributes and things created in his honor like the naming of ships, postage, statues, etc. If it was me, I would pare the entire postage section to one or two sentances noting he was on more postage than any other president - maybe throw in a image. But go on to point out the other memorials which are equally notable, like ships named in his honor, statues of him that are erected, buildings named in his honor, there was even a law school named in his honor. These are all equally notable and one should not be raised in prominence over another. Sorry for not dropping a line sooner, I've been quite busy this winter. :) This is just a opinion, I am not trying to force anything. Essentialy I am for merging the postage section into the memorials section. (Side note: Walter Q. Gresham was Postmaster General - postage in his honor is far more notable and directly related to his career. Its apples and oranges. I've live in WQG's hometown, I've been meaning to fix his bio up, but busy busy busy!) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CE'. I have already proposed a 'Legacy' section with small sub-sections for 'Post Office/stamps', 'Currency' and 'Memorials'. It was one of several proposals I have offered for the compromise we are all trying to obtain here. As for the nation's first commemorative postage, while it doesn't compare to 'D-Day', it still involved national events and acts of the government and is not at all a trivial affair. It deserves mention. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Biographies

After first giving thought to the mention of Harrison's wife in the postage section and about things which affected, or impacted, Harrison's life I noticed that the page altogether only makes cursory reference to either of his wives. If a biography is to present the things that affected the subject's life foremost it would seem that Harrison's wives would get more coverage in this regard, not necessarily with the volume of text afforded but with the naming and placement of the section. As it is the Harrison page has a section, Family and education, that attempts to cover both of these what would seem to be broader topics. While the section is well written it is rather condensed with little mention of family life or activity and simply closes by saying that Harrison as a boy liked hunting and fishing. The section 'devotes' one paragraph to Harrison's family, and in the other sections only makes mention of Harrison's wives by name, and to 'marriage' but only as a time/event reference for other events. Do conventional biographies give any coverage of the backgrounds and the roles of Harrison's wives, at all? While the page is a presidential biography and naturally covers a broader area, more attention still needs to be given to some of the basic things that should be covered in any person's biography. If Harrison was not a president, etc and this biography only covered his family, background, education, etc, it seems this article would shrink to about the size of one page. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there some information in particular you'd like to add? If so, by all means, dig in. The source books are in many libraries and for sale from online booksellers. --Coemgenus 15:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes the biographies I've worked off of are not very extensive on his family life. There is some note though of his family throughout the article - his daughter acting as first lady after his wife's death, his astrangement from his children following his remarraige, etc. The article is becoming lengthy though. At a certain point it will have to be split into sub articles if we continue to grow it - like the other large presidential biographies. For example Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln or Presidency of George W. Bush. