Talk:John Tyler/Archive 2

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

Children

Why are only 7 children listed under Tyler's first marriage, when it states in the previous sentence that there were 8 children? Unclemikejb (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"John Tyler, Jr."

Another editor alluded to this above, but the use of John Tyler, Jr. as the president's name appears to be unfounded. Chitwood, Seager and Crapol only use this name to refer to the president's son. —Designate (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

John Tyler and slavery

Did John Tyler own slaves or run his father's plantation? If so, how large was the Tyler plantation, in terms of the number of slaves owned? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Article seems to cover this. AstroCog (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe the subject needs to be expanded on the Greenway Plantation and how he was ambivalent to slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 01:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. It may take a few days, or perhaps longer - this is a long article. Please be patient. Looking forward to reading it, and learning some history! AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose is good throughout. I haven't found much in the way of spelling or grammar errors.
    However, this article looks great up until the last two sections, when the 'Marriage and family' and 'Legacy' are quite undeveloped. That could be ok, if there's not a lot of info to include, but the first one amounts to just a couple of lists - I'd like to see this converted into more prose. In 'Legacy', I'm put off by the image gallery. I don't think the coin is that important for this article - Tyler only got the coin because they wanted a coin for every president; he's not on the coin for any other particular honor. Tell a story in the section to connect to the images, and structure it so that the images are spread out and not just combined into a little gallery.
    • I see the gallery has been removed in favor of a better 'Legacy' section at the end. Good job.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Looks pretty well-researched. I'm slightly concerned that the article is developed primarily from only two or three books, but that could just be that there's only a few books about Tyler. I didn't do any extra research to see what other sources there are. Perhaps the main contributors can speak to this point? Are there a bunch of other books/sources about Tyler that exist but aren't being used? Or is this pretty all there is?
    The reader can find any biography of Tyler and get essentially the same story. The rest of the biographies I skimmed seemed to be largely derived from Chitwood and Seager, with a few extra details thrown in here and there. So it made sense to use the two major sources directly, rather than mashing up different sentences from less-cited books describing the same incidents. I cross-referenced details with Crapol in some parts, as it was a more recent biography, but the story is the same.
    The other thing I did was look at other brief encyclopedia-style articles (Britannica, Whitehouse.gov, etc.), and I made sure not to miss any major elements. I'm sure there are some interesting details strewn throughout other books, which would be expected for FA quality, but I doubt anything significant is missing. —Designate (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See User:Cmguy777's note below about expanding information about slavery in this article. Otherwise, I think it is quite good, and would satisfy any general reader.
    • OK, Cmguy777's suggestions seem to have been implemented. If there's additional content to be added to the article, it was come up at any future FAC nomination. For now, this is plenty for GA status.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No apparent problems here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problems here.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Almost none of the images have alt-text. Alt-text must be added. Take a look at alt-viewer for more details.
    The three images in the 'Legacy' section have woe-fully inadequate captions, which must be improved - but also see my note above about dispensing with this gallery anyway.
    • Looks like the images have all been updated now. Good job.
  7. Overall: Overall a nice article. The things that need to be fixed are outlined above. I'll put the review on hold for a week until these fixes are made.
    • Article Passes GA review.
    Pass/Fail:

Cmguy777 views

The article looks balanced and well researched. I would expand, just a bit on Tylers view's on slavery and the Greenway plantation. Tyler was an ambivilent slave owner and he destested the slave market. His Greenway plantation had 40 slaves and made Tyler's political carreer possible. Tyler believed that slavery was inheritlently evil. I would put along with the Missouri Compromise information. Here is the source link: John Tyler May (2008), pp. 22-24. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions that Tyler grew up on a plantation, not a slave plantation. I have read through the article and can't find any mention on Tyler's views on slavery or that he owned slaves. I believe this issue has not been adequately addressed in the article. I gave a source to be used in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
You must have missed it while reading the article: John_Tyler#U.S._House_of_Representatives is the section that contains this information, including the reference you suggested. This was added by Designate after your suggestion! AstroCog (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks. That is a good edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tyler died outside the US?

The statement in the article that the official position is that the Confederacy was in rebellion and not a separate nation seems unnecessary and perhaps wrong. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution says:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Thus West Virginia's secession from Confederate Virginia and acceptance into the Union could not have been constitutional unless Virginia either was not a state at the time or Virginia gave consent. The Supreme Court case Virginia v. West Virginia decided in favor of West Virginia but without explicitly addressing this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enon (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also included in the article is that Tyler was not ofically mourned in Washington. This was more a result of his being the only death of a Southern president during the rebellion. The notoriety is NOT that He was the only president not ofically mourned in washington but that He happended to die during a the civil war and was elaborately mourned in the South and correspondingly not in Washington who the confederates considered another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weum2004 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Living grandchildren

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/former-president-john-tyler-1790-1862-grandchildren-still-191230189.html

Two of his grandchildren are still alive, as men from the Tyler family had a tendency to have kids later in life. Apparently, the grandkids are Lyon Gardiner Tyler, Jr (b. 1924) and and Harrison Ruffin Tyler (b. 1928). Their father, President Tyler's son Lyon, who was born when his father was already 63, was in his 70s when he had them.--RM (Be my friend) 01:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Harrison Ruffin Tyler purchased Sherwood Forest, President Tyler's home, from other Tyler relatives in the 1970s and since then has done much to restore and maintain it as a public attraction. He still resides there part of the time, conducts tours, and often has been the subject of interviews that can be seen on the internet under his name. Prior to his purchase of the estate, for awhile it was not in suitable condition to be open to the public. He also had the history department at the College of William and Mary dedicated in the name of his father, Lyon Gardiner Tyler, who was a historian there for many years and devoted his career to writing in defense of his father, President Tyler. [User: Historian 215. 13 April 2012]

Recarving Rushmore

I posted that Recarving Rushmore (2009) ranked Tyler as the best president of all time in terms of peace, prosperity, and liberty, which is true, but I couldn't cite it right. One of you will have to fix it.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The citation tag has been fixed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Classic reference problem

"With their dispersion, they accepted the expansion of suffrage."

"With their (the rebels) dispersion, they (the Rhode Island General assembly) accepted the expansion of suffrage."

They's got's their they's wrong there. Shenme (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

john tyler is a mother lover and he sucks bad

Date image

The image in the box is dated 1850, the file page says 1860. Which one is correct? I used the 1850 figure in German Wikipedia when I added it there. --Jerchel (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Confederate Congress

It seems to me like part of Pres. Tyler's article should be changed. Under his picture, in the area that shows all of his offices held, it mentions that he was a member of the Confederate congress. The problem is, Tyler never took office. It seems to me like it should be changed to Representative- Elect, instead of member of congress.

