[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Martin Van Buren

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMartin Van Buren was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 27, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 24, 2018, and July 24, 2022.

M. Van Buren and Slavery

[edit]

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

Come on. Anyone with even a slight grasp of US history knows that in the 1800s the Democratic Party supported slavery or at least condoned it. That the Democratic Party advocated racial segregation after slavery was ended.
But history didn't end in 1865, did it? Beginning in the 1920s, the major U.S. political parties underwent a shift in their attitudes toward race and racism. This trend gathered momentum in the 1940s, became settled electoral strategy in the 1960s, and was completed in the 1980s and 1990s. Democrats became identified with integration and civil rights. Republicans became identified with continued segregation and opposition to civil rights for Black people and other minorities.
Read the Wikipedia article on the 1948 Democratic Convention. Hubert Humphrey's "bright sunshine of civil rights" speech is one of the best oratorical efforts you'll ever hear. Read the article on the Southern Strategy. For starters. Billmckern (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Republicans became identified with continued segregation and opposition to civil rights for Black people and other minorities." I thought they support the lynching of minorities. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well no. Van Buren in 1840s was a key leader in the anti slave-power faction of the Democratic Party. It fought to keep slavery out of the territories. It was a minority faction but it was real and it ran a separate ticket headed by Van Buren in 1848 that helped defeat the pro-slavery Democrats in the presidential race. Most of its activists in 1848 became Repubkicans in 1850s. Van Buren's key supporters in 1848 included Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, & Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, who in 1860s were leaders in destroying slavery. see Free Soil Party Eric Foner is the key scholar here. He states: "During the decade of the 1840's, great numbers of Northerners became opponents of slavery, moved either by the moral appeals of the abolitionists, fear of the Southern "Slave Power," or apprehension that the extension of slavery into the newly acquired territories would exclude free Northern settlers." [New York History October 1965, p. 312.] The voters Van Buren mobilized in that cause mostly became Republicans when that party was formed in mid-1850s. As for the KKK--Van Buren died years before the KKK was founded (and in 19th century KKK was not active in New York state). Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error in quotation in "Legacy" section

[edit]

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

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

Drinking

[edit]

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

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

Why isnt this page edit locked

[edit]

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

Turns out he's not the only one.
Polk and James Buchanan are also unlocked 49.186.33.130 (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Rutherford b Hayes.
Why presidents have ANY pages unlocked is beyond me they are controversial and neutrality is hard to keep, unless locked.
After Hayes though, they are all locked. 49.186.33.130 (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has gotten worse Garfield and Arthur now as well 49.180.153.124 (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox portrait

[edit]

