Talk:Martin Van Buren
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Van Buren article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | Martin Van Buren was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 24, 2018, and July 24, 2022. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
M. Van Buren and Slavery
[edit]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)
- well no. Van Buren in 1840s was a key leader in the anti slave-power faction of the Democratic Party. It fought to keep slavery out of the territories. It was a minority faction but it was real and it ran a separate ticket headed by Van Buren in 1848 that helped defeat the pro-slavery Democrats in the presidential race. Most of its activists in 1848 became Repubkicans in 1850s. Van Buren's key supporters in 1848 included Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, & Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, who in 1860s were leaders in destroying slavery. see Free Soil Party Eric Foner is the key scholar here. He states: "During the decade of the 1840's, great numbers of Northerners became opponents of slavery, moved either by the moral appeals of the abolitionists, fear of the Southern "Slave Power," or apprehension that the extension of slavery into the newly acquired territories would exclude free Northern settlers." [New York History October 1965, p. 312.] The voters Van Buren mobilized in that cause mostly became Republicans when that party was formed in mid-1850s. As for the KKK--Van Buren died years before the KKK was founded (and in 19th century KKK was not active in New York state). Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Error in quotation in "Legacy" section
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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.
- I would like to specifically rebut the claim that "... photos are generally a better representation of the person's actual appearance." Portrait painters, just as much as portrait photographers, are paid to create portraits that are, to use the old-fashioned phrase, true to life. In the portrait paintings I selected below, are there any that would not be considered realistic, for any reason? I would also note that the painters were all notable, that is, there are Wikipedia articles about them, as a consequence of their having painted many realistic, true to life, portraits. This was already pointed out by Rjensen in the 2014 discussion linked above.
- In judging the suitability of a portrait for use in a biographical article, there is no substitute for judging the portrait on its merits. Shortcuts, such as preferring one portrait technology (photography) to another (painting), or vice versa, have no legitimate place in the discussion.
- The infobox portait in George Washington is a good (and famous) example of a painted portrait. The infobox portrait in Ulysses S. Grant is a good (and likewise famous) example of a photographic portrait. Note that the fact that Grant's portrait is black-and-white does not detract in any way from its suitability -- it is stunning in its quality. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
Here is the image that is, as I write, the infobox image for Martin Van Buren, and several other images that editors have proposed for that position:
-
Image A, photo 1855-1858 by Matthew Brady (current image)
-
Image B, portrait 1858 by George Peter Alexander Healy
-
Image C, same photo as Image A, but Image A was cropped; Image C is a featured picture.
-
Image D, portrait 1837-38 by Henry Inman
-
Image E, portrait circa 1830 by Francis Alexander
-
Image F, portrait by Daniel Huntington
I'm cheating a little with Image F, I do not know that anyone has ever tried to use it in the infobox of Martin Van Buren. I included it here, though, because it is used elsewhere in this article and also in Bibliography of Martin Van Buren.
Here are my own comments:
- Like the earlier Wikipedia editors who nominated Image C as a featured picture, I find it striking, and of great historical value. However, Van Buren is old and retired in this photo, and I am troubled that we are using a photo in which he has bags under his eyes, hopelessly unruly sideburns and an ill-fitting coat as if this were the best available, or most representative, portrait of Van Buren. I would be interested in using one of the more attractive images in the infobox, but keeping this one for a prominent place elsewhere in the article.
- Image B is from the same period as Images A and C, but it softens the rough edges mentioned above.
- I do not like Image E because it almost seems to emphasize Van Buren's already advanced baldness, as if he were pointing his forehead forward. Perhaps that's just my possibly eccentric taste.
I generally prefer Image D, but I am very much interested in comments by other editors, and even suggestions for images that I have not listed here. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I have not been bold about this, because real life got in the way; I could not set aside time for serious discussion. I will now describe in detail what I will do, and shortly thereafter, do it.
-
Image G, cropped version of Image D
-
Image H, daguerrotype from 1849-1850
In the infobox, I will substitute Image G for the present occupant, Image A. My reason for using this cropped image is that, in my judgment, the black background cropped out is substantial, noticeable, and inappropriate for the prominent small-size setting of the infobox.
Image D, the original of Image G, is already being used in the article, in the Panic of 1837 section. I believe that it's OK to use an image in the infobox that's already in use elsewhere in the article.
I will insert Image A in the Retirement section, in the place that Image H is currently occupying. That section is also using Image B. I think that with images A and B in place and easy to compare with each other, there would be no additional benefit from having Image H. Although it may have some historical interest, Image H is not as compelling as the other two.