It strikes me that it's there for effect. We might do better to replace it with his membership in the provisional Congress if we had the exact details on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Image of Fletcher Webster & John Tyler

The image should be placed in the President, 1841-45 section & not the Vice President, 1841 section. Harrison was already dead & thus Tyler was already President of the USA, when receiving the notice. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Technically, he was the "acting" president at the time of receiving the notice, prior to having been sworn in. Nevertheless, your point is a valid one.--JayJasper (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Nitpicking: The oath isn't required to become President of the USA, otherwise the office would've been vacant for roughly 15-30 minutes atleast every 4 years ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it should go in the vice presidential section because that's where we discuss Tylers accession--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Wehwalt. The sentence talking about Tyler receiving the letter is in the VP section. —Designate (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Also it shows the lack of eagerness that Tyler was careful to display and that is discussed in the text in the VP section. Other than rising to meet his guest Tyler has done nothing to get the news faster . He's just standing there right in front of his chair I think it fits better in the VP section.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, he became President at the moment Harrison died. Furthermore the sentence-in-question should also be moved to the 'President, 1841-45' section. Tyler's action has been followed by Fillmore, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman & L. Johnson. It was codified in 1967, by the 25th amendment & applied retroactively, aswell as forward concerning Ford. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, the image-in-question is inaccurate, according to pages 1-2 of auther Gary May's book John Tyler. In his book, Robert Beale (accompaning Fletcher Webster) awakens John Tyler via pounding on his door. The President meets them, while wearing his night clothes complete with night cap. Tyler invites the 2 men into his house, where Webster then hands him the message. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Since Harrison's illness is detailed in the VP sentence, it would make no sense to have the culmination of the illness, his death, be in the following section. You are being, I think, a bit too literal.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm being accurate, which is the point of this 'pedia. There's really nothing more I can add to this discussion & so I'll allow others to participate. In light of Gary May's book, I recommend the 'image' be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
the image shouldn't be deleted; it's still an artwork depicting history & an historic image (as a 19th century print); it's just inaccurate. it probably shouldn't be included in the article though, & certainly not without noting its inaccurate/symbolic nature in the caption. Lx 121 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt either of them are very accurate. Maze book is not necessarily authoritative. He's picking a popular take that he likes. No big deal though--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this a photograph?

File:John Tyler.png looks like a photographic reproduction of a lithograph to me, but I do know that some very early photography did give somewhat of an appearance of being drawn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Library of Congress (link) categorizes it as a "portrait photograph". —Designate (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The Library of Congress is not known for being without error, however. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Ran it by Crisco 1492, he agreed it almost certainly was not originally a photograph. As such, it's a bit misleading for the article. Indeed, the LoC link you gave says "Reproduction of a print(?)." Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
And then I found the source file: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/brh2003000209/PP/ - which says It's from a daguerrotype... I'm now unsure. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Comparing a few daguerrotypes, this becomes a lot more plausible... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
We seem to be slightly at daguerrs drawn about the image. Personally I favor File:John Tyler.png as lede photograph. It shows Tyler much more as he appeared as president than the other, which depicts him as very old indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm trying to figure out what that substitute image is: It claims to be from the Library of Congress. I've searched the Prints and Photographs division with both John Tyler and President Tyler, and can't find anything even resembling it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The National Park Service has a version of that photo credited to the Chicago Historical Society. This article from 1954 (!) depicts it as part of the CHS's collection and suggests an author. But I don't know where the cleaned-up version came from. —Designate (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In any case, both the original and cleanup have a lot of JPEG artefacts. I'd be inclined to go with File:John Tyler.png - though I have found both a higher-res copy and better documentation, which I'll be uploading soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


it isn't a photograph of the person, it's a photograph of some portrait; it looks like some lithographic(-like)-thing. the hair & skin are clearly not "from life", they are drawn & shaded. interestingly the image may have been based on a photograph (dag-type i'd assume); but it's pretty clearly been given the 19th century equivalent of an airbrush job. not just "retouched", but made artificial (as well as "prettier"). it would be interesting to see the original photo, if it still survives... Lx 121 (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

lede image

i am restoring the previous & longstanding lede photo, as per historical accuracy & NPOV.

the image which i am replacing is NOT a photograph, it's clearly a printed lithograph/whatever image; you don't even need to view it full-sized to see that. it is not even a very good likeness; & it is not as detailed.

another user has raised questions about "source"; does anyone here seriously dispute that the photo is of john tyler? or that it is in the public-domain?

Lx 121 (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, the image you've restored is of Tyler in 1850, where's he was president from 1841-45. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
1860 actually and the image page needs a Library of Congress number and the United States public domain tag and it would not have passed FAC without them--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
no, the sourcing, as mentioned in a conversation above, puts it @ 1850; & it's a better likeness, as well as being an actual photograph of the person (unlike the replaced image, which is a photograph, of a picture, which might or might not have been derived from a photograph of the person, but has pretty clearly been "prettied up"). it doesn't look like the source is the loc actually, it seems to be from the chicago historical society. & i was being nice in not mentioning you by name; are you seriously trying to make a case that this image is under copyright!? o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
sourcing, from a conversation above: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/presidents/bio10.htm & http://www.luminous-lint.com/libraryvault/GEH_Image/GEH_1954_03_09.pdf
People expect accurate sourcing and reference tags in a FA and we did a lot of work to make it that way it seems to be an idea only weeks after the FAC close to start letting that go.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the best top-image would be Tyler's White House portrait. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, & that's a PAINTING, not a photograph of the person. & btw, they didn't have "official" white house presidential portraits back in the 1840's. that didn't become a thing until much later. the presidential portraits from this far back are "ad hoc"; any "officialness" is retroactive from after the practice became an established institution. Lx 121 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI, it is a policy that all images be sourced on their description page regardless of whether we think they're under copyright. It's the responsible practice academically. –Designate (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a daguerreotype. Yes, they look weird. No, it's not a lithograph, I conducted extensive research to check that. Early photography tended to have fairly extreme contrasts, which gives it a pencilly/lithography look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Virginia

I've re-added the link to the EV. While it is an encyclopedia, the website is affiliated with the Library of Virginia and includes links to various Tyler-related documents. I'd like to keep it added if possible, although if it does need to be removed it needs to be removed. Mostly I thought that it'd be good to add since it does have access to documents and other materials that the LVA and the website has access to, so it's a bit more expanded than some other encyclopedias out there. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I just don't want it discarded on the basis that it's for another website's encyclopedia since there are other things that people can access via the site. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "President" (or the lack thereof)

There is serious inconsistency in this article with regard to the capitalization (or lack thereof) of the word "President". This situation also applies where "Vice President" is used.

