Jump to content

Talk:James Buchanan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

emphasis on trivia

"the last president born in the 18th century. At the end of his term he was the oldest to serve, a record surpassed by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1981.". There is much fortuitousness in those things, and they hardly help understand the man or his role in History. At least, I do not see any serious reason to include that in the lead. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I remove them. --Superzoulou (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added the NPOV tag. Chagallophile (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The current wording by Catherine jarvis is not all I would like, but it is acceptable, so i will remove the POV tag and hope the debate is over for a while.Chagallophile (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Buchanan's sexuality

I visited this page today and was unpleasantly surprised to find that the section on Buchanan's sexuality had been cut out of the article. A reader to this page who has no prior knowledge of Buchanan would have no idea of the modern-day debate about his sexuality, which has been by far the most active area of recent Buchanan debate, since, let's face it, the book on him as a terrible President was written long ago. (Such a reader would also wonder why the picture of William King is in that section, since the text of the article as I found it gives no clue.) Buchanan's sexuality has been discussed by reliable sources, including a biographer. Evidence for his homosexuality lies in primary sources including his own writing (the "go a-wooing" letter). And it is factually incorrect to state that this section violates any Wikipedia policy. Just out of curiosity I went through and checked the biographies of six other historical figures whose sexuality has been questioned: Kings Edward II, Richard I and Richard II of England, J. Edgar Hoover, Cary Grant, and Eleanor Roosevelt. All of them contained material addressing the possibility that the subjects of the article were homosexual. This is clearly something that Wikipedia can and does talk about. Vidor (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that. The section was based on the work of numerous scholars and is important. Most Historians tend to agree with Baker-- he was not sexual at all and people looked at him (as did Jackson) like a fussy maiden aunt. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "modern day debate" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a recitation of facts, not opinion. Furthermore, Wikipedia seeks consensus. There is obviously no consensus on the matter, as seen in the long discussion above. Including the quote from a modern writer that "there can be no doubt" is simply unacceptable. There is considerable doubt, since no one who makes the claim knew the man in question. any thoughts on Buchanan's sexuality are speculation. Vague terms like went "a wooing" are not proof of anything. As said by several others above, Wikipedia is not a place for original research or pushing someone's agenda. The passages must be removed according to Wikipedia policy.Chagallophile (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The notion that modern day debate is irrelevant is pretty amazing. I would imagine that the number of articles on Wikipedia that include "modern-day debate" is vast. The Abraham Lincoln article has a section entitled "Historical reputation". So does the Thomas Jefferson article, which also has a section on the two centuries of debate about him and Sally Hemings. The Loewen quote that "there can be no doubt" is entirely appopriate--of course there is doubt, but Loewen (who is in fact a reliable source, sorry) represents a particular point of view. This is not "original research" because it is not being done by Wikipedia editors. No "agenda" is being pushed, unless it's one being pushed by Chagallophile. The article is not against Wikipedia policy, and as I noted above, similar sections like this are in many articles. This, once again, is a part of Buchanan's life that has drawn a great deal of attention and has been addressed by reliable sources, even biographers. If something is relevant enough that a biographer is motivated to address it then it should be in this article. I'd be happy to join in any conflict resolution thread out there as I'm confident that this passage will pass muster, as similar passages have passed muster over and over again in many articles about historical figures. Vidor (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue at stake is consensus. There is no consensus on the subject of Buchanan's personal life. Please take sa look at Wikipedia's article, "What Wikipedia is not." Chagallophile (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The required consensus is between editors. It doesn't mean that articles can only include material about which there is universal consensus. William Avery (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. As I said above, I'm sure this material will stand scrutiny, as it is NPOV, it is sourced, it is important, and it is similar to material in several other artcles, as I have noted above. I know "What Wikipedia is not", and it is not only things that Chagallophile finds pleasant. Vidor (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you and support its inclusion. There will always be historical discussion as to how events/ individuals are to be interpreted. We do not need to include only material where consensus has been reached - otherwise we'd find 90% of historical articles empty! Rather, we must ensure we have the right balance in handling the contrasting material. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with Chagallophile on this. The archives on this article show objections to the sexuality claim - and the Loewen piece specifically - going back nine years. The phrase "there can be no doubt" about something Loewen did not witness violates Wikipedia guidelines about soapbox, and the title of his book, "Lies Across America" suggests it is not a reliable source. Again, people have been objecting on this page for nine years. If the required consensus is between editors, as William Avery suggests, that consensus has never existed. I'm going to add another NPOV tag for the sectionOnonuofk (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Before automatically reverting, read the section as it stands on this time stamp: it includes reference to William King without making a blanket statement about Buchanan that cannot be proven. I submit this is a proper compromise.Ononuofk (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, that is not an acceptable compromise. The article as it stands does not explain why a picture of William King is included in an article. It does not explain why Aaron Brown is quoted as referring to Buchanan and King as a married couple; it does not explain why Buchanan is quoted as writing in a letter that he will "go a-wooing" after King left him.

