Talk:John Tyler

Working hard

The Post Presidency section stages that Tyler, “did not take farming lightly and worked hard to maintain large yields.” Tyler was a slave owner. To spotlight his work ethic without mentioning those who were doing the real hard work resulting in large yields seems to be quite a glaring omission. Billtaverner (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. It might be wise to review the source and see what can be added on that. Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Tyler owned 70 slaves. More can be said on his slave ownership. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If there's a word, use it.

If there's a word for a particular definition, then use it. As to whether a word is used frequently or less frequently, that shouldn't matter. Besides, it is common for Wikipedia to use lesser-known words. Rattatast (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Death Place

It seems misleading to omit "C.S." from his biography, considering he was a traitor to the United States. It's important to emphasize that he died in a failed breakaway, unrecognised state. Others who were born or died during the occupation of U.S. land during the C.S.'s existence have "C.S." in their infoboxes. Just because this is a former president we should downplay he treason, if nobody responds to this post in a timely fasion, I will change it. ChuckDabs (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed. The Confederacy had no legal existence. We're not responsible here for the content of other articles. I fail to see how this excuses anything. I'm sure many died, Union soldiers for example, in the so-called Confederate States who had nothing to do with it. Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

" I'm sure many died, Union soldiers for example, in the so-called Confederate States who had nothing to do with it." I concur and can see the disrespect in that.

Note, that I still think it should (somehow) be more apparent in the article somewhere how John Tyler was a traitor and had an impact on the creation of the aforementioned rogue state. Currently, how the article stands, gives no initial impression to a reader that John Tyler was anything but an insignificant President of the United States in the 19th century and should be amended to reflect his failure to his country. ChuckDabs (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention that Tyler is the only US president who received no national recognition after his death because he had adhered to the Confederacy? Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

I think the fact that a community college was named after him should be included. The college is Brightpoint Community College, which until around 2021 was called John Tyler Community College (https://www.progress-index.com/story/news/2021/07/08/brightpoint-recommended-new-john-tyler-community-college-name/7907945002/). Kdammers (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A community college seems rather a minor namesake. The change of name strikes me of more worthy of a mention, if there are other facilities that have taken his name off. In other words, I think it needs to be more than just the community college, which Tyler had nothing to do with. Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Other people have legacy entries that include high schools, buildings and even a mall (Carl Sandburg) and a tunnel (Dwight D. Eisenhower). Teddy Roosevelt's long legacy entry includes, ships, a submarine, and even an asteroid. I think a community college is worth mentioning. I'm not necessarily saying that Tyler elementary school (https://thehillishome.com/2010/03/tyler-elementary/) or Tyler High School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_High_School) should be included. I also think that the city in Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler,_Texas) that is named after him should be included in a legacy section. Kdammers (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a county in Texas too and possibly other things. If you want to put something together that is sourced to FA standards, since the article is a FA, I have no strong view. Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

More Accurate Info-Box Image.

I want to propose changing the info-box image, as it does not accurately depict Tyler. This is a later 1860s image of Tyler edited by Brady to make him appear younger and more youthful. Tyler, as the youngest man to become president (up until that point) inspired Brady to reflect that. He did this with other's he photographed, notably James K. Polk. Brady edited his 1849 daguerreotype of Polk in the same manner. Polk was the youngest man to be elected president (up until that point) and the first to be elected under the age of 50. So, he edited the image to make him appear younger. Brady did this to create cabinet cards and Carte de Visites to sell in his gallery for the tourist trade.

I don't have a suggestion to which photo should replace it, as there are no known photos of Tyler while as president. We could replace it with a portrait of him while as president, similar to Andrew Jackson. Where there are photos known of him, but they were taken shortly before his death. Or we could do a later 1850s-1860s image of him unedited. Like John Quincy Adams, taken almost 20s after his presidency. (Though that image has also been edited, but more so quality than appearance.) Then that raises the question: it doesn't show how he would have looked as president... but photos take precedent over portraits. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a resource where we can read about Brady's alteration of the images of Tyler and Polk? Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Not directly... I really encourage you to check out the original 1849 daguerreotype of Polk by Brady vs. the edited one. As the edited one is the same that appears between the 1870s-1890s on cabinet cards and Carte de Visites produced by numerous galleries. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also trying to track down the unaltered image of Tyler to show my point. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's possible in the edited version Brady superimposed Tyer's face on another person's body? Compare it to this 1860 image of Tyler which I'm pretty sure is unedited. It is possible the edited version is a photo of an earlier lost Brady daguerreotype, similar to the lost 1848-1849 Sarah Polk daguerreotype. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Try https://dp.la. If you find a decent photo I'll restore it. Another option is to choose something where it's expected not to be fully accurate, like https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.70.23?destination=node/63231?edan_q=John%20tyler Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the only photo I can find of Tyler is the 1860 Brady daguerreotype. I can't find a single other photo of him after his presidency. A supposed unverified photo of him popped up on eBay awhile back, but I can't say for certainty if it's him. (There is a passing resemblance.) I would like to add, if we do a portrait, I recommend the 1842 Healy rather than the 1859. Mainly, because it was painted during his presidency. (And the 1842 one isn't used in the article.) The edited version of Tyler's photo has been debated before to its accuracy. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, there is a thing with daguerrotype reproduction where, since it's hard to get a sharp copy of a copy, it was normal procedure to draw on it to readd detail. ...Not ideal, but I've seen it before. Occasionally well-done enough that it's useful. File:Captain John W. Tarleton by John Jabez Edwin Mayall.jpg being a good example. It's called overpainting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's done well here for Tyler. I know that's subjective, but I believe that the info-box image should be the best representation of the subject. I feel the 1842 Healy portrait is better or the unaltered 1860 Brady daguerreotype. Brady didn't just make clearer outlines, but also altered it, as if trying to merge the photo with a lithograph. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the photo of Tyler taken in 1860 (not the Brady one), which is substantially higher quality, is a GREAT image to use for the lead Wcamp9 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to get the process moving on a vote between that one, the 1842 Healy portrait, or keep it the same. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I continue to believe that for presidents such as Tyler, Fillmore, Jackson, perhaps Polk, a painting should be considered as more closely resembling the individual as president. Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat agree but am cautious. I believe there are better daguerreotypes of Polk (than the one chosen for the info box) that accurately represent him while president. It is good to acknowledge, all the better daguerreotypes of him were taken near the end of his presidency. I somewhat agree with Fillmore but believe the 1849 daguerreotype a more accurate representation. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

When I search commons for "John Tyler", I don't get a lot of variety. If you are dissatisfied with the 1860 Brady/Handy photo and the Edwards & Anthony daguerrotype from 1860-1, I am sympathetic. In the latter, he looks too old and stern, while in the former, he just looks goofy. However, I don't have a clearly better one to propose.

The 1842 portrait by Healy is reasonable.

When I go to Amazon and search for "John Tyler", I see some pictures, not all of which are already in commons, so I don't know where I would find them, but some of them might be worth a look. But some of these books feature the Brady/Handy and the Edwards & Anthony, so those two photos can't be all bad. If we choose a painting or a photo that has already been chosen by some reputable author/publisher, we aren't going too far wrong, although I vigorously complained about one such photo in the discussion of the Infobox image at Talk:Martin Van Buren. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe the 1842 Healy is a better representation than the current. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)