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

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

There does seem to be an informal policy that we prefer photographs to paintings where available, for U.S. presidents and other historical figures. This is most relevant for that mid-19th century period where photography was becoming more available and people like Van Buren were being photographed for the first time, some time after their primary "claim to fame". I actually think this is generally a good move (provided the photo is of sufficient quality), as photos are generally a better representation of the person's actual appearance. There is plenty of room for paintings elsewhere in the article. ITBF (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a discussion of this "informal policy"?
There is in fact a photo of Andrew Jackson, File:Andrew Jackson Daguerrotype.jpg, but fortunately we are not using it in the infobox of Andrew Jackson, because it is so ghastly. The photo of Martin Van Buren currently in use is not quite so bad, but to use as an infobox illustration a portrait or photo that is less than the highest quality is, to say the least, disrespectful. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to specifically rebut the claim that "... photos are generally a better representation of the person's actual appearance." Portrait painters, just as much as portrait photographers, are paid to create portraits that are, to use the old-fashioned phrase, true to life. In the portrait paintings I selected below, are there any that would not be considered realistic, for any reason? I would also note that the painters were all notable, that is, there are Wikipedia articles about them, as a consequence of their having painted many realistic, true to life, portraits. This was already pointed out by Rjensen in the 2014 discussion linked above.
In judging the suitability of a portrait for use in a biographical article, there is no substitute for judging the portrait on its merits. Shortcuts, such as preferring one portrait technology (photography) to another (painting), or vice versa, have no legitimate place in the discussion.
The infobox portait in George Washington is a good (and famous) example of a painted portrait. The infobox portrait in Ulysses S. Grant is a good (and likewise famous) example of a photographic portrait. Note that the fact that Grant's portrait is black-and-white does not detract in any way from its suitability -- it is stunning in its quality. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest discussion on photo vs painting – certainly the most memorable to me – was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 131#On WP:ACCURACY, WP:NPOV, & Photographs vs Paintings & Drawings. The (since indeffed) editor tried hard to make us agree that professional portrait artists were incapable of matching colors and that photographers do nothing subjective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: WhatamIdoing has just replied to your post from last month. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @WhatamIdoing for linking to this discussion. I can see that the discussion concluded, WP:SNOW, that photos were not a priori better than paintings; and the arguments I made to that effect, in this more recent discussion, were already covered back then.
This being Wikipedia, even such a decisive conclusion cannot always settle matters, if only because not everyone sees it. Thus, as recently as 9 February 2022, an editor reverted a change to the lede photo in Martin Van Buren because "The policy is that photos are preferred to paintings." If and when I encounter this argument going forward, I will find it valuable to consult, and perhaps link to, this older discussion. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We teach Wikipedia largely through a telephone game, and it is consequently subject to distortions. That editor was probably told – in good faith, by someone really trying their best – that an unnamed policy prefers photos. The person who told them this was probably told something like "As a rule, photos are better". The person before that was probably told "Editors usually prefer photos because they're better". You can see how the message gets warped with every step, and yet every editor in the chain believes they're saying nothing other than the facts, and every editor in the chain heard something that sounded plausible and believable.
One thing we can do to counteract this tendency for messages to unintentionally 'drift' is to go back to the original source (e.g., old discussion, a relevant essay, etc.), so I'm glad you found that discussion interesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is the image that is, as I write, the infobox image for Martin Van Buren, and several other images that editors have proposed for that position:

I'm cheating a little with Image F, I do not know that anyone has ever tried to use it in the infobox of Martin Van Buren. I included it here, though, because it is used elsewhere in this article and also in Bibliography of Martin Van Buren.

Here are my own comments:

  • Like the earlier Wikipedia editors who nominated Image C as a featured picture, I find it striking, and of great historical value. However, Van Buren is old and retired in this photo, and I am troubled that we are using a photo in which he has bags under his eyes, hopelessly unruly sideburns and an ill-fitting coat as if this were the best available, or most representative, portrait of Van Buren. I would be interested in using one of the more attractive images in the infobox, but keeping this one for a prominent place elsewhere in the article.
  • Image B is from the same period as Images A and C, but it softens the rough edges mentioned above.
  • I do not like Image E because it almost seems to emphasize Van Buren's already advanced baldness, as if he were pointing his forehead forward. Perhaps that's just my possibly eccentric taste.

I generally prefer Image D, but I am very much interested in comments by other editors, and even suggestions for images that I have not listed here. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been bold about this, because real life got in the way; I could not set aside time for serious discussion. I will now describe in detail what I will do, and shortly thereafter, do it.

  • Image G, cropped version of Image D
    Image G, cropped version of Image D
  • Image H, daguerrotype from 1849-1850
    Image H, daguerrotype from 1849-1850

In the infobox, I will substitute Image G for the present occupant, Image A. My reason for using this cropped image is that, in my judgment, the black background cropped out is substantial, noticeable, and inappropriate for the prominent small-size setting of the infobox.

Image D, the original of Image G, is already being used in the article, in the Panic of 1837 section. I believe that it's OK to use an image in the infobox that's already in use elsewhere in the article.

I will insert Image A in the Retirement section, in the place that Image H is currently occupying. That section is also using Image B. I think that with images A and B in place and easy to compare with each other, there would be no additional benefit from having Image H. Although it may have some historical interest, Image H is not as compelling as the other two.

It would be possible to substitute Image C for Image A here. In favor of Image A, it is cropped in a sensible way (head-and-shoulders rather than full standing), although in its new location, cropping would not be required. In favor of Image C, it is the original featured picture. I will stick with Image A, but would not discourage future editors from going with Image C. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with any except Image D. To me it just seems like most people don’t picture Martin Van Buren. It can be shown in a section about that time but in the infobox I have to say no JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized since that photo is showed later in the article it shouldn’t be shown in the infobox. That’s repetitive JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. For some reason I was under the impression that it was OK to use Image G in the infobox while using Image D in the section of the article about his presidency. But, reviewing a few other biographical articles, I see that this practice is not generally followed. I will remove Image D from the main article. If I can find a satisfactory image of Van Buren from the period of his presidency, I will put it where Image D has been, but otherwise I will leave that section without a portrait of him. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer A seeing as how it provides a close-up view depicting the subject as he appeared in real life. I disagree with Bruce leverett's reasoning that portraits are suitable as lead images because they are inherently designed to be true to life. While such a rationale is fine in the absence of real-life photographs, the fact remains that all works of art are merely subjective reconstructions of persons, places or things as perceived by the artist. No matter how skilled or professionally committed to objectivity an artist is, he or she will inevitably emphasize some features over others according to his own preferences or biases. Conversely, while there are circumstances where the subject of a photo may be embellished, taking a photo of something is generally a more objective process for preserving historical figures as they actually appeared for posterity. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I prefer D as the lede image. Following the trend of lede images for other U.S. presidents, the image depicts Martin van Buren as he appeared at the peak of his career (i.e.: the presidency).Emiya1980 (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you very much for your comments, even including the one that you struck.
Do you have a preference for D over the cropped version of D, which is G?
Although you have struck your first comment, I am inclined to address it, because I have seen similar comments in other discussions and edit summaries. In view of the importance of photo retouching, it is questionable to claim that a portrait photo is closer to "real life" than a portrait painting. Although we may not have a record of the retouching that is done, it is hard to believe that a formal photo portrait of a president or former president would not be modified as necessary, or as desired by the subject. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett Yes, I prefer D over G. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this conversation doesn't get more lively, I would be happy to close it off by, for example, agreeing with Emiya1980 on D. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce leverett If you want to get more people involved in the discussion, you should probably start an Rfc.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for initiating this, I was scratching my head over it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

[edit]
In this discussion, Wikipedians decide whether the infobox image of Martin Van Buren should be replaced, and if so, by what. The most relevant WP:PAG is thus MOS:IMAGES, specifically the following from MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see.".
For whatever reason, there was no discussion of what images are "used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"; all PAG-relevant discussion only considered which image was "natural and appropriate". There was minimal support for Options C or E.
Proponents of Option A (and by extension B) argued that a photograph of high-quality is ipso facto more natural than any painting. Proponents of Option D argued that a painting of van Buren during his presidency, for which he is most notable, is more appropriate as a lead image than a later photograph. I find both lines of reasoning strong and sufficiently based on Wikipedia guidelines. Proponents of option B additionally made MOS:IMAGEQUALITY-adjacent arguments, which were also convicing, but their choice received noticeably less support !votes than A or D. Thus, as no argument has the edge over the others, I can only close this RfC as no consensus.
Thanks to the participants for their time and energy. If you have any questions or complaints about this close, please feel free to post on my talk page. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Martin van Buren? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A (Current Image)
    A (Current Image)
  • B
    B
  • C
    C
  • D
    D
Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Readers of this RFC are encouraged to read the earlier section, #Infobox portrait, for background. The above four images are discussed, as well as four others. Various criteria for evaluating images are also discussed. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian, Illegitimate Barrister, and Fdewaele: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the Martin Van Buren page as well as your continued interest in the article evidenced by your recent edits, you are invited to participate in an Rfc on the article's lede image. Should you be inclined to do so, please share your thoughts on this thread. Thank you for your time.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option D: Although option A is visually striking, option D depicts Van Buren during his presidency. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D: In the earlier section, I proposed a modified (further cropped) version of Option D, but I am also satisfied with the original. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave reasons for preferring Option D in the earlier discussion, but I will recapitulate them here for convenience. First, as other editors have noted, Option D represents Van Buren as he appeared to his political colleagues and rivals, while Option A represents him after years of retirement. Second, Option A is simply not an attractive portrait. Besides the bags under his eyes, Van Buren has hopelessly unkempt hair and an ill-fitting suit; it's almost as if he didn't take portrait sittings seriously any more. Images used in the body of the article don't have to be attractive; but the image used in the infobox plays a special role, and should be as close as we can get to representative and attractive. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A While this photograph was taken after his presidency, he remained a significant public figure and elder statesman, so I think it is probably fine. It is a high-quality Brady, and is a Featured Picture. Curbon7 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an article should always be represented by a featured picture if there is an appropriate one available. Secondly, while I have supported paintings over photographs in discussions in the past (such as at Napoleon III) when the painting is far superior than the photograph, I think this case is the opposite. I'm not an art critic and so am not critiquing the art, but rather its appropriateness as the lede image. I think the color contrast (that being, the painting is entirely dark except for his face) isn't great and as such it lacks framing when compared to that of the photograph (or even other contemporary paintings like c:File:Andrew jackson head.jpg). It is also worth noting that the photograph is significantly higher resolution than the current scan/photo of the painting, The photograph is also not taken that long after his residency (14 years), so I don't think the Carter comparison is convincing, especially considering Carter already has a photograph. Curbon7 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A ideally depicts the person D.S. Lioness (talk)
  • Option A I typically would choose Option D in a similar scenario since it covers the period that was the height of his career. However, Van Buren's largely portrayed in public today as an older man, and this is a well-known photograph that is of historical significance, and it's largely what a reader will expect to see. Certainly not against D, and if there isn't sufficient consensus for A, I'd happily support D as my next option.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A I hold a position similar to Curbon7 and CoffeeCrumbs.
  • Option A This has been the stable image now for 6+ years and there doesn't appear a good reason to change it. For these older biographies, unless there's a great reason to make the change, this type of RFC is a tax on valuable editor time. Almost all of these RFCs are ending in the status quo. So what's the point? Nemov (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you view it as a "tax" on your time, neither you nor any other editor is obligated to participate, Nemov. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can say that Option A has been the "stable" image, but numerous attempts to replace it have been made; just since late 2020, I have found [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. I think that in a situation where there are multiple images that could plausibly be used, the way to save editor time and effort is to have a full discussion of all of them, in the talk page rather than in edit summaries, using thumbnails for convenience, as I have done here. I haven't seen this kind of discussion in Wikipedia policy, but I participated in a comparable discussion at Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2#Infobox image, which I thought was useful and turned out well. Future editors can cite such a discussion in subsequent discussions and/or edit summaries.
In fact, Option A or something similar has been the lead infobox image here far longer than six years. Not all the available images have always been available. For example, Option D was uploaded to WikiMedia Commons only in 2017. Option C has been here longer, since 2012, but it was not available when we started using Option A, in 2005. Another editor writes that "Van Buren's largely portrayed in public today as an older man", and I have to wonder if Wikipedia itself may have played a serious role in this. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B Van Buren's photograph is good. I believe we should get a cropped version of it, as many images of people are head and shoulder portraits Wcamp9 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A then B Highest quality image out of the 4 options, especially when compared to the other 2 portraits.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 04:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option DLooks like a good balance between A and C. B just looks like a more close up version of A.Coalcity58 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B or A. MOS:LEADIMAGE states that Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. Although the portraits are nice paintings, they are not as natural as photography, which by its mechanics must be quite true to life in its depiction of the subject. Portraiture as an art form historically has often involved representing a subject flatteringly and thus not necessarily naturally. A photograph of Van Buren—I prefer B as it's cropped closer to his face, but A is fine—is therefore preferable. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of badgering you, I will restate a point that I made earlier in the discussion. Due to Photo retouching, it is a serious error to assume that a photograph is more "true to life" than a painted portrait. With a photographer as experienced and skilled as Brady, and a subject as famous as Van Buren (and also due to Van Buren's advanced age), one may take for granted that A was retouched to a fare-thee-well. Of course, all the retouching activity no doubt improved the quality of the photo, and made it more flattering, insofar as that was possible. But "true to life" and "natural" are simply not applicable. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A retouched photo is still closer to life than the wholesale construction of a portrait. Of course a good portrait artist tries to not only flatter but also recognizably depict the subject. But it remains the case that every brush stroke must be a consciously made choice, a creation of the artist. Brady was skilled and so has likely done his best to make Van Buren look his best, but he didn't directly control each photon reflected into the camera or the chemical process of development the way Inman controlled very stroke of his brush.
    In any case, there are still reasons to favor the photograph. Importantly, it's recognizable to audiences as a famous photograph of Van Buren. Also, it comports with his notability as not only a president but also as an elder statesman.
    On a third matter: your comment further up in the thread mentions a belief that the photograph is unattractive. Your opinion is your own, but I think it's worth noting that determining an image's attractiveness is unavoidably subjective. For instance, I find D least attractive; his body is plunged into so much gloom and his head is so searingly pale that D makes me think of a floating cue ball. Meanwhile, B/A portrays a man who is old, sure, but also standing tall, with a keen power to his gaze, like he's looking right at the viewer. He looks seasoned and intelligent. We obviously disagree about which image is most appealing; such disagreements are natural and happen when making a subjective assessment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The template on the Commons page states the retouching was 8x10 crop, adjusted black level, removed artifacts; there has been no airbrushing or changing of appearance (besides the color tone) or anything like that. Unless I'm missing the point and you're saying Brady et al. were the ones who retouched the photograph? Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking. Yes, I'm talking about retouching before the photo left Brady's studio. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) A/B, as a photograph, even retouched, is a more natural and accurate representation than a painting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. The man is foremost notable because he was president. Ifly6 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A This is the most natural, accurate, and clear representation of Van Buren. Photos, when available, are the best choice in many cases. 🦄✨bedazzledunicorn✨🦄 15:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B Given the wide range of devices people use to access Wikipedia, and the different level of visual acuity among Wikipedia users, I think that in general Wikipedia editors underestimate the importance of clearly showing the face of the subject for things like templates, tables, and infoboxes. Personally, in the gallery above I can barely make out anything other than Van Buren's face in options C and D, and even option A seems insufficient to me. Having said that, I will say that it is a little bit of a shame to use a picture of Van Buren at such an advanced age given that he was a fairly notable figure even in his late 30s. Orser67 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'''Option B''': Close up shot of his face and is a real photograph. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern, Rjensen, GoodDay, Drdpw, Peaceray, and ITBF: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the Martin Van Buren page as well as your continued interest in editing it, you are invited to participate in an Rfc on the article's lede image. Should you be inclined to do so, please share your thoughts on this thread. Thank you for your time. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloguyswhatisup and JimmyCarterLover1: Based on your participation in prior discussions on the article's lead image, you are also invited to participate in this Rfc on the subject.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing In light of your recent posts in the preceding discussion entitled "Infobox portrait", do you have any thoughts you'd wish to share in this Rfc? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think the choice of image for the infobox in this article is relatively unimportant. So long as editors aren't spreading false rumors (e.g., "We are Required By Policy™ to choose a photograph instead of a painting"), I don't actually care which image gets chosen for the lead of this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, per the reasonings of Bruce leverett, "D" is what you would have seen if you met the man at his historical peak. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D This represents him at his most prominent as President. It is a simple reality that a number of public figures of this era only had photographs taken later in life after their most prominent period of office which means they aren't automatically the best option. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D I know photos are preferred but for someone who was prominent before photography, a photo of him as an older man doesn't really do him justice. I mean, imagine showing a photo of 100 year old Jimmy Carter when he was most prominent during his presidency, when he was in his early 50s. D shows MVB at his most prominent -- during his vice presidency and presidency -- so even though photos are preferred, I think D is the better option. Billmckern (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A I agree with Curbon7 generally, and also- I think historical figures who have photographs, should be represented by photographs unless the portrait is especially notable for some reason. (moved cause I'm a dummy and just hit reply instead of doing this correctly) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Option B (summoned by bot) entirely agree with Orser67about importance of clearly showing the face of the subject for infoboxes. Agree that it is a little bit of a shame to use a picture at such an advanced age given that he was notable in his late 30s.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A And honestly, it's not even a close call for me on this one. As I tend to participate in a lot of RfCs as one of my main talk space contributions on this project, I invariably get bot summoned to a fair few of these "which lead image?" discussions every year. Usually my feelings are pretty mixed between the options and I consider some subset to all be reasonable (and sometimes roughly equivalent) options. Not so in this case: I think if given the choice between a portrait photograph and a painted portrait, the former is almost always going to be the more desirable and useful to the reader as a lead image. Similarly, generally the full photograph is going to preferable over a cropped image; preserving all info, points of reference, and detail of the original. After-all, the reader can always click on the image to view a zoomed-in image if they desire that level granularity, whereas it is is a much more complicated (and for some readers technically unfeasible) process to try to backtrack a cropped image to the original version in our file hosting schema. Add in the fact that this is apparently the longterm, stable version of the infobox image and the call is even easier to make: I don't see the need for a change. Lastly, and least relevant, I just find the status quo image to be fairly quality (even considering it has been lightly doctored) and interesting. SnowRise let's rap 18:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'E

Here's a late-in-the-game addition, E, a crop of D. This is whaqt Van Buren would look like sitting across the desk from you in the non-oval office. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Emiya1980, can you relax on pinging all these projects? I can understand a couple, but your edit history could be considered WP:CANVASSING and apparently an editor at Talk:Vice President of the United States and Talk:President of the United States agree as well. You've now been cautioned by several different editors about your behavior in these image RFCs and your conduct is approaching the kind of disruption that will be taken to WP:ANI. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll make a point of more narrowly tailoring my Rfc notices in the future. Otherwise, given how you’ve consistently griped about me trying to change the status quo on EVERY SINGLE Rfc I’ve opened lately and opted to include this “discussion” in the middle of this Rfc thread instead of my talk page, your threat to report me to administration reeks of sour grapes and could be construed as status quo stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can either take the advice of several editors who who have attempted to steer your in the correct direction or you can continue to accuse others of silly things like WP:STONEWALLING which you either haven't read or don't understand. Nemov (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like, listing this RfC at projects seemed pretty reasonable. But Emiya1980, then you kept on pinging, and it started to feel like you were just digging up more people to ping. I'd encourage taking the advice of Nemov et al. on this. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrangeans I pinged a total of 8 editors on the basis of specific criteria which are explicitly allowed for on the WP:CANVASS page. That does not constitute canvassing. If you're referring to the Rfc notices I've posted on other talk pages, I've already indicated I will try to narrow it down to articles which are more closely related to Martin Van Buren. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all the projects which you are complaining about are listed at the top of this very talk page as having an interest in the Martin Van Buren article. Why is it a problem posting there? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion after RfC

[edit]

At some point soon this should be presented again, but with just two choices: A and E. E was added late as a crop of D, which came close to being chosen, and arguably presents a better image than D from which it is cropped. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Van_Buren&oldid=1246370007"