(Cont'd) I can find no reason for excluding the relevant material other than homophobia--a discomfort with homosexuality and a discomfort with the notion that we may well have had a gay president. (Or maybe a discomfort on the part of gay people that a president as bad as Buchanan may have been gay!) I have spelled out the justification for this material many times. It deals with a portion of Buchanan's life that continues to inspire scholarship and research. It has been addressed many times by numerous sources, including a biographer of Buchanan. It escapes me why the Loewen "there can be no doubt" quote is so problematic for people, when the article makes clear that in fact there is doubt. Loewen represents one school of thought. Buchanan's biographer, who is quoted, represents another. The article quotes both, thus adhering to NPOV. And as far as consensus goes, I will type this for at least the third time--I found six different historical figures whose sexuality has been questioned. Three kings of England, one First Lady, one famous bureaucrat, and one well known actor. All six of them had material, in their Wikipedia pages, addressing the possibility that they may have been homosexual. Just now I looked at a seventh: Greta Garbo. Guess what? It talks about how she may have been a lesbian. Let's look at an eighth: Barbara Stanwyck. Jackpot! Let's look at a ninth--Charlie Crist, who is still alive and denying he's a homosexual--but yes, Wikipedia mentions it. Larry Craig--that makes me 10 for 10. Leonardo da Vinci--11 for 11. And just as a bonus, the Lewis Carroll article includes material addressing whether or not he was a pedophile. I ask why the article on James Buchanan must be treated differently than just about any article out there. I ask why the consensus across Wikipedia that these articles suggest is not applied to this article. I also ask those individuals who keep deleting similar Buchanan material from this article to address this point. Vidor (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts are valid, as are the thoughts of other editors. There is legitimate dispute on this page going back a long time among many editors; thus a compromise is necessary. The article as it stands mentions Buchanan and King and the quotes of people who knew them in person. It omits specualtion of people who did not know them. Ononuofk (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with (talk). (talk) - I would also have more confidence in your contributions as an editor if you formally fully signed in as an editor. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always emphasized the idea of civility and Assume Good Faith. Those (in several sections above) who insist that Buchanan was gay write with a strident tone that is troubling, i.e: calling people homophobic, or saying "that makes me ten for ten" as if this was a contest. The opposing thoughts expressed are reasonable and polite, and a desire for compromise is appropriate. Insisting that no one is allowed to disagree with you is inappropriate.Closedthursday (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I do not insist that Buchanan was gay. I do in fact believe he was gay, but the article (and I did not write the section in question, BTW, I merely restored it after it was improperly delted) adhered to NPOV and included an assessment from Buchanan's biographer dismissing the gay thesis. "That makes me ten for ten" is not said in the spirit of a "contest", it is a statement of fact demonstrating broad consensus regarding this kind of issue across many articles. I didn't have to hunt for ten examples; I thought of ten different figures and all ten (12, actually) had material to that effect in their Wikipedia entries. Vidor (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have edited pages on Cary Grant, Josephine Baker, and Anne Heche on this issue. In each of those cases (as with Greta Garbo and Charlie Crist) the speculation came from people who knew them, and the subjects in question could respond. Loewen never knew Buchanan, and Buchanan cannot respond to this claim. The quotes from Andrew Jackson and contemporaries can stay, but the Loewen quote must go. It is a website opinion without further citation and amounts to Loewen launching a personal crusade to out people who can never defend themselves. Wikipedia does not ask for any source available; it demands reliable sources, which Loewen is not.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I mistakenly used the word vandalism on "View History" for this date. Made an effort to edit good faith additions, and condensed the information on Baker while leaving the source itself.Catherinejarvis (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Homosexuality is something that one must "defend" against? Interesting choice of words there. I don't know the grounds on which one decides that James Loewen isn't a reliable source--Loewen is a Ph. D. and a published author (which means the "website opinion" claim above is also false). That being said, however, the article as it currently stands is acceptable. Don't understand the resistance to quoting James Loewen but his assessment is not critical to the article. Vidor (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks (talk), tried to tidy up the section by including some improved sources. I hope it reads a bit better now overall. I agree with you on Loewen, he is a respectable academic and can be quoted on historical biography. However, in the end I chose not to use the blog quote as I felt it was a little too long but added his line about Buchanan and King being 'siamese twins'. What I still want to do is find a supporting source which backs my understanding that "Aunt Nancy" was a 19th century euphemisim for an effeminate or homosexual man. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Buchanan's sexuality: keep it.