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The next chance I get I will have to stop into the local public library and see what they have on Harrison. I brought up the issue of Harrison's wife to point out that Harrison's biography while covering the things that he was involved with seems to have little about the things that directly effected him as a person, like his wife, and to point out also that there seems to be a lack of consistency as to what is allowed on the page and what is not. As for page length, I don't see that as an issue, esp since there are many president's pages that are up to three times as long as the Harrison page as I outlined above. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We do need to split at a certain point. Just because other presidential biographies violate policy does not mean this one should WP:Length gives a good standard on how long an article should be. At a certain point it stops being an encyclopedia article and becomes a full fledged biography. An article should briefly cover the highlights of the topic, giving more in depth information on the most notable parts and emphasizing what most reader will be interested in learning. Guidelines recommend splitting pages upon reaching 6-10k words, or in an effort to keep it shorter than that, removing the less important data. I think your data is noteworthy, but would probably make a better start on an article of something like United States Commemorative Stamps, and link to that from this article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reference to page length guidelines where it recommends a maximum length of 50k. The Harrison page had 54k when it received FA status in July of '09, it presently has 59k. Not much growth for more than two years. Rutherford B. Hayes, a FA is over 80k, William T. Sherman, a FA has been over the 90k mark for more than two years now, with no issues. I think that's because the main consideration is content, not necessarily how long it is, and again Presidential biographies are in effect a chapter of American history and so they have a natural tendency to be longer than what guidelines recommends for the average page. As some of us have discussed, certain information is still lacking, like that of his wives. Of course there is a practical limit to everything, but it seems that page length is the least of our concerns at this point. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying that this biography article is more than a biography, that it its a "chapter in American history". You're the only one who believes this. I don't know where you got this idea, but I've never heard any other editor present this theory and I've never seen any evidence that it's true. This is an encyclopedic biography, a short description of a person's life. It is not a cornucopia of Harrisonalia. --Coemgenus 12:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference to 'chapter in history' is figurative. If I was to refer to this page in some official capacity I would refer to it as a 'biography', but, once again, it still is a chapter of American history for the simple reason that it covers Harrison's involvement, as a U.S. President, in American history, which is sort of glaringly obvious Coemgenus. You can refer to the page with whatever term you like but the fact remains that the page embarks on many topics that go beyond coverage of someone's biography. The page could easily be split: one page for Harrison's biography and one for Harrison's political involvements, which is the main focus of the present page. But I don't think we would want to do that with this particular page as it would leave the biography page looking something like a stub with what little material there is for it here. Was there some greater point you were driving at? We were discussing page length. Are you trying to say the new section with its five sentences has made the page too long? Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing the Page

