Talk:Martin Van Buren/Archive 2

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

== infobox image ==

{{hat|1=Collapsing this discussion per [[WP:SOCKHAT]] as it was started by a now-blocked sockpuppet. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 06:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)}}

{{closed rfc top|1=I am closing this RfC as '''withdrawn''' because the initiator of the RfC recently tried to blank it, indicating they no longer wish to pursue this. Further discussion of the image can take place in a follow-up thread. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 06:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)}}

Which picture should be in the lead? 15:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

A painting better represents him cus its from his prime (1837-1838 during his presidency),the problem i have with the photo is that its from 1855, thats like 7 years nearing his death. and dont hit me with the "people remember him that way" cus the reason why ppl remember him that way is because of this article [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 05:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: I have made a fool of himself by not responding to all the messages under this thread [[Special:Contributions/~2026-22185-39|~2026-22185-39]] ([[User talk:~2026-22185-39|talk]]) 04:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

:Cullen you called? [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 06:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::I ''oppose'' replacing an iconic, historic and outstanding photograph with a pedestrian, run-of-the-mill painting. A photograph (unless it is of terrible quality) is always preferable to a painting. This particular photo, since it is one of the earliest photos of a US president, is included in many books about the early history of photography. Before changing the photo, there needs to be clearcut consensus here on this talk page. I highly recommend that {{u|Gabrielgames123}} read previous discussion of this issue and formulate a [[WP:RFC|Request for comment]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:::The early history of photography sure but not van buren himself

:::I dont think martin van buren is most known for being one of the most earliest presidents to be photographed...

:::You should give examples of books BOTH referring to the early history of photography AND martin van buren himself, please.

:::whats an RfC? [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 06:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:::Also you forgot to adress the problem i have its that the photo is from 1855, way after van buren's prime. Its like if we replaced herbert hoover's lead image just because color pictures of him exist wayy after 1929 [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 06:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::::As I said previously, you need to gain consensus for this change, {{u|Gabrielgames123}}. Are you going to start an RFC? Complete information can be found at [[WP:RFC]].

::::I contend that any good quality portrait photo is preferable in a biography to a painting. In this case, the photo is an excellent one by [[Mathew Brady]], the most famous and accomplished American portrait photographer of the 19th century, and the painting is mediocre. I am not claiming that Van Buren's notability is due to being photographed. That is a [[straw man]] argument. If there was an earlier, high quality photo of Van Buren taken closer to his presidency, that would be great. But there isn't. I reject that Hoover comparison because any photo, whether black and white or in color, is inherently more accurate and therefore more encyclopedic than a painting. We have no original color photos of Abraham Lincoln but ''many'' outstanding black and white photos of him. When a photo is not available, as with George Washington, an excellent painting is the only choice.

::::The following books discuss or use this Brady portrait photo:

::::Mathew Brady and the Image of History, 1997

::::American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection, 2013

::::Martin Van Buren - Old Kinderhook, 2008 (cover image)

::::Martin Van Buren and the emergence of American popular politics, 2002 (cover image)

::::Martin Van Buren, A Life from Beginning to End, 2017 (cover image)

::::How to Draw the Life and Times of Martin Van Buren, 2005

::::Encyclopedia of Presidents: Martin Van Buren, 1987

::::Depth Effects: Dimensionality from Camera to Computation, 2024 (detailed analysis of this specific photo on pages 87-88)

::::The Complete Book of US Presidents, 2020 (full, uncropped version)

::::Mathew Brady and His World, 1977 (analysis of the photo on page 80)

::::Facing the Light: Historic American Portrait Daguerreotypes, 1977

::::Art and the Empire City: New York, 1825-1861, 2000 (six sentences of analysis of this photo)

::::The notion that Wikipedia somehow created the prominence of this photo which has been well known for about 170 years is unsupported by any facts. Five of the book mentioned above pre-date Wikipedia.

::::I also disagree with the edit summary {{tpq|I am so sick of seeing the image of an elderly and frail van buren. The reason why many people think of van buren this way is because of this article and it pisses me off. The google image section is plagued with this photo.}} There is no evidence to call Van Buren "frail" at the time this photo was taken. He was retired but was still a highly active observer and analyst of American politics in the mid to late 1850s. The fame of this photo long predates Google and Wikipedia and the internet, and these mentions are indications of [[wp:recentism|recentism]] and overly emotional objections to the photo. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:::::WP:ILIKEIT... [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 17:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

:Please revise the question per [[Wikipedia:RFCNEUTRAL]] [[User:Dw31415|Dw31415]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 11:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::I've changed it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::? [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:Kind of a tough call due to the issues of portrait during the most famous part of his life vs. photo after his period of famousness. Changing either part would make it an obvious choice between the two. All things considered, I think I would push for the photo. It doesn't show him at his prime, but it does ACTUALLY show him. [[User:Lulfas|Lulfas]] ([[User talk:Lulfas|talk]]) 18:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

[[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]], are these the main options under consideration?

File:Martin Van Buren circa 1837 crop.jpg|First year in office, 1837

File:Mvanburen.jpeg|Official portrait {{template: dubious}}, painted 1858

File:Martin Van Buren by Mathew Brady c1855-58-(4).jpg|20 years later, taken ca. 1855-1858

And is the expectation that all of them will be in the article, and the question is really just which one should be at the top vs. in a relevant ==Section==? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:im back now srry i was asleep [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:I like the current photograph. I prefer a photo over the paintings. [[User:Knitsey|Knitsey]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|talk]]) 16:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::hold on for a second gonna ask my mentor a question [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:Id gladly keep https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Martin_Van_Buren_edit.jpg in postpresidency, that is more well known that the 1855 one

Edit: and also higher quality

[[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:That is NOT an official portrait, that was made by a guy named GPA Healy in 1858, 17 years after his presidency. [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::The middle one is the one in [[Portraits of presidents of the United States#White House Historical Association presidential portraits]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:::My point still stands, it was made in 1858 [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::::Okay, but why does that matter? There's no statute that says Official^® Presidential Portraits must be made during the president's time in office. A portrait can be made later and still be the official one. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:::::Were talking about wikipedia not the white house [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::::::I think we're talking about whether the middle image is correct described as "an official portrait" or [[Talk:Martin Van Buren#c-Gabrielgames123-20260408162100-Gabrielgames123-20260408162000|"NOT an official portrait"]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:yeah the 1837 one should triumph [[User:Gabrielgames123|Gabrielgames123]] ([[User talk:Gabrielgames123|talk]]) 16:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion of the infobox image, featuring exactly these two choices, in 2024; you can find the first part of it in [[Talk:Martin Van Buren/Archive 1]], and the second part (which was an RFC) in [[Talk:Martin Van Buren/Archive 2]].

I personally started the discussion because I thought Van Buren looked like a scarecrow in the photograph. However, the great majority of contributors favored the photograph anyway. It is a cropped version of a [[WP:Featured pictures|featured picture]], and it has been our infobox picture of Van Buren for a very long time.

So I basically lost that argument, but I'm happy that there was a strong consensus. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 18:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

*'''Photo''' Per Cullen328. I don't think I fully grasp the objections to the photo. It shows what he looked like. Personal opinions on his appearance are irrelevant. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 22:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

*:The idea that a photo is somehow inherently preferable to a painting is a Wikipedia hallucination. Go to Amazon and type "Martin Van Buren biography" in the search box. Do you get a lot of photos or a lot of paintings? The rest of the world kind of likes the paintings, although one sees both (and also some caricatures). Over at [[Andrew Jackson]], the available photographs are mostly unflattering, although the painting that we are currently using is, in my opinion, not sufficiently true to life. I like the image of him that is on the $20 bill, but I have never proposed that we use it, because I don't think other editors would be interested in (a photo of) an engraving. Meanwhile at [[John Tyler]], we are currently using a painting, but there have been some popular photographs as well. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 01:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

*::But of course we are writing an encyclopedia and they are trying to sell books (presumably) so they find different things (un)important. If my goal is to sell books I would put him on the cover riding a dinosaur while shooting laser guns. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

*:::Dinosaurs and laser guns? Whatever.

*:::I have not found much MOS guidance about what's important. The relevant policy is [[MOS:LEADIMAGE]], and I don't interpret it as saying anything about media, such as photographs, paintings, etc. It does say that the image should {{tq|give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page}}, so I suppose recognizability, or even familiarity, is a good thing. It also says the image should be {{tq|the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works}}, which is why I turned to Amazon. But neither of these criteria would settle the argument we're having. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 02:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

*::::You are correct that there is no guidance, beyond the image needing to have an educational purpose and being [[WP:PERTINENT]] to the subject. Things like painting vs photograph, color vs black & white, flattering vs unflattering, old age vs younger age – none of those are official rules. Editors are allowed to make up whatever personal criteria they want, but they should avoid imposing their personal opinions on others (e.g., "I think all photographs are always more accurate than any paintings" or "I believe that flattering images are non-neutral"). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

* The idea that photos are inherently better or more accurate than paintings is bizarre to me. For as long as photography has existed as a medium, people have been manipulating photographs either through staging, composition and lighting, or through post-processing. We should be deciding which image to use here on the basis of the actual images in question, not just assuming that photographs are somehow inherently superior to other forms of portraiture. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 11:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

* '''Status quo''' - Looks like someone cropped it after the last [[Talk:Martin_Van_Buren/Archive_2#Rfc_for_Martin_Van_Buren's_Lede_Image|deadlock]]. This version or the cropped version has been stable for 8 years. Nothing has really changed since the last RFC. Let's move on... [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 21:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

{{hab}}