Today I read a comment in the blogosphere that Buchanan was gay, so I came to Wikipedia to verify. From wikipedia I learned that there are several facts which hint that he may have been gay, and what those facts were. I learned that some scholars have made the argument. That's probably just about the right balance of information for a casual researcher like me who wasn't even entirely sure that Buchanan was the president immediately preceding Lincoln.

If the debate about the section remains ongoing, I suggest that all of the current information should be retained, including the list of "hints," and the names and arguments to the prominent scholars who have made the argument. The article does not need to come to a conclusion one way or another, just present the fact that there is a strain of thought, what the evidence is, and leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c08c:a6f0:21c:b3ff:fec3:2572 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 July 2014‎

"... a personal crusade to out people who can never defend themselves. ..."?

The language "... a personal crusade to out people who can never defend themselves. ..." used by User talk:Catherinejarvis is offensive. Is being homosexual something you are "outed" for? User talk:Catherinejarvis notes that since Buchanan is dead he has no opportunity to rebut (if he was in fact heterosexual) the assertion that he was homosexual. Would she similarly protest the assertion that some other dead historical figure was heterosexual but, being dead, is unable to rebut (had they been homosexual) the assertion that they were heterosexual? The standard that should be applied to evidence of Buchanan's homosexuality is NOT that it should be (as two writers here opine) better than "gossip" or better than "underwhelming". The standard that should be applied to evidence of Buchanan's homosexuality is precisely the same standard as should be applied to evidence of any dead person's heterosexuality. If Wikipedia, relying only on "underwhelming gossip", reports on some dead person's presumed heterosexuality, then it must accept "underwhelming gossip" as the standard for reporting on Buchanan's possible homosexuality. If you believe that making a case for Buchanan's homosexuality requires stronger evidence than making a case for his heterosexuality or asexuality, then that is, by definition, bias.69.86.65.186 (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Utah War

The Utah War section was clearly written by the Brethren and is comical in the extreme in it's attempt to eliminate the largest movement of the US Army between The Mexican War and The Civil War. The Buchanan administration was almost entirely consumed by the Utah situation in the opening months following inauguration. Kane was on his way out of the Valley with Brigham ready to burn it to the ground when word came of the demise of the northern escape route via the fall of Fort Limhi. Within 12 hours, realizing he was trapped forever on US Soil, he capitulated and sent a snotty letter to A.S. Johnston, leader of the US Expedition wintering over at Fort Bridger. It would take a Peace Commission dispatched by Buchanan to negotiate (without Kane's involvement or input) the passage of Johnston's 2500-strong army through the streets of Great Salt Lake City singing the folk song "One-Eyed Riley" on 26 June 1858. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.57.44 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I think that he was rated the worst President should be put on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.44.120 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

National Hotel disease

Very strange reference from National_Hotel_disease#President-elect involvement that: 1) he was ill for the first few weeks of his presidency, and 2) that affected his decisions during that time. Searching for illness or health doesn't pop up anything in this article. What gives? BS there or here? Shenme (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

William R. King

James Buchanan, Jr. is rated one of our worst presidents, if not the worst, because he avoided dealing with secession. Lincoln however is rated as our best president because he dealt with secession by prosecuting the most destructive war in our nation's history. The total casualties of this war, including human, economic, sectional, racial and cultural, to name but a few, are still being counted 150 years later. Buchanan tried his best to apply the rule of law as he saw fit without bloodshed. He did ultimately fail, but he should be given a higher rating for his attempt. Why are war presidents seen as great men while peace presidents are seen as ordinary or indecisive? That should tell you where the mentality of this nation is. Walter H. Ring 3rd

