Talk:John Tyler

I'm thinking about adding this infobox image. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the image page, I see that the license claimed is that it was made by an employee of the federal government and is thus public domain. I am not aware that Mathew Brady was a federal employee. Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And anyway, isn't this the same image as is there presently, but showing more of Tyler? How does it help the reader to see Tyler full-length instead of portrait? Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. For a portrait in the infobox of a biographical article, a head-and-shoulders picture is a natural thing to use, and most of the articles about presidents of the United States use them. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - the present version is preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

We already show Martin Van Buren in a full body image when we could have used a cropped version. Interstellarity (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't say I think much of the Van Buren full length image, personally, but that's another matter. See WP:OCON Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

What's the matter with mentioning Lyon in the children parameter? I thought this was what the children parameter was for, that is, to make connections between notable people and their notable children. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I thought we state the number and list any notable children. Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the section regarding the 1844 electron, would this image of Tyler taken in 1844 be appropriate to add?

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Tyler_1844.jpg

Hoping to see what the consensus is Maxx1222 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's just a poor quality photograph, and the novelty of it seems entirely theoretical to me. In other words, I don't see what illustrative value it has that all the other photographs/portraits in this article do not. Remsense ‥ 论 23:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Remsense. It isn't the first photograph of a sitting US president, Harrison was photographed on 4 March 1841, see . So given it isn't a "first" and it is relatively poor quality and doesn't add anything that the existing photos don't have, I don't see a compelling reason to add it to the article. Opolito (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

To the possible dismay of some, I’ve updated the infobox image. I want to clarify that this change is likely not permanent and remains subject to future revision. However, it’s time we addressed the issue directly.

You might ask, “Why not wait until a consensus is reached?”—and under normal circumstances, I’d agree. But in the meantime, it’s difficult to argue that the current image isn't more accurate than what we had before.

In my comment on James K. Polk's talk page regarding his known daguerreotypes, I mentioned that there are no known daguerreotypes of John Tyler taken during his presidency. After further research, I’ve found that there are currently two possible candidates. However, neither has been confirmed or verified by the broader academic or historical community. (This excludes the one that surfaced on eBay some time ago, where the seller claimed it was of Tyler.) The two images I refer to here have at least been suggested as possibly depicting him by more reputable institutions or publications.

What to Change it to?

I’d like to suggest a few interim options until a more permanent solution can be agreed upon.

I understand this puts a lot of editors on the spot—and to some extent, that’s intentional. As much as I’d love to use the possible 1844 image due to its historical significance, it still needs more thorough verification and authentication. My hope is that highlighting it in this way will encourage more users to help with that process Benjamin.P.L (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for putting thumbnails of the proposed images here on the talk page.

On what grounds do you claim that File:Tyler Daguerreotype crop (restoration).jpg is an "unedited, unaltered" image of Tyler? Brady was a popular and reputable portrait photographer, and unless he explicitly stated otherwise, I would assume that any portrait photo he sold had been retouched to a fare-thee-well.

The meta-data for that file says, "Originally taken c. 1845". If this is accurate, Tyler was not "much older" here than during his presidency, which ended in 1844.

Regarding the last image, you write "As a print, it isn't an accurate representation of Tyler." What do you mean by this? All daguerrotypes and photographs are prints. The meta-data for this file says, "Reproduction of a photographic print made by Mathew Brady, c. 1860-1862". Bruce leverett (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my first comment regarding the "More Accurate Info-Box Image" back in July 2024, the image in question is not an original photograph but a hybrid—part photograph, part lithographic print. Unfortunately, the original 1845 photo has either been lost or has yet to be discovered.

If File:Restored_john_tyler_pic.png was truly taken between 1860 and 1862, you can clearly see a difference when compared to File:Tyler_Daguerreotype_crop_(restoration).jpg, which remains unaltered. Mathew Brady/his studio was known to alter his photos, as seen not only with Polk but also with Taylor.

I don't mind using a lithographic print, but if we are going to use one, why not choose one from the time when Tyler was actually serving as president, rather than the hybrid image? Benjamin.P.L (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope to use the return or keep it as it is both are fine because they are good and the most accurate images Wcamp9 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The primary source of corroboration for the 1844 daguerreotype is a testimony of John Quincy Adams in a diary entry. While this per se may not constitute sufficient verification, I don't believe it is established that he was the subject of any in this year beyond this particular one.

