Talk:Frederick Dent Grant

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

West Point controversy

It is known that the Dent family owned slaves and were racially prejudiced against African Americans. Fredrick was among other West Point Cadets who harrassed, James Webster Smith, the first African American to attend the Academy. This needs to be addressed in the Article. It is alledged that Fredrick convinced his father Ulysses not to do anything to those who were antagonistic to Smith. I am putting this in the Article.

Little Big Horn

Even if Grant had been present at the Little Big Horn, it isn't a foregone conclusion that he would have died. Half the regiment fought under Frederick Benteen and survived the battle. 13.13.16.2 (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frederick Dent Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907233404/http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/embassy/former_amb.htm to http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/embassy/former_amb.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Blanking of section which relates to subject's behaviors at USMA

I have reverted this ip blanking and other editors have reverted the second and third attempts to blank. On the merits, it appears that the assertion sourcing is sound and the refuting evidence is a mere blog. I'd be more comfortable with multiple sources but I'm somewhat satisfied with those applied. Any comments by other editors? Until I see an argument here I'm going to hold for inclusion of cited material. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Now there are 4 separate ips or accounts which have blanked this material. The latest is User:TheGreenEagles whose only other edit is this blanking of cited material. No discussion is occurring here; there IS apparent socking. I now regard such edits as vandalism. BusterD (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

BusterD: Wikipedia is just a glorified blog, which can be changed for whatever purposes people like you thinks best reflects your political agenda. Please answer this question, "It is odd that an event that happened at West Point, especially considering that recent scholarship has raised questions about McFeely’s sources regarding Grant's involvement with this incident, takes up more space in this article than any other section. Why is that?

And suggesting that this is "my only edit" or that I did not include a discussion is a lie." Why are you lying BusterD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenEagles (talk • contribs) 14:19, January 19, 2020 (UTC)

There is a section challenging the McFeeley account, and then in the next paragraph, a contradictory sentence that ends, "there is evidence to suggest he actively participated." It would be an improvement to resolve this since it's confusing. Mrsedashwoodferrars (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this issue is ambiguous and very poorly sourced. This is NOT a BLP, so a BLP level of sourcing is NOT required to keep the page or any particular controversial fact on the page. The reason I haven't trimmed these blog sources out is that the author of the blog has some reasonably solid credentials as it regards the Grant Family. I'd be happy to see somebody fix it, and I'd be happy to help search for sources if you'd be willing to help settle it. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yellowstone Expedition?

There seems to be something incorrect, or at least incorrectly-linked, here. The article contains the line "He was on the Yellowstone Expedition", which links to an article about same... which took place from 1819-1820. Frederick Dent Grant, who was born in 1850, could obviously not have participated in the expedition linked to here. Smyslov (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Vicksburg wound

This section, sourced to Warren, just isn't right. I've been researching the Battle of Big Black River Bridge (and currently have it as a Featured Article candidate), and the academic history books describe this as a fairly minor wound. Certainly not "Normally his wound would have called for amputation". This mentions a later infection that had some amputation fears, but taking Normally his wound would have called for amputation; however, possibly due to his military aspirations or his father's rank, this did not occur. from Frederick realized that if his leg were to be amputated—common treatment for a bullet wound--he’d never be a soldier in the Warren source is pretty clearly wrong, especially given the other sources I've seen. Additionally, This happened for the last time during the decisive battle that ended the Siege of Vicksburg is a mess as well; Big Black River Bridge was definitely not the "decisive battle that ended the Siege"; it was on May 17 and the siege proper hadn't even started by then. Hog Farm _Talk 03:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)