Jump to content

Talk:James K. Polk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJames K. Polk is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
May 9, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
January 16, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 15, 2018, November 2, 2020, and June 15, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

London memorial?

[edit]

Hi, I'm editing List of public art in Westminster (in London) and there's a plaque I can't identify outside the Republic of Texas's former embassy in Pickering Place, St James's – image here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/browniebear/6303845621/ A commenter there suggests that the man portrayed is Polk. Can anyone confirm this with a citation, ideally giving the sculptor's name and/or the date? If so I'd be really grateful, as I'd like to bring the list up to featured status. Thank you! Ham 18:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be Lord Palmerston (Henry John Temple, the third Viscount Palmerston) who served as Prime Minister of Britain twice in the 19th century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston#Death and http://www.flickr.com/photos/victorianlondon/5606084396/ and http://www.radiotaxis.co.uk/london-s-smallest-square/ Roberterubin (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! :) I've added the plaque to the page as a portrayal of Palmerston. Ham 05:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Propose that this link be removed. It is not an obituary, but a vulgar note welcoming his death by an abolitionist. Roberterubin (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obituary of sorts. I changed the description to better describe the link. Your thoughts, please? Regards, --Manway 02:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly better, but if you want to reference it, I suggest Instead noting in the main body of the article the strong feelings against Polk based on his reluctance to do anything about slavery, at which point this can be cited as a footnote. Because it is much more a condemnation based on that perceived failure than anything else - and certainly not an obituary in any meaningful sense of that word. Thanks, Roberterubin (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only president not to run for re-election

[edit]

Ok, I know that some presidents died in office, and others ran for "re-election" after having inherited the presidency (e.g. both Johnsons, T. Roosevelt, Ford). Is Polk the only president who chose not to run for election after having served some amount of time as president (full or partial term)? In other words, was he the only president who was still alive at the end of his first term and attempt to be elected to another? Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29th and 30th Congresses: Errors

[edit]

The statements made on the James Polk page about the partisan composition of these two Congresses (the section referred by link 4.10 at the top) simply do not match those made in the articles about the 29th and 30th Congresses. They're also flat-out wrong: for example I don't know how we get 63 Senators (an odd number?) in a 29th Congress returned with Polk in 1844 and admitting the 29th state (Iowa, Dec. 28, 1846).

I suggest that only the links to the main articles about the two Congresses be preserved, and that all other information about these Congresses be deleted from that section. Less is more here.

That way, there is one definitive place to maintain information about the Congresses - there is nothing that ever can be out of sync. Having comprehensive, accurate information on a main page and inaccurate fragments of information on some other page, when a simple link to the main page would better serve, totally defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. The article is about President Polk; it can contain information about his interactions with Congress, but details about Congress should be by external reference. Don't split the difference here: preserve the links and ax all else in that section.

I also suggest that this be the policy for all Presidents - that the contents of sections about the compositions of contemporaneous Congresses be standardized to consist only of a series of links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.232.238 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency edit request

[edit]

Please add an image of the White House as it looked in 1846. Do so by adding [[File:White House 1846.jpg]] (thumb|The White House in 1846) after [[File:Polk proclamation.gif]] (thumb|upright|Polk's presidential proclamation of war against Mexico), under the section on his presidency. As illustrated, also add upright as the size for the existing proclamation image.

It should look something like the following. Thanks in advance. 67.100.127.72 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why? There are already many images in this article, and (at least on my screen) there's no room to add another one down the right side without displacing other images further down. The article says nothing about Polk having anything special to do with the White House beyond living there. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency (1845–1849)

[edit]
Polk's presidential proclamation of war against Mexico.
The White House in 1846.

Calculation

[edit]

""8,000 acres (32 km²)"" What a nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.183.96.216 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entire Introduction is Polkwank and nothing but

[edit]

There are all of two citations in the introductory section. Considering that the intro has such phrases as "last strong pre–Civil War president" and "Scholars have ranked him favorably on the list of greatest presidents for his ability to set an agenda and achieve all of it", I would expect some solid citations. The first citation is his birth date and location. The second refers to a single article on The Daily Beast. The entire introduction, bar those two marginal notes, is unsourced. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the general rule in Wikipedia is that the lead paragraph is not footnoted but is a summary of the article. In this case the article is very well footnoted. Rjensen (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Polk is considered a strong leader in comparison to the presidents who came after him before the civil war - Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan - the latter of which is often considered one of America's worst presidents...--Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy "Successes"?

[edit]

Using the word "successes" in the second paragraph to refer to his foreign policy moves is a positive value judgment which doesn't belong in an objective encyclopedic context. His foreign policy, particularly his atrocious aggression against Mexico, was immoral and outrageous (a negative value judgment which also doesn't belong in an objective encyclopedic context). I suggest something more neutral, like "foreign policy initiatives" or, simply, "foreign policies." "Successes" is a really offensive word in this context and needs to be neutralized.

Expatriate77 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Expatriate77[reply]

The text does not make a moral judgment one way or the other. As far as the term "successful" -- that is the overwhelming consensus of the reliable sources, the historians who have covered the topic in depth, including those from outside the United States. To say that Polk was successful means simply that Polk did achieve his objectives. Polk did so in terms of a satisfactory settlement of the Oregon dispute without war with Britain, protection of Texas and recognition of its status by Mexico, and acquisition of California (acquiring Arizona and New Mexico had not been on his list before hand but of course they were included as well). The job of the editors at Wikipedia is to reflect the analysis and conclusion of the reliable sources, and this article does so. Rjensen (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James K. Polk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James K. Polk. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James K. Polk. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:POLK, James-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:POLK, James-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 2, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-11-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James K. Polk
James K. Polk (1795–1849) was the 11th president of the United States, serving from 1845 to 1849. He previously served as the 13th speaker of the House of Representatives and as governor of Tennessee. A protege of Andrew Jackson, Polk was a member of the Democratic Party and an advocate of Jacksonian democracy and manifest destiny. During his presidency, the United States expanded significantly with the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Treaty, and the conclusion of the Mexican–American War.Engraving: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; restoration: Andrew Shiva
Archive – More featured pictures...
I have cleaned up the lede as a top priority due to the immediacy of the date, and have incorporated the image into the article.Hoppyh (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James K. Polk. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undated daguerreotype speculated of Polk.