Buchanan did not work for peace. He did not do his best to apply the rule of law. he was pro-South until about jan 1 1861 then became anti-South, in both cases making the war more likely. Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Could someone more familiar with the Buchanan/King relationship restore relevant passages and sources to the William R. King article? It seems to have been scrubbed by User:Catherinejarvis. Woodshed (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for alerting. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you not think any of the material such as the Jackson or Brown quotes, or parts of the Loewen or Watson analyses, belong in the King article? Woodshed (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The speculation of people who did not know these men is not relevant. Loewen especially seems to be using historical figures to push an agenda of his own. I merely trimmed unsubstantiated gueshsing from the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please avoid suggesting that gay history is merely all about idle "gossip". That's an incredibly insulting thing to say. Contaldo80 (talk)
  • If powerbrokers, let alone voters, knew that Buchanan was gay, his political ascent would have been controversial, to say the very least. In fact, it's hard to see how he could have been elected at all given the attitudes of the time. Andrew Jackson also called John Quincy Adams a pimp. Jackson was known for making outrageous accusations, not for his gaydar. If you leave aside the innuendo from Jackson and his Tennessee clique, the remaining evidence can best be described as "underwhelming." This blog post gives the argument in greater detail. The Clever Boy (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Underwhelming perhaps, but not beyond belief. We're just saying he might have been homosexual, not born on Mars. It's not that controversial surely?Contaldo80 (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The blog cited above terminates Buchanan's letter at "... a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them", ironically mocking it as "scorching stuff", while omitting the remaining text, which contains: "... and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection". If including this text wouldn't damage the blog's argument, the blog wouldn't bother to exclude it. The simple effort to omit this text, then, indicates that it IS scorching stuff (with no ironic quote-marks). Also, the blog applies the incorrect standard ("proof"), and mocks using the absence of evidence contrary to a fact as evidence of the fact. But many Presidents are deemed heterosexual without "proof", on nothing more than having behaved like a stereotypical heterosexual male, absent the production of contrary evidence. So the presumptive designation of "homosexual, pending further evidence" should be alllowed to stand on symmetrically weak evidence.69.86.65.186 (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Religion parameter in infoboxes

Calidum, per your edit summary "The RFC didn't give a blank check to remove this field", the close on the RFC was "Overwhelmingly clear consensus (36 "remove" to 12 "keep" and one "rename the parameter", if anyone cares about raw numbers) to remove the parameter from the infoboxes...". Ultimately it will be removed from the template itself, shutting it off in the article regardless of whether the parameter exists in the wikitext. Alsee (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Adding RFC link: WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes Alsee (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The RfC has yet to be implicated to allow for continued use in certain articles (the part of the closer's comment you convienently left out). Given that Buchanan "united with the Presbyterian church" following his retirement from politics, it seems pretty important. Calidum ¤ 18:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation guide currently says "/ˈbʌkænən/, also /bjuːˈkænən/". To the best of my recollection, I have only ever heard /bju:ˈkænən/. The /ˈbʌkænən/ pronunciation is completely unfamiliar.

That doesn't mean that it's wrong, of course. A lot of pronunciations have changed since that time. For all I know, /ˈbʌkænən/ could be the way that he said it, or what most people called him at the time. But in that case I'd sort of expect the article to say something about it, and there's not a word. Can anyone find a source that discusses this? --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As of 2016?

If we apply this approach consistently we could end up attaching "as of" comments to a whole pile of statements in his biography, and the biographies of other presidents and other important figures. For example, just briefly looking down the article, do we attach this to the statements that he is the only president to be a lifelong bachelor and to come from Pennsylvania? PatGallacher (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "as of 2016" statements are useless and should be avoided. it's outdated in one month from now. If another president from Pennsylvania comes along the press will say "first Pa President since Buchanan" & we can immediately make an update. Rjensen (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I just didn't think HRC's loss was a good reason to remove it. Maybe it was put there in the first place because of her? That wouldn't have been a very good reason either. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Buchanan. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tariffs the greatest issue of the day?

