Talk:Grant's Tomb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Replaced Pic[edit]

Grant's Tomb, 2004

I replaced this image with a better one (in my opinion). Higher resolution, subject not cropped, better exposure and angle.

--Dschwen 15:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Is there any support for the claim that the motion picture "Glory" apparently single-handedly changed attitudes towards Grant's Tomb PLUS "suddenly" made Civil War battle reenactments and battlefield sites highly popular. On what are these claims based? If there was a surge of interest in the Civil War at that time, I suspect that Ken Burn's "Civil War" (1990) could have had much more to do with it.

In responding to the paragraph above and as the person who had previously mentioned the film "Glory" .... I fully agree with you that the excellent mini-series by Ken Burns in 1990 also helped to rekindle interest in the Civil War nationwide. It was also about this time that PBS did a documentary specifically on the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, in direct response to the popularity of "Glory" and the sense that the role of Black-Americans had not been properly accounted for in Civil War histories prior to 1989. I will edit the article right away to mention Ken Burns in addition to the feature film. Message from

My original question still stands... what documentation is there that either "Glory" or "Civil War" suddenly made Civil War battle reenactments and battlefield sites highly popular or changed attitudes toward the monument? For instance, did visits to the tomb really increase after these productions or is that speculation. If there is support for such claims, then fine -- But without some support, it seems a stretch.

I looked into the contributions of Frank Scaturro after reading this article and came away with the sense that he was a real hero in sparking the tomb's restoration... even more than the article currently says. I wonder whether much progress was made in the late 80's and early 90's to fix the tomb until after Frank Scaturro began his campaign, which was around 1993, or so (if I recall what I read correctly).

Absent documentation, rather than speculate about a claimed sudden increase in Civil War interest in the late 1980's (there has always been huge interest in the Civil War) AND it's possible effect on restoration of the Tomb perhaps Frank Scaturro's efforts to publicize the tomb's condition and the negative comments left by visitors could be expanded to more closely reflect his contribution. He'd had an interest in Grant as a young boy, had worked at the tomb for the Park Service and apparently felt obliged to expose the tomb's condition until something was done about it.

In response to your paragraph above, I agree fully that there has always been a sizable interest in Civil War history -- as there should be. I was working in the historic preservation area in Virginia during the late 1980's, and early 1990's. I had not visited Grant's Tomb yet (until after restoration). But I can definitely say that interest in our park sites picked up after the popularity of both "Glory" and the Civil War TV series by Ken Burns. I don't have actual visitor numbers to cite for verification, but someone must have them somewhere. It is true that the desecration of Grant's Tomb mirrored the urban problems that happened across the nation in the 1960's and 1970's, particularly in New York City. New York began to come back in the late 1990's, and there was a big effort to clean up the subway trains and Central Park. It is no wonder that the ugly Grant's Tomb suddenly stuck out like a sore thumb at that point, and clearly needed restoration inside and out. Frank Scaturro is certainly a hero and nationwide publicity is what did the trick. I will go and edit the article a bit more to try to show that New York City was making a comeback at the time that Frank brought our attention to the sad situation of the tomb. Perhaps others can add some factual information into the article to lend additional weight to it. Message from on October 29, 2006.


Reversed image?[edit]

The image, reproduced at right, looks as if the glass plate negative was reversed when it was printed. If the wide boulevard is Riverside Drive, (on the other side, the park side towards the Hudson, the land drops away steeply) then this would have to be a view from the north, where there are a series of terraces and steps, rather than the wide esplanade leading to the structure, as shown here.

Should this image be deleted?--Wetman (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name Change?[edit]

As seen [1], the offical name of the memorial is "General Grant National Memorial." I think that should be the name of the articlem and Grant's Tomb should be a redirect. --Coingeek (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia policy is to use common names for article titles, which may or may not be the "official" name. In this case Grant's Tomb is the more common name and what people are more likely to search for. Station1 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decay and restoration[edit]

I've removed the template that was originally added to this section on June 26, 2008,[2] (not August 2009 as was indicated[3]). There was never any explanation as to why the template was added, nor has there been any discussion in the following 21 months. The template was therefore pointless. If anybody has any opposition to this removal, please feel free to restore it but an explanation as to why it has been restored should be included here; otherwise it serves no purpose. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Who is buried in Grant's Tomb" -or rather the question of the question[edit]

I note the Popular Culture section regarding this claims it is a riddle with the correct answer being 'no one', however I can find no evidence that it was intended in the way asserted to be there, but was merely meant to be an absurd question, because it was so easy and straight forward (also buried has other secondary meanings/nuances that would work with interred, and it's a common way to refer to it so it seems doubtful to me even as a pedant). Also apparently the question predates Marx, with the earliest written example being a 1925 newspaper column (that appeared to be a collection of preexisting quips) “Ed Wynn’s Question Box". There's a link here from the site Quote Investigator that goes into the various evidence and discusses the question, with supporting reliable cites and references within which could be useful. The section as it stands is not referenced at all.Number36 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I think that this section is incorrect. It's the direct opposite of what is stated on Wikipedia's "You Bet Your Life" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Ulysses S. Grant interred in a crypt, atrium, rotunda, enclave, or chamber?[edit]

There seems to be some confusion concerning the definition of President Grant's final resting place. Some articles state that Grant is in a crypt, but I don't know if this is the correct term. The word "crypt" has multiple definitions. The most recent definition of this word is "a chamber in a mausoleum." In ancient times, a crypt was a large room that contained the the remains of mulitple dead people.

President Grant is interred in a red, granite sarcophagus, which is located in an atrium within the mausoleum. I don't think that "crypt" is the right word to describe the location of the sarcophagus. Also, is Grant in a "tomb" or a "mausoleum?"

When I edited this article, I replaced most entries of "crypt" with "atrium," because I think that atrium is a better choice of words to describe the location of the sarcophagus. Grant's sarcophagus is in an atrium, which is in a tomb, which is in a mausoleum. Synonyms can include "rotunda" and "enclave," but I don't think that the word "crypt" belongs in the terminology.

Anthony22 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.crypt would be wrong, as by definition it is an underground room or vault beneath a church — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proofread Grace's letter[edit]

A verb has been dropped from Grace's letter. I can't supply it. An editir should check it against the passage in Koch. Wetman (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grant's Tomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammar and redirect[edit]

I agree that the page should be called the General Grant National Memorial with a redirect from Grant's Tomb. Otherwise, it is like a page about Hillary Clinton being called "Crooked Hillary" ...

I also think that, since two people are interred in the tomb, Mr. and Mrs. Grant, it should be referred to as "Grants' Tomb." Ddnile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't agree about the Hillary Clinton analogy. The monument is universally famous as 'Grant's Tomb', and that should be the title of the page. Valetude (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grant's Tomb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops. Part of the August 2023 backlog.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Removed a possible wikilink mistake. See below.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead contains only cited info in article, layout good. No other issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Contains three sections that follow layout guideline. Fixed a cs1 maint issue. All good.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). See below.
2c. it contains no original research. Everything seems to have a citation.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Uses material in the public domain. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Definitely covers everything, unless people want to learn the geological history of the granite used.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Despite it's length, reasonably the sections themselves are small-ish so creating any subarticles would be unnecessary. My humble recommendation is that if any future expansions should exceed the total readable word count of 15,000, a subarticle detailing the history should be made with of course keeping a summary of that article on this page.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Seems neutral enough overall. Both positive and negative reception is provided.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Apart from minor copy edits, article is stable enough for review.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Either public domain or from Commons.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. In relevant sections with suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.


While representatives from other states favored relocating the president's remains, New York representative were opposed. Were there multiple NY representatives or just one? If just one, I'd add their name.

  • It was several representatives, but Picone only lists two of them. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The facade is modeled after the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus with Persian elements. I feel like this sentence cuts off abruptly. "with incorporated Persian elements"? Something along those lines.

  • Since the source doesn't actually mention Persian elements, I removed that bit. I also replaced the source with Kahn and Picone. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Spot-check: 1, 14, 27, 32, 47, 50, 67, 75, 86, 98, 101, 112, 128, 134, 140, 151, 163, 176, 187, 192, 206, 215, 227, 231, 245, 253, 267, 276, 288, 293, 303, 311, 324, 334, 342, 350, 362, 379, 386, 391, 402, 414, 420, 436, 441, 459, 467, 479, 483, 491, 500, 514, 525, 539, 541, 548

  • (27) Couldn't find any mention of the headquarters being there in the book. (I am using the Scribd version and searched the term "Lower Manhattan")
    • According to the book, the headquarters was first at Liberty and Nassau Streets (which is in the modern-day Financial District of Lower Manhattan), then at 146 Broadway (just down the block from the original HQ). I did not think that summarizing the general geographic location would be controversial, as I explained both locations fully in a footnote, but I've removed this nonetheless. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, well if that's the case, feel free to re-add that information, I forgot it was explained in the notes. Sorry! (Though perhaps that note could be attached to that sentence.) 123Writer talk 06:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (98) About $1,000 each came from the royalties from Grant's memoirs and a puzzle contest at the end of 1886. Couldn't find in either source how much royalty money was put into the fund.
    • Picone 2021, pp. 104–105, and Kahn 1980, pp. 40–41, both state that Grant donated $987.50... which apparently was from Ulysses S. Grant's back pay, not from royalties. I've fixed this. Thanks for the review, 1TWO3Writer. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem! 123Writer talk 06:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grant's Tomb at dusk
Grant's Tomb at dusk

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Grant's Tomb; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My dictionary, and a quick search, describes "interred" as:

place (a corpse) in a grave or tomb, typically with funeral rites.

So I think the sentence "since neither of the Grants' sarcophagi is underground, nobody is interred at Grant's Tomb." is incorrect. Nobody is buried, but they are interred.

But I may be wrong, often am. johnnycat (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buried is often colloquially used as a synonym for interred. For them to have said "that no one is buried in Grant's Tomb" for the DYK was a bit disingenous and pedantic. Thornfield Hall (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmschilling, I've changed "interred" to "buried". Thanks for the clarification.
@Thornfield Hall, the pedantry was intentional but I disagree that it's disingenuous. It's a well-known joke from Groucho Marx's quiz show You Bet Your Life. He often asked contestants, "Who was buried in Grant's Tomb?", but the correct answer is "none" since the Grants are placed in sarcophagi above ground level. Perhaps it would have been clearer to say that no one was buried under Grant's Tomb. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]