I think capitalization should be used when referring directly to a title such as "President Tyler". All other occurrences of the word "president" should be in lower case. If I can get consensus on this suggestion I will make the changes myself. Any feedback on my suggestion from other editors would be appreciated.

I suggest a 3:5 consensus ratio if I can get 5 different editors to vote on this.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm OK with what you are saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I prefer what you suggested, but note that the current guideline on titles encourages the awkward/inconsistent version. "President of the United States", for example, is supposed to be capitalized for some reason. I would favor revising that guideline, but go ahead and change this article in the meantime. Designate (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

john TYLER WAS BORN IN 1789 Sscrowe13 (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done. He was born in 1790, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates?

According to the article, "Tyler successfully sought election to the House of Delegates. He took his seat in 1838 and his peers unanimously elected him Speaker." If this is so, why is he is not included in the "List of Speakers of the Virginia House of Delegates" Wikipedia article? Was he ever speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates or no?71.29.48.171 (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember checking that source I'll cut the reference pending a check.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tyler's family

The reference to an aristocratic Virginia family in the opening section of this article is preposterous and wrong, given the United States has no aristocracy, nor ever has. I would suggest changing it to prominent Virginia family, or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.156.177 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. Aristocracy (class) may be used informally to designate "people that a particular social order considered the highest social class of that society" whereas Aristocracy specifically refers to a form of government. I changed the sentence to read "Tyler, born to an eminent Virginia family, came to national prominence at a time of political upheaval." Peaceray (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

lede photo

wikipedia policy: accurate photographs take precedence over NNPOV artworks.

photo has been in place as lede on the article for years.

also, for the objecting user: this photo was taken in 1845, WHILE tyler WAS PRESIDENT.

this is what he REALLY looked like.

wikipedia deals with reality.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The LoC listing, here says between 1860 and 1865 but as Tyler died in 1861 that may narrow it down. Thus, fifteen years after he was president, and it does not give the reader any sense of the dynamic man he was as president. If the only free photograph showed him as a baby, would that be superior to a painting? Please read the various discussions. Remember, you must build consensus for your change, as it is contentious.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
the date seems to be in dispute, but we do have other PHOTOGRAPHS to choose from. it's not a photo of him as a baby, it's a photo of him as a mature, healthy adult male; WHILE he was an active, PUBLIC FIGURE. the rest of your arguement is nnpov. it is NOT our job to "romanticise" the subject, it is to show his physical appearance ACCURATELY. there is nothing "contentious" here; we've been using a photo as lede for YEARS. AFTER discussing it & reaching agreement. the "contentious" action was to remove the longstanding image, & replace it with a painting. wp favours accuracy over "prettiness". a careful comparision of the painting with the photographs also & clearly shows just how inaccurate & nnpov the painting really is.
people in the 19th century did not have perfect skin, particularly males. this is history & reality. that is what we do here.
we don't use heroic paintings for historic/biographical subjects where we have photographs. we would not even be having this discussion if the subject was someone regarded negatively.
Lx 121 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)*
  • here is the cite for an 1840s date for the photo. https://books.google.ca/books?id=Gp0fPG7UcXwC&pg=PA114-IA9&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false & a quick perusal of the sources of several photos suggests that the loc/archive date is arbitrary & inaccurate. especially as it estimates a range including 4 years after the subject has died. AND it gives the same date estimate for photos clearly taken some time apart. i would tentatively assume that the date is taken from when the copy was made. Lx 121 (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
So what precludes it from being taken in 1860?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
same arguement back. but also: tyler was 50 in 1840, he was 70 in 1860, 71 & change when he died. go with the 1845 date & he is 55. the man in the photo looks more likely to be an 1840s version of a 55 year old, than an 1860 70 year old. for one thing, he still has a significant amount of colour in his hair. for another, the original is a daguerreotype; which was common in the 1840s & "obsolete" by 1860.
additional point: it is worth noting that these photographs are professional portraits, not "snapshots", not "paparazzi". the man sat/posed for a hired photographers to take these pictures. the images were retained & circulated. presumably the subject was satisfied with the quality of the work. Lx 121 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


& the "rule of thumb" would be that, of the photographs we have available for a subject, we use the best likeness.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

uploaded the "new" photo-image of tyler to commons,
Lx 121 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC),
strike that; it's a zoomed in version of an early photo of the npg version of the healy painting, my bad. Lx 121 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

|

It was likely taken in 1861 when Tyler was in Washington chairing the peace conference. This is a Brady-Handy photo and he was in New York during Tyler's presidency. Our watchword should be to aid the reader, and will a photo of Tyler in his decrepitude help him than the hale, hearty man we see in the painting? One shows us an old man, the other the man who was a force in this nation for twenty years. I think the one that will best aid the reader is the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
brady & co. took lots of photographs of notable individuals, not all of them in nyc. tyler wasn't immobilised in dc, & by 19th century standards, he hardly looks 71 years old in the full image. also, tangentially, IF that photo was taken during the conference, that would make it even more historically noltable. if you can prove it. also, the clothing doesn't really look 1860s to me; & he still has some colour in his hair, but it's natural, not a dye job.
& with respect, the other part of your arguement is still nnpov. the purpose of the lede image is to capture an accurate likeness of the subject. Lx 121 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


Lx 121 is correct with regards to the photo. The consensus rule about pictures in infoboxes is that whenever available a photo always trumps a painting. That is the general rule that as result has come out of many an edit war about this topic. The dating of the photo is of less significance. -- fdewaele, 16 November 2016, 22:27 CET.
Those do not trump the discussions on this page, as they are assuredly not policy. By the way, I note a retreat from the claim that this dates from Tyler's presidency. We're back to why a photo of a man who looks little like he did as president should be included.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
yes it is both policy & practice; as both accuracy & npov. it is also a common standard in for historians: photographs are more accurate than paintings. & you "note" incorrectly. he was president 1841-45; a circa 1845 daguerreotype would be a pretty accurate depiction of what he looked like as president. & a careful perusal of the images we have on file suggests that the photo is pretty close to what he looked like @ the time, only with more detailed accuracy, & less "airbrush". Lx 121 (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
It is from the Brady-Handy collection. Brady was in New York in 1845. I would suggest the Library of Congress is the best authority on its own collection. And from what I can see from other photographs the 1860-65 dating is pretty common for Civil War era photographs.--Wehwalt (talk)
yes, but he died in january 1862. are you suggesting that the photograph was taken AFTER he died? because otherwise the date-estimate is pretty sloppy & inaccurate. Lx 121 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Lx 121, please link to the policy you say favors photos over paintings. Please note that the bio of a POTUS should have a likeness of him while in office. That's not a policy, afaik, but common sense generally adhered to. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

as i have told you before, repeatedly, it falls under both wp:accuracy & wp:npov. i have explained the reasons why before & above as well.

your "afaik" is an opinion, neither policy nor guideline; & in this case it fails to support your arguement. for at least 2 reasons:

1. the painting you are advocating was created AFTER he died.