It would be possible to substitute Image C for Image A here. In favor of Image A, it is cropped in a sensible way (head-and-shoulders rather than full standing), although in its new location, cropping would not be required. In favor of Image C, it is the original featured picture. I will stick with Image A, but would not discourage future editors from going with Image C. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’m fine with any except Image D. To me it just seems like most people don’t picture Martin Van Buren. It can be shown in a section about that time but in the infobox I have to say no JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just realized since that photo is showed later in the article it shouldn’t be shown in the infobox. That’s repetitive JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. For some reason I was under the impression that it was OK to use Image G in the infobox while using Image D in the section of the article about his presidency. But, reviewing a few other biographical articles, I see that this practice is not generally followed. I will remove Image D from the main article. If I can find a satisfactory image of Van Buren from the period of his presidency, I will put it where Image D has been, but otherwise I will leave that section without a portrait of him. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I prefer A seeing as how it provides a close-up view depicting the subject as he appeared in real life. I disagree with Bruce leverett's reasoning that portraits are suitable as lead images because they are inherently designed to be true to life. While such a rationale is fine in the absence of real-life photographs, the fact remains that all works of art are merely subjective reconstructions of persons, places or things as perceived by the artist. No matter how skilled or professionally committed to objectivity an artist is, he or she will inevitably emphasize some features over others according to his own preferences or biases. Conversely, while there are circumstances where the subject of a photo may be embellished, taking a photo of something is generally a more objective process for preserving historical figures as they actually appeared for posterity.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Upon further reflection, I prefer D as the lede image. Following the trend of lede images for other U.S. presidents, the image depicts Martin van Buren as he appeared at the peak of his career (i.e.: the presidency).Emiya1980 (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- First, thank you very much for your comments, even including the one that you struck.
- Do you have a preference for D over the cropped version of D, which is G?
- Although you have struck your first comment, I am inclined to address it, because I have seen similar comments in other discussions and edit summaries. In view of the importance of photo retouching, it is questionable to claim that a portrait photo is closer to "real life" than a portrait painting. Although we may not have a record of the retouching that is done, it is hard to believe that a formal photo portrait of a president or former president would not be modified as necessary, or as desired by the subject. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett Yes, I prefer D over G. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Upon further reflection, I prefer D as the lede image. Following the trend of lede images for other U.S. presidents, the image depicts Martin van Buren as he appeared at the peak of his career (i.e.: the presidency).Emiya1980 (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just realized since that photo is showed later in the article it shouldn’t be shown in the infobox. That’s repetitive JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
If this conversation doesn't get more lively, I would be happy to close it off by, for example, agreeing with Emiya1980 on D. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bruce leverett If you want to get more people involved in the discussion, you should probably start an Rfc.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for initiating this, I was scratching my head over it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bruce leverett If you want to get more people involved in the discussion, you should probably start an Rfc.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image
[edit]![]() |
|
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Martin van Buren? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
-
A (Current Image)
-
B
-
C
-
D
Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Readers of this RFC are encouraged to read the earlier section, #Infobox portrait, for background. The above four images are discussed, as well as four others. Various criteria for evaluating images are also discussed. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option D: Although option A is visually striking, option D depicts Van Buren during his presidency. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option D: In the earlier section, I proposed a modified (further cropped) version of Option D, but I am also satisfied with the original. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I gave reasons for preferring Option D in the earlier discussion, but I will recapitulate them here for convenience. First, as other editors have noted, Option D represents Van Buren as he appeared to his political colleagues and rivals, while Option A represents him after years of retirement. Second, Option A is simply not an attractive portrait. Besides the bags under his eyes, Van Buren has hopelessly unkempt hair and an ill-fitting suit; it's almost as if he didn't take portrait sittings seriously any more. Images used in the body of the article don't have to be attractive; but the image used in the infobox plays a special role, and should be as close as we can get to representative and attractive. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option A While this photograph was taken after his presidency, he remained a significant public figure and elder statesman, so I think it is probably fine. It is a high-quality Brady, and is a Featured Picture. Curbon7 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option A ideally depicts the person D.S. Lioness (talk)
- Option A I typically would choose Option D in a similar scenario since it covers the period that was the height of his career. However, Van Buren's largely portrayed in public today as an older man, and this is a well-known photograph that is of historical significance, and it's largely what a reader will expect to see. Certainly not against D, and if there isn't sufficient consensus for A, I'd happily support D as my next option.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option A I hold a position similar to Curbon7 and CoffeeCrumbs.
- Option A This has been the stable image now for 6+ years and there doesn't appear a good reason to change it. For these older biographies, unless there's a great reason to make the change, this type of RFC is a tax on valuable editor time. Almost all of these RFCs are ending in the status quo. So what's the point? Nemov (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you view it as a "tax" on your time, neither you nor any other editor is obligated to participate, Nemov. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- One can say that Option A has been the "stable" image, but numerous attempts to replace it have been made; just since late 2020, I have found [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. I think that in a situation where there are multiple images that could plausibly be used, the way to save editor time and effort is to have a full discussion of all of them, in the talk page rather than in edit summaries, using thumbnails for convenience, as I have done here. I haven't seen this kind of discussion in Wikipedia policy, but I participated in a comparable discussion at Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2#Infobox image, which I thought was useful and turned out well. Future editors can cite such a discussion in subsequent discussions and/or edit summaries.