Gwillhickers is right about one thing: the article lacks an end. I've tried to write one here, but the problem (as Charles Edward and I discovered in writing the article in the first place) is that Harrison is the least well-chronicled of all the presidents. Sievers's biography is exhaustive, but not analytical. Calhoun and Socolofsky offer some analysis, but even that is scant. So describing his legacy is hard. Take a look at the proposal I've linked. I tried to summarize the scholarly consensus on the man, such as it is, and added a bit about the stamps, coins, etc. I think it's well-balanced and well-cited, but your suggestions are welcome. Coemgenus 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading your proposal it seems as though you are approaching the proposal I offered last week, although again yours has more stamp images and links to 'stamp stuff' and doesn't have subsections. If we are going to make the account on 'stamps' concise I think it would be better if you omitted the reference to individual "Subsequent stamps" with all of the links to them and instead mention that Harrison's administration introduced the nation's first commemorative postage stamps -- an event that was much more prominent, nationally celebrated and deserves mention. Also, the currency ($5 bank note) is a private bank issue and if anything is trivial or obscure it would seem this is. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards to closing the page, it would seem that a 'Legacy' section would be the standard way to close, however that is all it would be, standard, nothing notable as endings go. Since there doesn't seem to be any other material presented for a 'Legacy' section it would seem the postage section as it is now authored and trimmed down is a good way to go, i.e.short, last section, somewhat poetic (with a beautiful stamp of Harrison!). This one section is something that distinguishes the Harrison page from those of almost all other presidents. Later if (enough) other material and images present themselves for a 'Legacy' section we could discuss incorporating this (a gallery?) into the page. As it is, no one has presented anything else other than a private bank note with no material or sources for it. Also, your proposal has some interesting comments in its opening but it seems that some of this commentary (1st prgh) belongs in the lede of the page. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right about it having too many pictures, though, so I removed a few. As to subsections, there's not really enough material to justify it. I'm not sure what proposal of yours you're talking about -- do you mean the outline above, or a finished one somewhere on your user page? --Coemgenus 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I presented the idea of 'subsections' assuming enough material was available. Evidently there is not enough sourced material to warrant a legacy section in the first place. Otoh, there is more than enough material available, sourced, for the postage section as it exists now. Again, if enough sourced material presents itself at a later date for a legacy section we can talk about how and if it should be handled. As consensus is pretty much split and in the spirit of compromise I have already trimmed the section down considerably and have removed two images and feel that the section has been compromised more than it needs to already. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what section you're talking about. The outline above? The section you added to the article? Some other work in progress on your talk page? --Coemgenus 13:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at your present draft.. Not bad, maybe a little too cursory, but not bad in its overall presentation. I would be willing to consider this one if it would mention two items, that Harrison's administration pushed the nation's first Commemoartive postage stamps through and mention of the Harrison 13cent stamp that his wife provided a photo for. You could forego any mention of 'subsequent stamps'. However, I still feel that a small closing section about Harrision and his distinctive impact on the post office and the nation's postage deserves its own section or subsection. They were involvements of the Federal government which Harrison presided over, and again, these national and celebrated events are far from trivial. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to add that his widow provided the photo, since it's mentioned in the source I had already cited for that stamp, but I can't find a source for the idea that he had anything to do with commemorative stamps being issued. Did Harrison actually deal with the stamps himself? None of his biographers mention it. --Coemgenus 14:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The first Commemorative stamps were issued in 1893, the last year Harrison was in office, so the debates and legislation to push them through naturally occurred under his watch. I must admit that there is no detailed information covering this affair that I know of, but there is enough source info' to conclude that these Federal undertakings (ie.affairs of the Post Office) occurred under Harrison's watch. We could simply say that under Harrison's administration the federal gov issued the nation's first commemorative postage (at the World's fair in 1893). Yes, if anything, his wife would also be mentioned regarding the Harrison 13c issue also. In any event the main issue now is whether or not to go with a separate legacy section, (with subsections?) or separate post-office and legacy sections, or present all of this info tucked into one single legacy section. As a single section goes, your draft is worded nicely, but I still say putting all of the different info' into one 'catch all' section suggests the presentation wasn't very well though out, esp since this info involves significant acts of the government and is stuffed in there along with misc info' on statues and museums. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary and Sources