And not slavery? What reliable sources support that bizarre, not to mention POV, interpretation of history? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, the line in question reads "one of the most important", not "the most important". From my research, I think "one of" is defensible. From the Tariff of Abominations in the 1820s right through the McKinley Tariff of the 1890s and beyond, tariffs were always an issue of contention that pitted regional interests against each other.
Northern states generally liked high tariffs on imported finished goods, because the resulting higher prices on imports gave U.S. manufacturers in northern states a competitive advantage. Southern states disliked tariffs, because they shipped off their raw materials like cotton to foreign countries or northern manufacturers at low prices, but then had to buy finished goods from northern states or foreign manufacturers at high prices.
After the founding of the Republican Party in the 1850s, Republicans were usually in favor of high tariffs (protectionism), and Democrats generally favored low tariffs (free trade). The article Tariffs in United States history gives a pretty good rundown on the importance of the tariff issue in U.S. political and financial history.
Billmckern (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right, it does say "one of the most important". But it appears before slavery in the section titled "Political views". Were his views on tariffs (which is the subject of one paragraph in this section) really more important than his views on slavery (five paragraphs in this section)? If not, why is it placed before it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: Well, that's a completely different argument. I think I resolved the first one by adding a Wikilink for the article on tariffs in US history and a reference to support the statement that tariffs were one of the most important issues in the U.S. during the 1800s, and removing the dubious tag.
Billmckern (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The tariff was absolutely one of the greatest issues of the day; it was extremely important for both the economy and for raising revenue. The tariff was perhaps the single most debated issue between John Quincy Adams's presidency and the Mexican-American War (and the subsequent debate over slavery in the territories), and that period coincides with much of Buchanan's career. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the information about slavery above the information about tariffs in that section, but nor would I downplay the importance of tariffs. I'd also like to note that the section in question contains five paragraphs about slavery compared to one paragraph about tariffs. Orser67 (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, I undid your recent edits. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, a lead should be 2-4 paragraphs. Also, the citation in the Secretary of State section covers the entire paragraph, not just that single sentence. I noticed that you added another citation needed tag in the Bleeding Kansas section; in that case, too, the citation was supporting the entire paragraph. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, a citation can be added at the end of a clause, sentence, or paragraph. Orser67 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Buchanan. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Last Democrat to Succeed a Democrat

Not technically true. Truman and Lyndon Johnson both succeeded on their predecessor's deaths but were then in turn elected to terms in their own right. Emperor001 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles

In a recent edit summary, the claim that "it's capitalized on other pages" is true but not a valid reason to capitalize. The Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:JOBTITLES says job titles "are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a formal title ... is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier ... Nixon was the 37th president of the United States." In this example, "37th" modifies "president", so "president" does not get capitalized. Similarly, Buchanan was the 15th president of the United States (also lower case). The reason that some other pages have it capitalized is that I have not yet gotten to them all. I will restore my edit. Chris the speller yack 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not notable?

The intro concludes by stating: "As of 2018, he is the most recent Democrat elected to succeed a Democratic president who did not die in office." I feel like this isn't notable; perhaps it would be if it were just "the most recent Democrat elected to succeed a Democratic president," but I feel like there couldn't be so many Democrats who were elected to succeed Democrats and who died in office that it makes the most recent one notable. Thoughts? 60.248.185.19 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea is that he's the most recent Democrat to begin his presidency by election as the successor to another Democrat. The ones who succeeded Democrats who died in office were their vice-presidents (Truman, LBJ, anyone else?), so their presidencies began by line of succession rather than by election (even though they won elections in their own right later).
Oh, now I think I see — you misunderstood who died in office. Truman succeeded FDR when FDR died in office. LBJ succeeded JFK when JFK was shot. Both then won elections in their own right. But neither Truman nor LBJ died in office.
Anyway, I agree it's sort of trivial, but maybe not quite as trivial as you thought. --Trovatore (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. The clause is kind of ambiguous. Do you think a change of tense would be OK? "As of 2018, he is the most recent Democrat elected to succeed a Democratic president who had not died in office." 60.248.185.19 (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's an improvement, yes. I'm kind of neutral on whether the fact should be kept, but if it is, at least make it unambiguous. --Trovatore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My feeling is that it's too trivial for the lede (with three qualifiers, it's almost like saying "He was the last green-eyed president from Pennsylvania who had a dog"). Maybe move that sentence to the "Legacy" section somewhere? Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Change in the lead

I have taken a bit of an unusual approach at the beginning of the lead, which bears some scrutiny. In an effort to increase the article's drawing power, while trying to maintain balance, I have placed his ranking by historians at the beginning, in the context of the beginning of the civil war. My hope is to conduct a CE of the article with a view towards a possible GA nom. Thoughts please. Hoppyh (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Images removed

I have omitted the 1856 election campaign cartoon (DemocraticPlatform1856Cartoon.jpg), as the section lacked adequate space for it. Also, the image does not appear to be sufficiently legible. Hoppyh (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have also removed the inauguration pic (James Buchanan inauguration 1857.jpg) for lack of adequate space. The image is in the presidential article. Hoppyh (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto, the image of the log cabin place of birth (Buchanan Home Mercersburg.jpg). Hoppyh (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto the 1860 election map (ElectoralCollege1860.svg). Hoppyh (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate Picture

The picture James Buchanan.jpg is in the article twice. Once as the lead and another time further down Wiki name (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Republican-Federalist ?

