Talk:Martin Van Buren

M. Van Buren and Slavery

I think it should be highlighted in more detail that he was adimantly against abolishing slavery as a northern democrat. Everyone pins this stigma on southern replublicans but it was actually the democratic party that was for slavery in the southern states and the initial division within America. He also supported groups such as the KKK as a Northern Democrat and won the relection democratic bid with this ideology although failing his bid for presidentail re-election. This article should highlight some of these points in greater detail and protray history as it IS, and not as people see fit. The Democratic Party is not historically accurate across all of Wikipedia. It is too kind to the atrocities that the Dems did in the early 1800s-today. Be Truthful, Wack-A-Pedia 93.230.114.100 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Come on. Anyone with even a slight grasp of US history knows that in the 1800s the Democratic Party supported slavery or at least condoned it. That the Democratic Party advocated racial segregation after slavery was ended.

But history didn't end in 1865, did it? Beginning in the 1920s, the major U.S. political parties underwent a shift in their attitudes toward race and racism. This trend gathered momentum in the 1940s, became settled electoral strategy in the 1960s, and was completed in the 1980s and 1990s. Democrats became identified with integration and civil rights. Republicans became identified with continued segregation and opposition to civil rights for Black people and other minorities.

Read the Wikipedia article on the 1948 Democratic Convention. Hubert Humphrey's "bright sunshine of civil rights" speech is one of the best oratorical efforts you'll ever hear. Read the article on the Southern Strategy. For starters. Billmckern (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

" Republicans became identified with continued segregation and opposition to civil rights for Black people and other minorities." I thought they support the lynching of minorities. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Error in quotation in "Legacy" section

There's a lengthy quotation in the "Historical reputation" section that seems to have been garbled: "He was one of the first statewide political machines in the country {how can an individual be a machine?} was success resulted {incorrect verb formation}} from its professional use of patronage" The quote is from Robert Remini, "Van Buren, Martin" in John A. Garraty, ed., Encyclopedia of American Biography, but I don't have access so can't try to fix it. Could someone take a look? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, @Billmckern: Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Drinking

Drinking 2600:1700:640:4F20:C94F:B9DE:173D:E12F (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what you want done, plus it would be good to provide verification from reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Why isnt this page edit locked

Of all the presidents of the USA van buren is the ONLY one not edit locked 49.186.33.130 (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Turns out he's not the only one.

Polk and James Buchanan are also unlocked 49.186.33.130 (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, Rutherford b Hayes.

Why presidents have ANY pages unlocked is beyond me they are controversial and neutrality is hard to keep, unless locked.

After Hayes though, they are all locked. 49.186.33.130 (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox portrait

Consensus should have been established before replacing the infobox portrait with one that was completely different. Is it too much to ask that, in modifying the biographies of notable people, including U.S. presidents, we use a little discretion in making major changes to long-established articles?

I do not know of any Wikipedia policy about how to determine which of multiple portraits is a "better" view of the subject, so consensus is especially important here. Formal portrait paintings are, of course, created almost specifically to use with written biographies, so one cannot go wrong by choosing such a portrait. I see that someone has preferred a photograph, and it is not a bad one, but it was taken in 1855, so, first, it doesn't depict him the way he looked when he was president, and second, it isn't as flattering as any portrait done when he was president. Note that with biographies of living persons, we may need to use more recent photos even if they don't look as good as older ones, but for subjects that are no longer living, we are released from that constraint. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There does seem to be an informal policy that we prefer photographs to paintings where available, for U.S. presidents and other historical figures. This is most relevant for that mid-19th century period where photography was becoming more available and people like Van Buren were being photographed for the first time, some time after their primary "claim to fame". I actually think this is generally a good move (provided the photo is of sufficient quality), as photos are generally a better representation of the person's actual appearance. There is plenty of room for paintings elsewhere in the article. ITBF (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to a discussion of this "informal policy"?

There is in fact a photo of Andrew Jackson, File:Andrew Jackson Daguerrotype.jpg, but fortunately we are not using it in the infobox of Andrew Jackson, because it is so ghastly. The photo of Martin Van Buren currently in use is not quite so bad, but to use as an infobox illustration a portrait or photo that is less than the highest quality is, to say the least, disrespectful. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to this dispute. The earliest discussion I have found of the "photographs versus paintings" question is in Talk:John Quincy Adams/Archive 2#Old Photographs vs paintings, from 2014. If there are more recent discussions, I'd like to take a look at them. It seems to me that that discussion did not end conclusively; it ended with Rjensen making a substantial case for paintings, and Winkelvi replying in an insubstantial, even uncivil, fashion.

Wikipedia policy regarding the images used in infoboxes can be found in MOS:LEADIMAGE. Another informative essay can be found in Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures. This is not policy (i.e. it has not been "thoroughly vetted by the community", as stated at the top of the page), but I have found it helpful. If there were any policy regarding favoring photographs over paintings (or vice versa), I would have expected to find it in one of these two places, so I will assume that there is none.

The claim that "a photograph takes precedence over a painting" is stated explicitly in this edit from late 2020: [1]. But it is only one editor's opinion. It is still necessary, in selecting an image for the infobox, to evaluate each image on its own merits.

I have been speaking in generalities, but this should ultimately lead to some discussion, and seeking of consensus, about a portrait to be selected for this article, and indeed portraits to be selected for other articles about historical figures. Among the U.S. Presidents, the ones for which there are both paintings and photographs worthy of consideration are John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, and James K. Polk. (I don't think that William Henry Harrison lived long enough to be photographed.) Not all the available interesting paintings and photographs have been uploaded to Wikimedia commons, of course; for example, I found a painting of Polk that I think is better than the photograph we are using, but if I wanted to pursue that, I would have to upload it to the commons.

What criteria might be used to judge and compare portraits for this purpose? I have seen several criteria used, and there are probably more. Talk:Martin Van Buren/Archive 1#Changing Van Buren's Wikipedia picture suggests that a portrait of the subject when he was president (or, I would suppose, at another important part of his career) would be preferred. I would suggest that the attractiveness of the portrait is also important. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; but some of the available portraits, especially photographs using primitive early photographic technology, of men who were by then not long for this world, are simply embarrassing to have as the infobox "flagship" of a biographical article.

Since I have mentioned several presidents, and there may well be other historical figures for which this is relevant, it may be prudent eventually to restart this discussion in one or more widely visible talk pages. But for now, I would be interested in comments right here. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)