As for my personal opinion, I would say the 1842 painting is apposite, inasmuch as it presents details without equivocation: the majority is aware of what it entails as to accuracy. (What is displayed currently is rather unclear—it is a restoration of an 1845 photograph, but its caption merely states it is from 1860–62? This first of all requires clarification.) As you mentioned also, the prevailing photograph is from an epoch that is not pertinent to the pinnacle of his career, which contrasts with the aforesaid painting. Perhaps this principle should be applied to John Quincy Adams; the principal representation should be congruous with the corresponding foremost association, as per the ideal of naturalness and appropriacy, with which a depiction of Tyler as a Confederate congressman—or in excess of a decade after his presidency—is irreconcilable. Solo4701 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I would support the painting. Even given the inherent inaccuracies of paintings, it would do a better job portraying for the reader the dynamic man who attained the political heights. Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Certainly. It's not really unconventional either, as @Benjamin.P.L previously remarked.

Some instances wherein I can recall I've observed it:

1. Andrew Jackson
2. John C. Calhoun
3. Dolley Madison
4. Thomas Jefferson Randolph
5. John Armstrong Jr.

Solo4701 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Im in support of returning to his presidential portrait as the difference between that and the painting is that it is an ACTUAL image of what Tyler looked like during his presidency. It is an accurate depection of what he looked like during the 1840s (April 1841-March 1845) ~ HistorianL (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you tell me which one of the above five from the top of the previous section? Let's label them A through E. Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Image C, which would be, File:Tyler Daguerreotype crop (restoration).jpg, mainly because out of the three, it is closest to his presidency in terms of an actual year, as it is credited as being taken in 1845, when Tyler was President and about to exit office or had already left the presidency. HistorianL (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple versions of this photo in the commons. The one linked to above says that the "original" date was 1845. But the one that is currently linked to from the article says 1861. Presumably at least one of these dates is not correct. I have not figured out how to go to an authoritative source and find out the "real" date. I tried accessing the "Library of Congress Collection", but did not figure out how to find it.

If I had to guess, I'd pick the 1861 date. The guy looks like a seventy-year-old in the photo, after all. That is not necessarily a bad thing. If photographs of me looked that good, I'd be happy. But it would mean that he was participating in the process that led to the secession of Virginia, and it would also mean that he was going to die a year later. Note that we are also linking to this photograph in the "Prelude to the American Civil War" section. We would not want to link to the same photo twice in the article, so we would need to replace that link or remove it altogether. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, he is far more likely to have encountered a camera at this time in Washington DC, where he was during part of the Secession Crisis (1860-61), than in rural Virginia, where he spent most of his declining years. Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not a presidential portrait—it depicts him almost two decades after the conclusion of his tenure. This epoch of his life is not pertinent to his presidency, his foremost association, nor even generally to his career as an American politician. If it is a "restoration" of an older photograph, we nevertheless have no access to its original form, which is essential to assessing its accuracy. In consequence, I fail to see its congruity with the Wikipedian principles upon which I expounded earlier. Solo4701 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the original image that was in use or, well..., is still in use techinally. It has a set year for the photograph as being taken in 1845, which I have already stated is the closest of all the photographs, when Tyler was President and about to exit office or had already left the presidency. ~ HistorianL (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What I suggest we do is vote on it, as was done at the two royalty articles I mentioned, and then respect the outcome. Do it as an RfC and notify as widely as we can. Between the five images depicted in Benjamin PL's post a bit above, and any others there may be. Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It states in the article it is from 1861, which as per his appearance, seems more plausible. Or has this discrepancy—whence puzzlement has arisen—been resolved? Solo4701 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I vote to keep it as it is. It’s better to use a representation of what they actually looked like with photography, rather than using portraits that only guess what they looked like. Kacc26353815 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The current image is quite poor quality. Can a better scan be found? Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Selection of infobox image

It strikes me there is sufficient dispute about the infobox image, we should establish a new consensus, as was done at Elizabeth II and at Charles III.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on the current edit war, I felt compelled to apply full protection for a two day period while this is settling. I have no particular outcome preference. Just keeping the peace, since at least two editors here can't seem to restrain themselves. BusterD (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Since we are quoting McCormick directly, we must use his wording. I don't have the source with me, does he say "the precedent that" or "the Tyler Precedent where"? Bruce leverett (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is of adding the "direct" or "directly" parts for when one cannot have "indirect" quotes nor does it seem possible to "indirectly" quote someone, but until now I somehow didn't notice the quotation marks discussing the Tyler Precedent that already got linked within the article. This was me misreading some text and I'm sorry for the oversight, so I'll simply restore what was used prior to my edit there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)