We can't add unsourced information to a featured article. Remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we cite secondary works (and occasionally primary sources) and we can't include information that the sources don't present. If the sources don't say Harrison was behind the commemorative stamps (or even that he knew about them), neither can this article. --Coemgenus 19:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be said, and cited, that the first commemoratives were issued under Harrison's administration with no issues or breach of guidelines. Since the Federal P.O. is directly under the President's control I don't think it's quite necessary to have a source saying that Harrison was there breathing down the necks of the people running the printing presses to show his awareness. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

You're suggesting Harrison was aware of and involved with every action the U.S. government took from 1889 to 1893? Why not list every patent the PTO issued in those four years? Or every ship the navy launched? Again, if you kind find a reliable source that says he had anything to do with stamps, I'll reconsider my opposition, but without sourcing, it stays out. --Coemgenus 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Postmaster General was a member of Harrison's cabinet (and is sourced). Harrison delivered a speech at the event the stamps were first released, (which is also sourced). This by itself says he was 'aware' and doesn't require a passage that spells this out verbatim. Harrison thought the event was important enough to make an appearance and speech for. Evidently you do not. We will have to get consensus from others as to what constitutes 'awarness' if you now feel this one little point is yet another issue. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You want to add unsourced info. That's not a problem that can be fixed by consensus. Yes, Harrison had a Postmaster General and, yes, he attended the World's Columbian Exposition after he left office. These things can be cited and added. But the idea that because he had a Postmaster General and went to the World's Fair means he had anything to do with the commemorative stamps released there is absurd and, more importantly, unsourced. If no biographer, historian, or other author has seen fit to chronicle Harrison's involvement in postal bureaucracy, neither can we. --Coemgenus 20:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The particular info I spelled out for you is sourced. Otoh, info' covering Harrison's actual and personal involvement with the stamp's production, printing, etc, is another matter, which of course would require another source. No one is trying to include that info'. This is the distinction that is being smoothed over, here also, by the generic reference to policy. Careful. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If we don't have any source that says Harrison was involved in the commemorative stamps' issuance, why would we include them in his article? --Coemgenus 21:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If we have multiple reputable sources that say the stamps were issued under Harrison's watch, via his cabinet member, why wouldn't you want to make mention of this nationally celebrated event? No one is trying to include an essay or lengthy account of this topic in with the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are great sources, you should definitely add that info to the article about Wanamaker. But they still don't show that Harrison had anything to do with stamps. --Coemgenus 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources clearly show that they were issued under Harrison's watch. The sources don't have to articulate in what capacity if mention is only made that it was the Harrison 'administration' who was responsible. To assume that Harrison was unaware or had no involvement whatsoever is this affair is sort of ridiculous. And since the sources are great as you say, why wouldn't you want to make brief mention of this one point? That is what I don't understand. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things happened "under Harrison's watch". The USS Maine, for example, was launched in 1890. Harrison's Secretary of the Navy was certainly involved and Harrison himself likely was aware of the launching of a new battleship. And the Maine played a larger role in American history than any stamp. Yet, we don't mention it. Why? Because it played no part in Harrison's life, even though it happened during his four years in office. We can't list everything that the government did while the man was president; even his most comprehensive biographer, Sievers, doesn't do that. The article is written in summary style and contains only things that reliable sources mention when they write about Harrison. Wanamaker seems, according to the sources, to have been involved with this stamp issue, so I'll wholeheartedly support adding this info to his article, but not this one. --Coemgenus 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You have offered quite legitimate reasons for not expounding at any length about the nation's first commemoratives, and the national event that coincided with their production and release, events which you attempted to minimalize with your term "any stamp", btw. But no actual reason has been offered as to why this item should be blocked from being briefly mentioned. And I also have to challenge your assumption that the USS Maine played a larger role in US history. Was it involved in some significant battle that altered the course of some war? The advent of commemorative postage is something that all Americans could use and marked a major turning point for the USPO, unlike the USS Maine, so here also, we have another issue that is quite debatable. There is no reason why both of these items should not get at least brief mention. Yes, the article is a summary, so treating the various topics must also be done is summary fashion. To assert that a topic can't be mentioned at all simply because of the summary style of the article is not a reason. Summary style, yes. This is exactly what I had in mind when I said "brief mention". As for Wanamaker, that would indeed be the page to delve into this topic with greater coverage, but again, that is not what is being advocated for the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

edit-break

I just read up on the USS Maine. That was quite a 'boat' and indeed impacted on US history and perhaps deserves a mention! ("It's not a boat, it's a ship!"). In any event, USS Maine or not, the first US commemoratives tie in directly with the president and his cabinet, so much so that Harrison and Wanamaker both showed up for their release to the American public at the Chicago World's Fair (aka The Colombian Expo'). Again, this deserves brief mention in with the few sentences I have in mind for the section. Also, doesn't a 'Legacy' section have a little more latitude as to what may be covered? After all, you wanted to cover statutes, etc in this section. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have never suggested including stautes. The only person on this page talking about statues is you. I don't know if you're trolling me or just misremembering, but this should clear it up: I don't want to write about statues. And why should a legacy section have more latitude for including unsourced cruft that any other section? Just changing the heading doesn't change the rules.