2. the daguerreotype may have been created WHILE he was president.

& here is a third reason: IF no photograph exists of the person taken while they served as president, a photograph STILL beat an interpretive artwork, for both accuracy & npov.

& established policy & practices BOTH favour use of photographs, whwn available, over non-photographic portraits on ALL bio-articles. there is nothing "special" about us presidents that changes that; see "nnpov" for that.

AND we discussed ALL of this, THOROUGHLY, on this article, a couple of years ago; we settled on using a photograph. nothing has changed with regards to the subject of the article, to alter that consensus.

cheers

Lx 121 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Links to policy and discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • we (a number of users) had an extended series of conversations about this from about june-sept 2014, archived in nov; as you know, because you took part in them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Tyler&diff=633769330&oldid=625915257
the matter has also been discussed extensively on the talk pages of various presidents from at least jqa to zac taylor.
&, again, as a matter of policy this falls under both wp:accuracy, & wp:npov; there may also be some mention in the wp style guidelines, not to mention essays.
Lx 121 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Surviving the Princeton Accident

Chitwood's book is cited as a source of the claim that Tyler was detained below deck to hear a song. However, I just finished reading this book and it, in fact, says he was stopped by a lady making a toast. I have not seen the other two sources referenced, so I'm not sure how or whether to edit this information at this time. RM2KX (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Designate, who did that portion of the article, seems to have retired. I'll check when I'm home later in the week to see which Tyler bios I have. It's possible accounts differ.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed Crapol's biography and it does indeed confirm what the article says, while citing three additional sources itself. For now I have deleted the citation of Chitwood in this case, as well as the additional reference to it in the next paragraph of the article. Tyler carrying Julia is also not mentioned by Chitwood. RM2KX (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
RM2KX, I'm writing to let you know that I reverted the citation you mentioned, because you did not include any explanation in the edit summary. Now that I have seen your explanation here, I have deleted the citation myself. It is important to explain briefly why you make a change to an article. In this case, a short summary saying "incorrect citation, see talk page" would be sufficient. It is then clear to all why you have made the change. You can read more about it at Help:Edit summary. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Harrison Ruffin Tyler is still alive

Someone removed Harrison Ruffin Tyler as a living grandson. I searched, found nothing via Google about him dying. I called Sherwood Forest Plantation; they returned my call & confirmed that Harrison Ruffin Tyler is still alive. Please do not remove the names of his living grandsons unless you have verification from a reliable source. (Hint: Reddit is not a reliable source!) Peaceray (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Tyler. 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) 03:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Tyler. 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) 09:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Tyler. 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) 02:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Tyler. 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) 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

John Tyler an independent/unaffiliated president?

Is John Tyler considered to be a president with no party affiliation? If so, does that make him the 2nd independent/unaffiliated President of the United States? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

He was a member of the Whig Party for the first 5 months of his administration. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving Bibliography out of the references section

I would like to suggest moving the Bibliography section out of the References section and making it a section like the Bibliographies for other US Presidents. Any thoughts?   // Timothy::talk 19:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, so long as it generally complies with the MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I added section markup (===) so it appears now as a section within References and appears in the TOC. MOS says it may be a section. Some Presidents have it there, some have it as it own. I split the difference. Left it in, but added headings. Thanks   // Timothy::talk 22:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Mention his living grandchildren?

Doug Weller talk 20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I should think so. It was there in the article before; I do not know why it was removed. Peaceray (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Definitely something notable about Tyler to include. Muttnick (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Grandchild*. One of his grandsons passed away last month. Josh (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Possibly we can update the sourcing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

John Neal at the 1839 convention

@Coin: I just added back in a sentence you recently removed from the section about the 1839 convention, but with a more scholarly citation than John Neal's autobiography, as you asked about in your edit summary. Do you think that's appropriate? I appreciate you bringing it up, since I didn't think anything of using the autobiography as a source. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok with me. Coin (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to see some indication that Tyler (or Harrison) biographers take the claim at least somewhat seriously, or historians that have studied the 1840 election.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
This is why I intentionally worded the sentence to make clear that Neal "claimed" to have had his impact. The author of the dissertation I cited wasn't able to substantially corroborate Neal on this, but neither was he willing to dismiss his claim. Like Wehwalt, I'd also be curious to hear what other sources more focused on Tyler, Harrison, and/or the election say. But then again, that paragraph is all about how the reasons behind Tyler's nomination are unclear, outlining various competing speculations. So in that way, I think Neal's recollection (regardless of hoe close it is to fact) adds depth here, given his national presence at the time in literature, journalism, and the lecture circuit. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I think my concern is that by mentioning it at all, we give it credence. We are not filtering the rumors ourselves, we rely on high-quality RS to do that for us, and therefore we should only include theories that historians, writing in high quality RS, have mentioned. An autobiography, and a degree candidate saying it may or may not be true seems a bit marginal. Can you reproduce the relevant language here? I'm not sure I can get online access.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
After quoting the section of Neal's autobiography in which Neal claims to have been instrumental at the convention in securing sufficient votes for both Harrison and Tyler, Richards says, "Thus if Neal, as he implies, actually brought to Harrison, through his bargaining with [Chandler Starr, chair of the NY committee], the full delegation strength of Maine and New York, 10 and 42 votes respectively, then he was an important factor in the nomination, for Harrison received a total of only 148 votes, with 128 necessary for nomination. On the other hand, Tyler's nomination, which resulted from a separate convention vote cast the day after Harrison's, was unanimous, except for the participation of the Virginia delegation because Tyler was himself a member of it. It is difficult to conceive how Neal's determination to vote for Tyler, or even securing of the strength of New York for Tyler, could have had a very profound influence upon the nomination of Harrison." Writing that out now, I'm getting the impression that if Neal had a notable impact at the convention it was getting Harrison nominated, not Tyler. And that's still questionable. Unless Neal's Tyler claim is repeated by scholars focusing on Tyler and/or the convention, it does seem extraneous to this article, as Wehwalt suggested. Other thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I think Harrison is more likely to be the case. Tyler was nominated more or less by acclamation. Harrison was nominated on the fifth ballot and keeping New York onside was important.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll remove Neal's story from this article and take a look at 1839 Whig National Convention. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dugan Murphy: @Wehwalt: - I did a little research this morning and found this article in the December 11, 1841 issue of Niles' Weekly Register. Delegate Benjamin W. Leigh had apparently written to another paper to correct a story, and the exchange was reprinted in Niles'. The story Leigh rebutted claimed that Leigh and Nathaniel P. Tallmadge had been considered for VP, which Leigh denied. In Leigh's recollection, after Harrison was nominated for president, the delegates approached supporters of Crittenden, Bell, and Mangum to gauge their willingness to accept the vice presidential nomination. When they all indicated they would decline, the delegates then turned to Tyler. According to Leigh, the suggestion to nominate Tyler came from former governor John Owen of North Carolina, who argued that Tyler was definitely pro-Clay and was known to the public from having been the VP nominee on two of the regional Whig tickets in 1836. The delegates agreed and nominated Tyler.
There is no mention of Neal.
Hope this helps.
Billmckern (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Billmckern! Curious to see another contemporary eye witness account that isn't reflected in this article, except that, taken with Neal's account and the accounts currently referenced in the article, "the specifics ... are unclear," as the article currently states. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There are elements of sources I've read in the account. Tyler weeping, mainly. I find it easier to believe that historians are discounting Leigh's account, as a Whig writing after the conflict between President Tyler and the congressional Whigs started, for possible bias than that they overlooked one of the most prominent publications of the era.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Including Confederate House of Representatives in Infobox?

I'm kinda new here, so sorry if this is not your typical discussion on a talk page. Rep-Elect Luke Letlow died of COVID-19 before taking office. If you go to his page, you can clearly see his infobox, saying "died before assuming office". Can we do this for John Tyler? It does seem like a monumental situation that we're just ignoring. A former U.S. President elected to a treasonous government? Unheard of. ZephyrAgz (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@ZephyrAgz: Yep, I agree with the inclusion in the infobox, especially since it is consistent with the precedent set by Luke Letlow's article. I see that you have already added it as well :) -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ZephyrAgz: However, I added a {{Citation needed}} template to the infobox because I couldn't find a source saying that James Lyons succeeded Tyler in the C.S. House of Representatives, nor could I find one that stated that Tyler was elected to Virginia's 3rd district. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
He did not serve there. He was elected but was not sworn in. Let's not go overboard on what should be in the infobox. Remember, we are crowding the text for offices Tyler actually did serve in. I don't think we are hiding anything, the lead section discusses that Tyler was elected there. As for the citation needed tag, it's been my position that if you are going to add something to the infobox, do the research and add the sourcing if it's not in the article, and don't leave it for other people. Especially for a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Then should the office be removed from Luke Letlow's infobox as well? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly yes. However, one cannot maintain utter consistency over a giant encyclopedia, and the case could be made that it's a different situation because Tyler held six or seven major offices and Letlow didn't, and since Letlow is prominent as the representative elect who died of COVID, that it should be let alone. Infoboxes need to be selective, so they don't become so large they impact the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
And regarding the chancellorship of William and Mary, I don't terribly feel like reverting, but the point of the infobox is not to include every office that someone has held. Minor and honorary positions once held by people who have achieved high office don't tend to be included. There's no indication that Tyler actually did anything as chancellor.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

more work needed

I came upon this yesterday when editing a wikipedia article about one of his sons who followed his career path into politics. While I understand another editor's point in partly rescinding my revisions (which were sloppy in part because I got an error message when trying to save them as the genealogy library was closing and could only do some), I believe that more work needs to be done in addressing Tyler's slaveholdings. I removed what I believe POV and passive construction problems in the Early life section, and split it into 2. His slaveholdings are still addressed in several sections, without addressing what I believe became the real issue in his lifetime--the transition between slaveholding as a labor system to breeding slaves for sale (particularly in the area in which he continued to live). Thus, I would suggest mentioning his slaveholdings in all the censuses in his lifetime, possibly in the "Lawyer and planter" section I created and removing it from the oddly placed "Personal life" section. Also, I believe all his terms in Virginia's legislature should be mentioned in the infobox, because they show he was a career politician who seemingly couldn't stay away from elections, as well as that he both rose to the national level and remained highly electible from the restricted Virginia electorate in different districts. I don't have time to read his biography to learn whether he ever lost a race, but the problem that I couldn't resolve was where to put those different seats in the infobox. I really don't mind putting his late-life presidency of the College of William & Mary at the infobox's end, and perhaps they should be put there just before it, after the nationwide posts but chronologically. But I disagree with WeWendt about removing all. I also realize that his still-living grandson remains a human interest story, as well as a part of his legacy, but believe that his and his sons' Confederate and/or Lost Cause involvement might also need mentioning.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, additional work might need to be done on his affiliation with the College of William & Mary. The article mentions that he secured funding for the college when a Virginia legislator, as did his (longest surviving son) Lyon Gardiner. Unfortunately, this article says he was the 15th Chancellor and his son's article says he was the 17th President, both seemingly unsourced or poorly sourced. His son's article links to a page that puts Benjamin Ewell as the man in the middle, but is also unsourced. The "offices and distinctions" box at the bottom of this article lists the man in the middle as Hugh Blair Grigsby.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The point of the infobox is to provide a ready reference for the major points of interest about a person or thing, for example the dates of birth, death, or major-office political service. I don't think it's to "show" he was a politician. If the three terms as delegate could be consolidated, as, for example, we do with William McKinley's congressional service in the infobox, I would have less objection. Regarding the slaveholding, I think that greater attention is being given to the presidents who held enslaved people, and as there is more written on the subject, there will be more to insert in the article. As for William & Mary, if the post of chancellor was more or less honorary, I'm not sure how much we can say about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Date of the image

It is very unlikely, unless there was a rapid progression of aging, that the lead image was taken around the year 1860 as shown in the caption here. That is not the appearance of a man in his late sixties, I am more doubtful of the validity of the description as it says "between 1860 and 1865" as Tyler was dead by '62. There is also a daguerreotype actually taken around 1860. The current image should be kept but the caption updated. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The Commons description is very clear: it is a reproduction, made between 1860 and 1865, of a photographic print. The date of the photographic print itself is not provided.--Sapphorain (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
When I posted this in June there was a caption beneath the image saying "c. 1860" or something like that. It has since been removed Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Small issue

Notes 30 & 37, what's "Leonard" stand for?

  • Macmahon, Edward B.; Curry, Leonard (1987). Medical Cover-Ups in the White House. Farragut Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-918535-01-6.? But this should be "Macmahon & Leonard";
  • Dinnerstein, Leonard (October 1962). "The Accession of John Tyler to the Presidency". The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 70 (4): 447–58. JSTOR 4246893.? But this is "ref=Dinnerstein";
  • Cynthia Miller Leonard, The Virginia General Assembly 1619-1978 (Richmond: Virginia State Library 1978)?

--Jarodalien (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure on this. Will look into it as time permits.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Another matter: "Return to state politics": "Tyler tried to convince the lower house to endorse the caucus system and choose William H. Crawford as the Democratic-Republican candidate. Crawford captured the legislature's support, but Tyler's proposal was defeated." "the lower house" is the Virginia House of Delegates? "The legislature" is the Virginia General Assembly? And "the caucus system" is for U.S. Congress?--Jarodalien (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
True in all cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
One more: "In 1829, Tyler was elected as a delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829–1830 from the district encompassing the cities of Richmond and Williamsburg and Charles City County, James City County, Henrico County, New Kent County, Warwick County, and York County, Henrico County..."?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with Henrico County? It is adjacent to Richmond.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean why list "Henrico County" twice?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I've cleared that up.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Footnote 69 & 72, what's "Rives" stands for?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not certain. I looked through the books William C. Rives wrote but see nothing obvious. I'll try to replace these.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I saw those footnote on the historical version that passed FAC, so it was there at least seven years ago.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
True. (ouch). Obviously we were careless there. I've removed one reference to Rives and re-sourced the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No footnote point to：

And the last one have specificity "ref=Varon", based on the title I guess this one is for section "General election": "...including women, who could not then vote. This was the first time that an American political party included women in campaign activities on a widespread scale, and women in Tyler's Virginia were active on his behalf"?--Jarodalien (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I've cleared this up--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
We have two "ref=Freehling", Miller Center article & the 1991 book, all footnotes point to the latter, but at least footnote 2, which have two "Miller Center, U. Va....", should point to the article.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I think I've fixed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
What's ibid stand for?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It means, same source as in the previous reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the image change

Hello. I feel that the old image used for Tyler was/is slightly better than the one being used now. These are just my opinions and if the majority prefer the current portrait then I will concede.

1.) He is younger-looking in the original photograph.

Tyler was very, very slightly over 51 when he took the oath of office after Harrison's death (6 days after his 51st birthday, in fact), the youngest POTUS at the time and to this day the 10th youngest ever. The current portrait (taken later in life I assume) does not reflect this, while the portrait used before does, and looks closer to what Tyler might (key word might) have looked like throughout his presidency. The reason I think it should reflect what he looked like in his presidency is because in present day Wikipedia's pages for POTUSes use their official photographs, typically taken shortly before or after their inauguration.

2.) Inconsistencies:

Wikipedia usually uses the image of the president on their main page throughout the encyclopaedia. Tyler's current photograph is not, such as List of presidents of the United States, Presidency of John Tyler, ect. There could be many articles that are still using the portrait of the younger Tyler that could take years to find and change all of them to the current photograph. It is simpler to go back to the older portrait for the sake of keeping consistency.

3.) Andrew Jackson:

Jackson's page uses a portrait of him by Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl painted c. 1835 during his presidency. I am aware that the picture of Tyler used before the current one may not have been taken during his presidency (in fact, I highly doubt it: some sources list it as 1860 but nobody can really tell. I think he would look older in 1860 given that he died in 1862, and unless he aged very rapidly then his older looking portrait would have to have been taken around 15-20 years later, leading me to believe that the photograph was taken around 1845, and that Andrew Jackson's 1845 photograph looks similar to Tyler's c. 1845 photograph technologically) but it would make more sense and be consistent with every other POTUS's page. If we were going for the best photograph of the subject in the article, then surely we would use either this photograph or this photograph of Jackson, but we do not. The former photograph was taken in 1845, and the latter was taken when Jackson was 78 years old. It would not be right to use either, especially the photograph where Jackson is 78. The same should go for Tyler. Wikipedia should not use Tyler's photograph for the same reasons we do not use Jackson's photograph. And if we do not use Tyler's younger photograph for the reasons we may not use Jackson's 1845 photograph (Tyler's could be after he left office) then we could perhaps use this painting by James Lambdin. It was painted in 1841, during his presidency, making it ideal and more like Jackson's image time-wise (which was painted during his presidency). The painting is a better fit, and we do not necessarily need to use photographs: after all, photos of Jackson exist, and Wikipedia elected not to use them; why should it be different for Tyler? And so my point changes to why we should use Tyler's younger photograph to why we should use Tyler's painting, perhaps cropped to show only his head and shoulders. And it was painted by James Lambdin, who painted Harrison's (Tyler's predecessor's) portrait that Wikipedia uses. Why should it be different for Tyler? My reasoning is that the painting is more like a current day official photograph like the ones used on Obama and Biden's pages. Of course, I can come off as the pot calling the kettle black as some of my reasoning from above involved going through the encyclopaedia and changing every photo of Tyler from every page, but I think it would be worthwhile.

Conclusion:

And so we are presented with three options: Tyler's young photograph, Tyler's old photograph, and Tyler's White House painting. I believe that it should be either Tyler's c. 1845 photograph or Tyler's 1841 painting for all the reasons I have mentioned above. I realise that this was a long essay on a Wikipedia photograph, and I also realise the fact that nobody might bother to read it. But if you have made it this far I sincerely thank you for reading.