[edit]

Many Historians really argue this isn't Polk.

Their is no citation or reference at all of it being him. Nothing From Brady or Plumbe determining it is. Seigenthaler suggest it isn't Polk, but someone with a fair likeness of him. Mathew's Brady's final photo of the president in 1849 really shares a great difference. Even George Healy's final portrait of the president looks quite different. The Curator at his presidential museum even suggest a lot of doubt, also their lead researchest as well. Only the museum it's coming from says it's Polk with no Back story or any references on it.

Even if you look at the little things like the glasses, they aren't the ones his museum has. (Though yes he could have another pair, but still.) Or his hair being a different style then most of the other photos of him. Even the condition of the Plat, would someone really take such poor care of a photo of the president of the U.S?

I think there really is a lot of doubt this isn't Polk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.249.90 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll take it down then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Knox Polk Hall

[edit]

I'd like to remove this obscurity from the hatnote. This indicates that, as of this writing, Congressman Hall (died 1915) has received 148 page views for 2018. His article has not been edited since 2016, and basically has not moved much from the PD basic text a lot of congressional articles started with. I did remove it while editing the article some months ago but someone put it back. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for this hatnote. —ADavidB 06:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to remove it. Orser67 (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Reduction and Intro Citations

[edit]

Looks like there are no citations in the introduction for this article, and would be relatively difficult to pull from the current references list. Additionally, the last paragraph in the introduction does not include any citations, does not seem necessary, and seems to includes content meant for the Legacy and historical view section rather. Considering deletion of the last paragraph in the introduction. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEADCITE. Citations are not necessary if the content is in the article, as the lead section is a summary thereof. Recall that this is a WP:FA and has passed multiple layers of review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

[edit]

Polk was a lawyer and politician. He should be listed in the lead as this. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lede mentions both those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legal career receives due mention in the lead, as Polk is not noted for being a lawyer, but as a politician and believer in manifest destiny who became president. Drdpw (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker of the House sequence

[edit]

While Polk was the 13th person to be a speaker of the House of Representatives, he was also the 17th speaker, since several previous speakers held the position multiple times, nonconsecutively. For example, Henry Clay was the 8th, 10th, and 13th speaker. Thus, Polk was the 17th speaker in most contexts and I believe he should be listed as the 17th in this article's infobox. Any reasoned objections? —ADavidB 01:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see it's been altered for all Speakers, I'm not going to stand in the way, as consistency was my concern. No objections. Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adavidb: The Speakers of the US House of Representatives are counted only once, including those who've served non-consecutive terms. Reliable sources (for example) have Paul Ryan as the 54th (not 62nd) Speaker. Henry Clay was the 7th Speaker, James K. Polk was the 13th Speaker. The next Speaker (we assume Kevin McCarthy) will be the 55th. GoodDay (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Harry S. Truman which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation: Part 3

[edit]

This is the third thread about this topic.

Talk:James_K._Polk/Archive_1#pronunciation concluded that "According to the Pronouncing Dictionary of Proper Names, 2nd Edition, James K. Polk's last name is properly pronounced /ˈpoːk/ (it refers to James K. Polk specifically)" and a sourced pronunciation guide was added to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_K._Polk&diff=231302842&oldid=231061133
Then at a later point, the source was removed and at an even later point another user opened a second thread Talk:James_K._Polk/Archive_1#Pronunciation_of_James_K._Polk's_last_name and claimed that "it sounds just like it is spelled, pōlk" without citing any sources. Eventually, the pronunciation guide was removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_K._Polk&diff=521978070&oldid=521331477
I just added the pronunciation back with a source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_K._Polk&diff=1147006703&oldid=1147006601 but got reverted right away. In general, modern pronunciations are to be included in article leads whenever these pronunciations are not apparent (MOS:LEADPRON). The rationale behind the latest revert was "an inline pronunciation seems unwarranted due to the fact that Polk's name is widely known and placing pronunciations at the top of an article is distracting to the reader per the MOS." The fact that three threads have been opened about this issue is evidence enough that the pronunciation is not widely known. I suggest we put the guide back as a footnote as per MOS:PRONPLACEMENT.
--Omnipaedista (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those threads are from 2008 and 2013, respectively. Basically, MOS:PRON says, "Pronunciation should be indicated sparingly, as parenthetical information disturbs the normal flow of the text and introduces clutter." Specifically, "For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling; use it only for foreign loanwords (coup d'etat), names with counterintuitive pronunciation (Leicester, Ralph Fiennes), or very unusual words (synecdoche)." We are also enjoined to "If the name consists of more than one word, include pronunciation only for the words that need it (all of Jean van Heijenoort but only Cholmondeley in Thomas P. G. Cholmondeley)." Notably, we are told not to pronounce "Thomas" even though it includes a silent "h". Polk is a well-known individual, we don't need to clutter the lead sentence with a pronunciation. Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Polk" is not a common English word like "Bush" so I would argue that a guide is warranted. Cluttering the lead sentence is probably not a good idea, I agree. How about a footnote then? --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_K._Polk&oldid=1244746610"