I added a sentence and citation about Harrison attending the world's fair after he left office. Do you know the content of his speech? Calhoun and Sokolofsky don't mention it at all, and Moore only says that it was "an impromptu speech". --Coemgenus 14:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Statues, memorials, museums...whatever, the 'question' is still the same. Some of the things you are willing to put into a legacy section beg the question. And again, no one is advocating putting unsourced material anywhere on the page. I have spelled out for you exactly what I had in mind at least four or five times (including just yesterday!!) and you turn around and suggest I want to put unsourced material on the page. (?!) This is yet another misrepresentation of my account. Please stop this now. When referring to my account please relate to what I have written only, thanks. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's clear this up right now. Show us, here or on your user page, exactly what sentence(s) you wish to add regarding commermorative stamps, along with citations to reliable sources. --Coemgenus 18:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already offered several examples of what could be used/written, with sources, and now here you are asking me to relate this all over again, also. We have been discussing this issue since before Christmas. We have addressed every 'issue' that you have brought to the table, one after the other, after the other. The section has been scaled down, greatly, and two images have been omitted. Several reputable sources were offered and we have had several discussions about sources -- and as if none of this ever happened you accuse me of wanting to put unsourced info on the page. Even with split and varying consensus you seem to be doing all you can to have everything your way. Coemengus at this point I have to tell you I now have serious doubts as to your senserity here. Even if RfC said 'go ahead', I would have reservations about authoring the section as it would be a source of resentment for you and a reminder of conflict for me and this is not wanted at all. I have to run now, later this evening I will collect the several examples of what I had in mind, and with your input perhaps we can forge a resolution as to what we finally can do. Again, I would be content with just a cursory sentence that makes brief mention of 1st commemoratives issued under Harrison's administartion (with no details) along with a sentence for the first Harrison stamp that his wife helped with producing. Even if this is put in with Legacy, I would be fine with that. talk later, Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of bad faith, take another look at my proposed section. I added the bit about his wife's role in the stamp design a couple days ago. I also aded a bit about his visit to the Expo to the main article under "Post-Presidency". I have sources for both these facts, and I agree that they're relevant enough to justify their inclusion, especially the Expo visit. If you want to consider a sentence about Harrison's role in commemorative stamps, just write one (with appropriate citation) and we'll discuss it. I don't think that's an outrageous request. Also, I asked earlier if you knew the content of Harrison's impromptu speech at the Expo. If the text includes something about postage, it would bolster your case. I haven't been able to find anything about it, unfortunately. --Coemgenus 12:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is getting longer and longer -- which is good. If anything drives me up the wall are editors who scale down the text so it looks auto-generated and reads like a dictionary. Bad faith? Well, I look at the overall picture. Though we both seem to have 'our moments' let me just say I wish there was someone who is as stubborn as you on the Thomas Jefferson/discussion page. These pages definitely need watching and protecting, unfortunately. A couple of weeks or so ago I included an excerpt from the speech Harrison gave. The source didn't have the entire speech. In the excerpt that was available Harrison didn't mention 'stamps' per se, but he did mention 'commemoration' which is why the stamps were created i.e.For the Columbus 400th anniversary. In any case, I think generic reference should be made to Harrison's administration for this turning point in the P.O. No mention of the speech is needed I suppose, but this would give the section perhaps some more perspective. Other minor points, in your proposal the caption under Harrison's stamp is perhaps 'too' simple. I think it would look/read much better if it said, 'The 1st Harrison stamp, Issue of 1903' . (And centered!!) Also, don't forget there should be room for a couple of more images of other items. RfC? Hmmm.. Do you think we scared them off? Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We may have scared them off. I know if I saw this talk page, I would not be eager to jump in. The good news is that we're almost there, I think. That said, I'm still not sure about this commermorative stamp issue. The speech you quoted was actually from 1890, and even if it was from '93, it doesn't reference the stamps. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, I promise you. On the issues where we could find a sourced connection to Harrison, like him attending the Expo and his wife's role in the first stamp, I've agreed to include them. And if a source can be found (perhaps in the 3rd volume of Sievers?) that connects Harrison directly to the stamps, I'll add that, too. The problem for me is that after so much painstaking work on building up the article, reading the sources, and all that, to add something that I believe doesn't meet the standards, well, it just bothers me. I know you think I'm unreasonable, but there are legitimate reasons behind my intransigance. If I didn't have to work all weekend, I'd look up that volume myself. Do you have access to a university library? Some of them have the Sievers trilogy, about the only places that do if you don't want to buy them.

I think we can find a compromise on this. --Coemgenus 14:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any controversy with having a postage stamp section in the article. Instead of one postage stamp I would put in three for balance. Another legacy along with stamps, currency and memorials, could be could be a media portrayal and documentary segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC ?