Yours Sincerely,

Tim O'Doherty Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Just noting that this discussion and this may have relevance. Not taking a position at this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response. I hadn't seen those elements of the discussion before writing my own comment, and I realise that now I may look a fool. I hadn't considered that JQA's leading image is a photograph of him after his presidency, so perhaps we could use Tyler's younger photograph without issue. It still presents the problem of Jackson's page not using his 1845 photograph but you can't have everything, I suppose. I still maintain that either his painting or his young photograph would be the best choice, with both being made around(ish) his presidency. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      • But on the other hand, if the consensus is to use Tyler's younger photograph which is more like Quincy Adams's lead image (both being photographs taken shortly after their presidencies) then perhaps Jackson's painting should be replaced by his photograph. However, I still think that images from their presidencies are the best fit for lead images. Of course, this would mean that Adams's photograph should be replaced by a painting painted around or during his presidency, but I think that his photograph is too seared into everybody's mind as "what John Quincy Adams really looked like" that a replacement of this image would be extremely controversial. This brings in a new factor: the image that people think of when they think of that person. In the case of JQA, that would be his photograph, and in quite a contradictory statement I think that it should stay as his photograph. In a similar vein, I also believe that Jackson's lead image should be his Whiteside Earl painting. And for John Tyler, that's his 1840s photograph. Just something to think about when changing photographs. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you look like a fool. It's a valid question whether the image used to represent a president should be a photograph taken as an aged man, years after the presidency, or a painting used to represent how he looked while president.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Now that I have stated my reasons for the replacement, would it be OK to replace the lead image to this photograph as it was before (and it is still used on this and this page) seeing as if people disagree with it it can be reverted, or would it be prudent to wait for an obvious general consensus? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Suggest replacing it, thus running it up the flagpole and seeing who salutes. It might stick. Who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I see the old image is been put in the infobox 'again'. We should have an image of him, during or before his White House years. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I would agree that an image representing how he looked as president, accepting whatever inaccuracies painting may bring, is better than a photograph of Tyler as the aged man depicted in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The photographic print of Tyler younger was made after Tyler was president. The print was made by Brady (who also took the photo of the aged Tyler in 1861) in the 1860s. So it’s my opinion that the photograph of Tyler in 1861 (though not taken during his presidency) is the best image of him because it’s the most accurate image of him. The Brady print was made 20 years after his presidency to portray him while president so I don’t believe its should be trusted to show him accurately. And the portrait you suggested I don’t think would look nice in the infobox. And when it comes to Jackson I think the daguerrotype of Jackson would better be in the info box because it doesn’t make sense to use the daguerrotype of John Quincy Adams made after his presidency for his info box and not do the same for Jackson. Orson12345 (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The 1860 image is no good, too old. It's best left for his post-presidency section. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Well it makes no sense to use a print made to portray him as president but actually made 20 years later. It can’t be trusted to portray him accurately. I’d rather have the WH portrait of him though made two years after he died at least it’s an official portrait of Tyler. Orson12345 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. The 1860 photo misleads readers to think it's how he looked, when he was president. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
No it doesn’t because you can clearly read that the photo is from 1861 as stated in the caption below the info box. Orson12345 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Not good enough. You & I are never going to agree on this, so best to let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Orson12345 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Weighing in. I think that it can be trusted to portray him somewhat accurately. There were paintings and engravings made in or around his presidency, and they all show Tylers similar to his appearance on his younger photograph. It might not be perfect, but it is what he looked like, and that's the point of an infobox lead portrait. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Omission of Gerald Ford

Number of vice presidents promoted to the presidency is incorrect. The list ends with L. B. Johnson and does not include.Gerald Ford who took office after Nixon resigned. 96.228.83.6 (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

J. Tyler 1861 image

I found an image on Wikimedia from the Library of Congress using a post-1860 development technique, so I introduced it to the prelude to Civil War section, and relocated the grave obilisk image to the Death Section.

- The image features shoulder-length hair and a barely visible wispy goatee - a style fashionable at the onset of the Civil war, which is entirely missing from his 1840s presidential images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving family and slavery information

I propose moving the family and slavery information lower in the article to improve the article structure. The post Presidency section then would immediately follow the Presidency section. Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No objection Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I moved the section and made a change to the title. Just added slavery so readers could find information on the matter. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Dorr rebellion, foreign influence?

Just for clarification, were there any foreign governments, like Britain, involved in the Dorr Rebellion? It seems to have been a domestic issue. If so, the Dorr rebellion section can be readded to Tyler's foreign policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the Dorr Rebellion article that says or suggests there was foreign influence. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of a government response from Britain. Many of the people involved in the rebellion were Irish immigrants, but it is unclear if they were still British subjects. The rebels argued that the Rhode Island Royal Charter should be abolished, because its authority relied on the signature of the long-dead Charles II of England. Dimadick (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
That is interesting. Charles II really was not a foreigner at the time the Rhode Island Royal Charter was made, as the colonies remained loyal to the King. If these Irish immigrants were not U.S. citizens, then this could be a foreign issue. Were these Irish immigrants Catholic and they just did not want to be associated with anything from the Church of England, such as King Charles II? I am tilting to put the Dorr rebellion back in the foreign policy section because of the Irish immigrants. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The article on the Rebellion already specifies why the Irish Catholics wanted to revolt: "Many of the disenfranchised were recent Irish Catholic immigrants or other Roman Catholics who lived and worked in the cities at salaried jobs." Basically Catholics in Rhode Island did not get voting rights, while Protestants were able to vote. Voting rights were monopolized by a small minority of landowners, at a time where the other U.S. states had mostly removed property requirements for voting (in other words, landless people could vote). Dimadick (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. That is a religious revolt. So for the article, was the Dorr rebellion an international or foreign policy issue, since Irish Roman Catholic immigrants rebelled to get voting rights? I am leaning that it is. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted the move to foreign policy. As far as I can tell, to the extent that there were Irish immigrants involved, they sought naturalization and the franchise. That makes it a domestic matter. I really don't think this is a matter that Tyler would have addressed with the British minister.Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I am okay with the revert. Isn't naturalization technically part of foreign policy? It would be related to foreign policy because Irish Catholic immigrants caused the rebellion or participated in the rebellion. That would be my main argument. They failed to get the vote without owning property. Did Secretary Daniel Webster address the issue with Tyler? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Webster was extensively involved, for example trying to broker a compromise between the factions, but I don't see any indication that he did it in his capacity of dealing with foreign policy. I'm looking at “The People’s Martyr: Thomas Wilson Dorr and His 1842 Rhode Island Rebellion by Erik J. Chaput (2013). I can see both sides on this. It "feels" to me like a domestic matter, but if, say, you wanted to add a section to the Biden article about the border situation, you could certainly put it in foreign policy. Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. We can keep the section as is for now. I would have to get a copy of the Dorr Rebellion book. But if the rebellion took place because of an influx Irish Catholic immigrants and because of Webster's involvement, I slightly side that the rebellion was a foreign policy issue. It is not that crucial of an issue though. Maybe an editor poll would help too. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I would note that in that era, when there were only six cabinet officers, the Secretary of State took on considerably more domestic responsibilities than they do today. Per our article, United States Secretary of State, "Most of the domestic functions of the Department of State were gradually transferred to other agencies by the late 19th century as part of various administrative reforms and restructurings." Furthermore, Webster was a logical choice to intervene as a well-respected figure and from Massachusetts. As for the Irish, the objection seemed to be more that they were Catholic than that they were Irish. Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
My question is did the influx of Irish Roman Catholics immigration to Rhode Island cause the Dorr Rebellion? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It was a factor, along with the fact that Rhode Island did not move with the times. But the unwillingness to accept the immigrants as voters was based more on religion than nationality. "Irishness was not the obstacle to acceptance in Rhode Island unless the designation 'Catholic'was appended to it'". Chaput, p. 357 (quoting historian Patrick Conley). Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
True. But immigration is foreign policy. The Irish were not born here. They were immigrants. It is not that they are just Irish or just Catholics. It is that they are immigrants who rebelled against the Rhode Island charter. Again it is not that big a deal. We can keep the article as is for now. No use going around in circles. I would need to get a copy of the 2013 Dorr Rebellion book. An editor poll would be welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If you don't mind sending me an email through the mail system and you are able to read epub format books, I can send it to you. Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes I can do that. How do I do that? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I see zero connection to foreign policy--immigration policy regarding foreign powers is handled by the federal government in Washington with no role for state government. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Cmguy, send me an email through the "email this user" function and I will respond and send you the book as an attachment. Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Wehwalt. I sent the email. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. That brings up another issue. Could immigrants back then go to any state and become U.S. citizens? My concern for the Dorr Rebellion is that there is a direct link between Irish Roman Catholic immigrants and the rebellion. The Fenian raids I believe were a foreign policy issue in 1866 and 1870. I know that historians tend to treat the Dorr Rebellion as a voting rights issue. If there are no historians that connect the Dorr Rebellion to foreign policy, then it is just a domestic issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
to my knowledge all the historians treat Dorr as a domestic issue. The Fenians created a foreign policy issue--they used US as a base in 1860s to invade Canada (and did a very poor job of it). The Fenian goal was to force London to set Ireland free (which happened in 1920s). Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Did the Irish Catholics in the Dorr Rebellion team up with non-Catholics in the Dorr Rebellion, or just fight as a separate group? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, did the Irish Catholics in the Dorr Rebellion identify themselves as Americans? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Adams 2005 p 52 said a Congressman after the Dorr Rebellion was crushed and considered the Irish men as Foreign interventionists. However, the Dorr Rebellion was a complete failure. The Chater government prevailed. Tyler seemed to side with the charter government and reinforced the military in the case of the Civil War. With that, it is probably best just to leave it as a domestic issue. Dorr was the primary instigator of the Rebellion with his people's government, not the Irish Immigrants. Also, Dorr was convicted of treason and served about 20 months in prison. There is not enough evidence to call this a foreign policy issue. It was not much of a Rebellion at all. Dorr and his men fled in their first attempt to take the armory. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it can be said the Irish were fighting for Dorr, not Ireland, in addition to fighting for their right to vote as Catholics. So the weight of the Dorr Rebellion goes to a domestic rebellion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Tyler cabinet infobox