This term is used in the section “Congressional service and Minister to Russia”. Some brief description of it is needed. Hoppyh (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation redux

Some time ago (look in the archives) there was an improbable-sounding claim that the pronunciation was /ˈbʌk.ənən/. Comes now an anon with a slightly less implausible claim that the contemporary pronunciation was /ˌbjuːˈkeɪ.nən/. No one, to my knowledge, has ever provided a verifiable source for either of these.
On the other hand, I don't really know that they're wrong. I really think the simplest way out of the mess is just not to have a pronunciation key, as it isn't really needed. This is a perfectly ordinary name, and competent English speakers will know how to pronounce it. Admittedly English learners could have issues, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary.
If we really have to have a pronunciation key, then either we go with the one everyone knows, /ˌbjuːˈkæn.ən/ and the anons go away, or someone needs to show sources. Even if there are sources for one of these odd alleged contemporary pronunciations, they should not be represented as the pronunciation, because practically no one uses them today. --Trovatore (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should specify the pronunciation. It may seem like a competent English speaker shouldn't need it, but through tough and thorough thought I've learned that English pronunciation is rather unpredictable. Someone who has only read the name "Buchanan" can't really tell whether it's pronounced "byoo-KA-nin", "byoo-KAY-nen", "BYOO-ke-nin", "butch-AY-nen", "BUTCH-a-nin", "BUCK-a-nin", etc. We provide the pronunciation whenever it's potentially ambiguous, e.g. for Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama etc. I looked for sources about the pronunciation of James Buchanan's name and found no indication that it ever was anything but /ˌbjuːˈkæn.ən/. Here are some videos of historians, journalists etc. saying his name: Britannica, a journalist and a historian, another historian on C-SPAN, two more historians on C-SPAN. I haven't watched the full videos, but I've found zero evidence that the pronunciation has ever been different. I guess these anons are trying to prank Wikipedia. Let's include the well-known and undisputed pronunciation in the first sentence. Maybe we'll have to revert these anons a few more times, but eventually they'll give up. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
You make a good case. --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I just had a look at the previous talk page entries here (2016) and here (2009). The only argument for any other pronunciation was "I once read...", so I went ahead and added the pronunciaton /ˌbjuːˈkæn.ən/ that you mentioned above. (I don't really know IPA, but it looks correct to me.) Maybe we should also add something like byoo-KAN-ən for those who don't know IPA? Similar to Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan? Not sure. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Election of 1860

The article says not a word about why Buchanan did not run in 1860. Please add this, I don't know much about him but I had hoped to find this. deisenbe (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Civil War came close in late June 1863

Buchanan lived in Wheatland, on west outskirts of Lancaster, and some Confederates reached Wrightsville but were kept out of Columbia and Lancaster County because a bridge was torched. Those Confederates headed west to join other Confederates at Gettysburg. Carlm0404 (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

change the years that the article states Philip Francis Thomas served as the secretary of the treasury from 1860-1860 to 1860-1861 James buchanan's second secretary of the treasury Philip Francis Thomas served from December 1860 to january 1861

sources: Philip Francis Thomas wikipedia page and digitized NY times article from January 17 1861 https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/17/archives/withdrawal-of-mr-pf-thomas-from-the-cabinet.html by this we can gather he resigned January 11th and it was read and accepted the next day January 12th 1861 Johnny24198 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Under "Romantic Life" which would more appropriately be entitled "Personal Life", there are two linked articles: 1) "List of federal political sex scandals in the United States" and 2) "Sodomy laws in the United States." Nothing in the Romantic Life section alludes to or provides evidence for a political sex scandal during James Buchanan's time as a politician, and nothing in the article implicates sodomy laws in the United States. Users are misled to infer from the inclusion of these linked articles that President Buchanan is linked to a sex scandal and/or violated a sodomy law in the United Staes, neither of which has evidentiary support. Suggest that these linked articles be removed from this section. Taylorjharris (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Political Party

Absent from this Wiki is Buchanan's political party, which should be near the top. I came here seeking the answer, but had to turn to other means. 2601:154:C100:2F80:64F8:24F0:87FC:D79 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Buchanan/Archive_3&oldid=1225626081"