What happened with 'RfC'? The tag/header has been removed from this page by a bot and there is not a trace of the former request on the RfC page. Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It has run its course. We requested comments and didn't get any, at least not from the editors who hang out there. --Coemgenus 12:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

We've already agreed that stamps should go in the legacy section. The only issue left, I believe, is whether to discuss the commemorative stamps that came out at the Columbian Expo in 1893. I'm not sure what you mean by "documentary segment." --Coemgenus 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cmguy777, I agree that this historical information should get its own (small) section, but so long as the important items are touched on I can live with having this covered in a legacy section. There are a lot of factors to consider, on both sides of the fence, so the name of the game at this point is 'compromise'. If there is overwhelming consensus to have a separate section in the future we can discuss it then. Right now consensus is pretty much split. Coemgenus has authored what's beginning to look like an adequate proposal that is perhaps getting a bit lengthy (which is fine by me) so maybe we can have subsections. We'll see. Right now I'm mulling over how to cover this topic with just a few sentences. Keep in touch. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise is, indeed, the name of the game. To that end, how about this proposal: I'll write a sentence somewhere under "Presidency" that says Harrison's postmaster general oversaw the design of the nation's first commemorative stamps. If that sentence is acceptable to the editors here, we'll replace the last section with the one I wrote covering his legacy (and stamps, coins, etc.). I'm still uneasy about it, but compromises must be made, and I think -- I hope! -- that this compromise can give us most of what we each want, preserve the integrity of the article, and let us both move on to other things. What do you say? --Coemgenus 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Very nice intro' to the section. As to the coverage of postage stamps there are a couple of items that need attention. You listed 'subsequent stamps' with a ' <ref> ' and a external link for each one next to the corresponding year of issue. It would be better if we just linked to one (resident) page that displays the images with just one click, as each image has its own source info'. This way the reader won't have to click on a 'ref' and then an external link to see each of the other images. Example:

After his death, Harrison was memorialized on several postage stamp issues. The first issue to honor Harrison was a 13-cent stamp issued on November 18, 1902, shortly after his death, and was based on a photo provided by Harrison's widow. Subsequent stamps were issued in 1926, 1938, 1959, 1986 and 2003 for a total of six stamps, much higher than the average for most presidents. Harrison is also honored on various units of currency ...

Also, postage stamps and currency should be mentioned in separate sentences. As for the size of the 13c stamp image in your proposal, it is larger than what I hoped for -- but I like it!! That particular stamp is a work of art and indeed deserves prominent display. It completely amazes me, to this day, how the engraver managed to inscribe all of that detail on a steel die no bigger than a 'square inch'. One last item: When you mention the nation's first commemoartives, at least link the term to the legacy section, or to the US Presidents on US postage stamps page. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The MOS actually recommends against setting the size of images, so the size you're seeing is determined by what you have in your preferences. As to citation, I have no problem with linking to the larger presidents on stamps article, but we still need the cites here. Unless you want not to mention each subsequent issue and just say "and four subsequent stamps." That would be fine, too. And I'll be glad to link to the commemoratives article as soon as I figure out exactly how to phrase it. --Coemgenus 11:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe linking to the page/images doesn't require any additional cite's to the section. As for subsequent stamps, this is well sourced by Scotts, Smithsonian, etc. 'Preferences'. Few average readers, esp coming in to the page off of a google search, are not going to bother with preferences (that is, if they are even aware of them or have a user account) just to look at an image. MOS allows for up to 500px for thumb's, esp when there is "..a good reason to do so..". (I.e.being able to read the print without breaking from the text for a closer view -- this is a discretionary call, again up to 400x500px). Yes, I am ready for the 'transformation'. It is in your hands for now. I'll make any additional 'adjustments', with discussion if necessary, as are needed. Meanwhile I am going to stop in a couple of bookstores to see if I can track down the Sievers Trilogy. Also, please treat the post-office/stamp and currency topics with separate sentences. And don't forget to be BOLD! Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)