Any objection to moving the Tyler cabinet infobox lower? It clutters up the narration. Another option could be just to remove it since it is already in the John Tyler presidency article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Since presidency articles don't get comparable views, I'd retain it. Probably more useful to the reader than images of people dead for a century and a half. Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

How about moving the cabinet infobox lower in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I made the change. Hope it looks alright. I think it helped. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Annexation of Texas

I am just trying to improve the structure of presidential section of the article. There are two sections (USS Princeton disaster) and (1844 candicacy), that are seemingly unrelated to the Annexation of Texas section. I propose to make those two sections seperate from the Annexation of Texas section. I think this would help the readability and look of the article. Any comments or suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, there's chronological continuity between the sections, i.e., Tyler had to replace the Secretary of State. Would it help to rename the overall section? Something like "Final year in office; annexation of Texas"? Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the title "Final year in office", because basically Tyler was a "lame duck" president. He also gave his own nomination to Polk, which in itself, seemed odd. Why did he not fight for the office and run to be President? The USS Princeton disaster had nothing with Texas annexation, unless there was some type of sabatoge of the ship. I think that section can be separate. I would rename the "1844 Canadicy" section to the "1844 Election" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Because without the machinery of the Whigs or Democrats behind him, he had no chance. His candidacy was more a blackmail threat against the Democrats that unless he got what he wanted, he'd split the vote and defeat Polk. There's some discussion of this in the Polk article. Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That would be good information for this article too. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Certainly you can move it over. I no longer have my Polk books, which were from the library. Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I made a simple fix to the title and bumped it to the left. Election of 1844. Narration left in tact. The Annexation achieved section is simply under the Election of 1844. That offers a good break in the narration. Content can be improved later. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Impeachment

Were there any corruption charges in the House petition to impeach Tyler? Or was it all political? It is not clear in the article of the charges for his impeachment.Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It was political, basically abuse of office, sponsored by Rep. John Minor Botts (Whig-VA). What it came down to was Tyler's political differences with the Whigs. It wasn't corruption. The resolution went nowhere. Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Tyler was investigating frauds in the New York Customs House using tax payers money. He was charged for unauthorized use of tax payers money for the investigation and for refusing to give Congress information from the investigation report. If I am reading this right Tyler was impeached for being a reformer. That is ironic. More information is probably needed in the artical in the impeachment section. Maybe Tyler upset corrupt officials at the New York Customs House. Tyler had promised to make reforms in the government in his Inaguration brief 1841 speech. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there a source on this? Keep in mind that Collector of the Customs of the Port of New York was one of the best-compensated federal jobs, and was highly sought after. Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
American Heritage Attempts to Impeach John Tyler Michael F. Holt February/March 2021 Volume 66 Issue 2 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Tyler was actually investigating corruption in the War Department Cherokee Frauds and at the New York Customs House. It sounds as if Tyler were ruffling some feathers of persons involved in corruption. Here is Inaguration Speech (1841) Address Upon Assuming the Office of President of the United States John Tyler April 09, 1841 The American Presidency Project Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
"Before my arrival at the seat of Government the painful communication was made to you by the officers presiding over the several Departments of the deeply regretted death of William Henry Harrison, late President of the United States. Upon him you had conferred your suffrages for the first office in your gift, and had selected him as your chosen instrument to correct and reform all such errors and abuses as had manifested themselves from time to time in the practical operation of the Government. While standing at the threshold of this great work he has by the dispensation of an all-wise Providence been removed from amongst us, and by the provisions of the Constitution the efforts to be directed to the accomplishing of this vitally important task have devolved upon myself." John Tyler April 09, 1841 The American Presidency Project Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Here is more on Tyler's Indian policy: The Abortive Second Cherokee Removal, 1841-1844 John R. Finger The Journal of Southern History The Journal of Southern History Vol. 47, No. 2 (May, 1981), pp. 207-226 (20 pages) Published by: Southern Historical Association Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The Cherokee frauds apparently consisted of whites taking money from Cherokees, but using it to buy land in their own names, rather than for the Cherokee tribe. Not trying to go into detail, but Tyler's impeachment seems to have more to do with Tyler investigating corruption, rather than corruption itself. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I added a few more sentences on Tyler's impeachment. It might be good to start a "Reforms" section in the article. He pledged to be a reformer, and he investigated the New York Customs House and the Cherokee frauds. His reforms and vetos may have instigated his impeachment petition in the House. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

New Photo

I added a new photo of John Tyler in the presidency section. I believe it is what Tyler looked like in 1841. Maybe more an accurate look of what he looked like in 1841. The White House portrait was moved to the Administration and cabinet section. Any comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Tyler/Archive_2&oldid=1136852038"