- In fact, Option A or something similar has been the lead infobox image here far longer than six years. Not all the available images have always been available. For example, Option D was uploaded to WikiMedia Commons only in 2017. Option C has been here longer, since 2012, but it was not available when we started using Option A, in 2005. Another editor writes that "Van Buren's largely portrayed in public today as an older man", and I have to wonder if Wikipedia itself may have played a serious role in this. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option D Martin van Buren is primarily famous because of his tenure as President of the United States. While he may have had a career as an "elder statesman" following his presidency, it doesn't seem like he accomplished anything within that period which overshadowed his time in office. Therefore, I believe an image depicting how he appeared as President would be most appropriate as the lede image. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option A for the reasons expressed by CoffeeCrumbs. Option D would be my second choice. –EruFISH 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreement, A with D being second choice. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option D Option D represents Van Buren as he appeared to his political colleagues and rivals Teknologi Positif (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option D Van Buren and others (JQ Adams, Jackson, Tyler) lived long enough to be photographed, but only as old men, barely representing the dynamic individuals who were presidents. I would favor the use of portraits for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option B Van Buren's photograph is good. I believe we should get a cropped version of it, as many images of people are head and shoulder portraits Wcamp9 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option A then B Highest quality image out of the 4 options, especially when compared to the other 2 portraits. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option DLooks like a good balance between A and C. B just looks like a more close up version of A.Coalcity58 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option B or A. MOS:LEADIMAGE states that
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic
. Although the portraits are nice paintings, they are not as natural as photography, which by its mechanics must be quite true to life in its depiction of the subject. Portraiture as an art form historically has often involved representing a subject flatteringly and thus not necessarily naturally. A photograph of Van Buren—I prefer B as it's cropped closer to his face, but A is fine—is therefore preferable. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)- At the risk of badgering you, I will restate a point that I made earlier in the discussion. Due to Photo retouching, it is a serious error to assume that a photograph is more "true to life" than a painted portrait. With a photographer as experienced and skilled as Brady, and a subject as famous as Van Buren (and also due to Van Buren's advanced age), one may take for granted that A was retouched to a fare-thee-well. Of course, all the retouching activity no doubt improved the quality of the photo, and made it more flattering, insofar as that was possible. But "true to life" and "natural" are simply not applicable. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- A retouched photo is still closer to life than the wholesale construction of a portrait. Of course a good portrait artist tries to not only flatter but also recognizably depict the subject. But it remains the case that every brush stroke must be a consciously made choice, a creation of the artist. Brady was skilled and so has likely done his best to make Van Buren look his best, but he didn't directly control each photon reflected into the camera or the chemical process of development the way Inman controlled very stroke of his brush.In any case, there are still reasons to favor the photograph. Importantly, it's recognizable to audiences as a famous photograph of Van Buren. Also, it comports with his notability as not only a president but also as an elder statesman.On a third matter: your comment further up in the thread mentions a belief that the photograph is unattractive. Your opinion is your own, but I think it's worth noting that determining an image's attractiveness is unavoidably subjective. For instance, I find D least attractive; his body is plunged into so much gloom and his head is so searingly pale that D makes me think of a floating cue ball. Meanwhile, B/A portrays a man who is old, sure, but also standing tall, with a keen power to his gaze, like he's looking right at the viewer. He looks seasoned and intelligent. We obviously disagree about which image is most appealing; such disagreements are natural and happen when making a subjective assessment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the risk of badgering you, I will restate a point that I made earlier in the discussion. Due to Photo retouching, it is a serious error to assume that a photograph is more "true to life" than a painted portrait. With a photographer as experienced and skilled as Brady, and a subject as famous as Van Buren (and also due to Van Buren's advanced age), one may take for granted that A was retouched to a fare-thee-well. Of course, all the retouching activity no doubt improved the quality of the photo, and made it more flattering, insofar as that was possible. But "true to life" and "natural" are simply not applicable. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) A/B, as a photograph, even retouched, is a more natural and accurate representation than a painting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- D. The man is foremost notable because he was president. Ifly6 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Billmckern, Rjensen, GoodDay, Drdpw, Peaceray, and ITBF: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the Martin Van Buren page as well as your continued interest in editing it, you are invited to participate in an Rfc on the article's lede image. Should you be inclined to do so, please share your thoughts on this thread. Thank you for your time. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Mid-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Capital District articles
- Mid-importance Capital District articles
- WikiProject Capital District articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class District of Columbia articles
- Low-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class U.S. Presidents articles
- Top-importance U.S. Presidents articles
- WikiProject U.S. Presidents articles
- B-Class US State Legislatures articles
- Unknown-importance US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Mid-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- B-Class United States governors articles
- Low-importance United States governors articles
- WikiProject United States governors articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment