Talk:James K. Polk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mexico allies with Britain and France?

Is this really true? Did they ever threaten war with the United States early in the war? Exactly what kind of alliance was this?

Mexico was friendly with both nations and misjudged its relationship with both of them. The U.S. was actually fearful that one or both of these nations would invade or influence an independent Texas. James Buchanan, Polk's sec. of State was convinced there would be war between the U.S. and Britain if the U.S. annexed Texas (don't forget things were a bit dicey there for awhile because the U.S. was also negotiating for Oregon with the British). Mexico actually offered California to the British before the start of the US-Mex war... but Britain declined because it wanted no part of a war with the United States. You can find more info on this in Mr. Polk's Diary. cjuans 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mexico was not actually allies with either nation, although the U.S. was worried about the countries getting involved in the region again. Specifically, one of the major American fears was that the British would invade an independent Texas and march north to connect with British troops in Canada, thereby securing the western half of the continent for themselves. This may seem preposterous and it certainly never happened, but at the time it seemed quite possible: There were British agents in Texas trying to seduce the rebellious (against Mexico) Texans into joining the British. Also, just before the Mexican-American War, there was a crisis that could have become a third war with Britain in the Pacific Northwest, as the U.S. and Britain could not negotiate a way to divide the Oregon Country between them. The U.S. wanted to extend the 49th parallel that defined the border with British Canada up to the Rocky Mountains, but there was a problem: Vancouver Island, along the coast, would be divided if this was the case. Just before the U.S. declared war on Mexico, the Americans and British finally agreed to extend the 49th parallel border to the coast but to give all of Vancouver Island to British Canada (they also got navigation rights on the Columbia River until a later date). With that crisis dissolved the Americans were free to fight Mexico, who had no allies in the actual conflict. Source: So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico, 1846-1848 by John S.D. Eisenhower. 71.125.86.230 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

The article should be at James K. Polk or James Polk; he is not particularly well-known by the full name. Everyking 00:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment added when pages was at James Knox Polk, it was later moved here. Lou I 19:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opening of the Washington Monument

In the intro it says:

His term is remembered for (...) the opening of the U.S. Naval Academy and Washington Monument, and ...

How can he be remembered for the opening of the Washington Monument? That monument wasn't opened until 1888. Polk had been dead for over 40 years by then... Should it maybe read that he initiated the building of the WM, or laid the cornerstone, or something like that? Or am I missing something here? The article doesn't say anything more about this exept for the note in the intro. Shanes 01:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that should be fixed. The actual construction of the monument began in 1848, but was not completed until 1884. Polk approved the plans. cjuans 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

gallstones or gallbladder?

In the intro. and early life section the sentence reads:

During his childhood, Polk suffered from poor health. In 1812, his father took him to Kentucky, where the then-famous surgeon Dr. Ephraim McDowell conducted an operation to remove his gallstones. James Polk survived the risky surgery, enjoying better health during the rest of his life.

I think it should say that his gallbladder was removed, not gallstones. Is that correct? It reads strange otherwise. JShultz 05:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silly

It's facetious to say it, but doesn't he look just like Peter Stringfellow [1] in that photograph? An early mullet, too.-Ashley Pomeroy 10:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think someone should add a link to Factory Showroom by They Might Be Giants, there's a great song about him on that one. Anonymous (prefers Dr. Roy) 16 March 06

If you actually read the article, there is a link already. But yes, it is a great song! Bsd987 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking he looks like Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter movies. Some personality similarities too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart king (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Territory versus Oregon State

The sentence in the opening paragraph "Polk successfully led the fight to establish Oregon's northern border at the 49th parallel, where it remains today." is misleading unless you know that "Oregon" refers to the Oregon Territory and that this includes the current state of Washington. These facts aren't mentioned until much later in the article. Naive readers may be led to think that the state of Oregon has it's border at the 49th parallel.

I'd suggest changing the sentence to "Polk successfully led the fight to establish the Oregon Territory's northern border at the 49th parallel." Johnirving 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Errors in the featured version

Just doing a little experiment here, which is to discover and list all errors that were in this article when it was voted as a "Featured Article" early in 2005. While I was researching Manifest Destiny and the election of 1844, I started to notice a few errors in this article. There are perhaps other errors; I'm not an expert on Polk at all. This caused me to think about ways to improve the featured article selection process. This effort here is not to cast aspersions on anyone; rather, it's intended as a case study of one featured article. (See also: WP:FAR)

I think the version of the article that was selected as "featured" would be this one, which was nicely written overall. However, it contained some potential errors. Feel free to add to the list if you notice others. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• "The eighth ballot was also indecisive, but on the ninth, the convention unanimously nominated Polk, who had by then obtained Van Buren's endorsement."

I believe this is incorrect; Van Buren's endorsement came much later.

• "Tyler, however, had become estranged from his party, and did not seek a second term...."

I believe he did seek a second term (and maybe even a third party), but was not nominated.

• "His campaign slogan became 'Fifty-Four Forty or Fight.'"

Understandable error, since it's a popular myth. See Oregon boundary dispute

• "Although Slidell was prepared to offer up to $40 million...."

Maybe, but my source says 30 million.

• "President Abraham Lincoln, introduced the "Spot Resolutions...."

This is portrayed as happening before the declaration of war. Actually, the resolutions came more than a year later, after the war was essentially won.

It says his house in Columgbia Tennesee is his only residence still standing? WEhat about the White House? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCYoung (talk • contribs) 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Slaveowner

Exactly how much on this subject does this article need? It should be mentioned, but definitely not in the "Early Life" section as RadGeek wants. Where should it be broached and to what extent? Bsd987 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I placed the material under "early life" because while his career as an absentee planter began in 1831, well into his political career, it's not topically connected with the section on his political career, and there's no good place to fit it in there. The article as it stands might benefit from being re-organized chronologically, or else by adding a topical division that covers events from his personal life (such as his marriage, his legal education, his career at law, and also the material on his slave-plantations) during his adulthood, which could be parallel to the section on his legal career.

As for length, I'd say that his lifelong slaveholding and two decades as a large-scale planter and slave-trader deserve at least as much, if not more, space as his childhood urinary tract problems (1 full paragraph), his undistinguished education (1 full paragraph), counties named after him (1 full paragraph), etc. It was rather important at the time, both in his political dealings (his expansionist policies were hotly opposed by abolitionists, for example, who saw him as a leading fighter for the Slave Power, and, might I add, to Polk's own finances and to the lives of the scores of people that he enslaved.

Hope this helps. Radgeek 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely believe that Polk's slaveholding and status as planter belong in the article. Other leaders should also be identified as planters where appropriate - the planter class (those who held 20 slaves and above, as defined by historians of the period) was the social and political elite of the South. It dominated its politics for decades before the Civil War. Planters were relieved from serving in the Civil War, although many of their sons served anyway. Given the scale of his holdings, Polk was definitely in this class, both by inheritance and his own work. I think his slaveholding should be quantified, too. Polk used two overseers to run his plantations, so was removed from direct contact with slaves. While slaveholding was common in the South and helped define the planter class, I think it should be included in these pages so we remember how pervasive it was. --Parkwells 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his status as a slave owner is as important if not more so than some of these other topics. But, what does this:

Polk's views on slavery made his presidency bitterly unpopular between proponents of slavery, opponents of slavery, and advocates of compromise.

mean? Does it mean nobody liked him on the slavery issue? I get that the abolitionists didn't like him and saw him as favorable on slavery? But why didn't the anti-abolitionists or compromise people like him? Or were proponents and opponents of slavery squared off against the compromise people? Ileanadu (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the unrelated comment, but I removed some spam from this section of the article. 24.145.221.25 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mexican War & House Censure Misunderstanding

Polk was in fact censured by the House in 1848. "Censure" means "criticize", but is more proper when there is a legislative vote involved. The current edit is accurate substantively. Tmangray 06:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

False. The Joint measure was sent to committee and never reappeared-- it never passed either house. What happened was that the Whigs suddenly had an 82-81 majority and they passed an amendment to a bill that never passed. "Censure" is a very different procedure and was never attempted. Rjensen 07:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What is stated is not false at all. You're reading what isn't there. The House did in fact vote for the amendment that criticized Polk. No assertion is made about the resolution passing either house. Censure is not a specified procedure or term under any statute or rule of the time (or even now I believe). It is simply a word with a particular meaning which is more proper than "criticize" in this context. Tmangray 07:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what: let's just not use the word "censure" ok? The people at the time knew the word very well indeed and decided NOT to use it, So let's not rewrite history. Jackson was censured --they used the word--and that became one of the most violent issues for about 10 years in the 1830s. If the Whigs had used the word "censure" it would have created a firestorm. As it happened the measure was sent back to commitee which never reported it again. That is, sending back to committee killed the measure. Rjensen 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In the 19th century the Jackson censure was a big deal. Comparable in size in the 20th century was the censure of Joe McCarthy. They used the word "censure" very deliberately in the title: "Transcript of Senate Resolution 301: Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy (November 9, 1954)" [2]

A month ago Senator Feingold proposed a censure: "The United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans."

The censure thus is vastly more serious than a criticism. As the dictionary says, it's a formal procedure. (It goes back to British parliament--as in the censure of Clive and Hastings in the late 19th century. Rjensen 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello. I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Establishing Borders: The Expansion of the United States, 1846-48" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/borders/start.html

The issue includes a background essay and lesson plans on the Polk administration. If you think visitors would find this site valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

POV pushing

“ Despite this, he remains an unknown figure among uneducated Americans. ”

Please knock this off; however you feel about how people should be educated, the fact remains that he's largely unknown to the American public. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm educated and knew little of him. Ergo... I'm uneducated?? ;) --Otheus 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

TMBG

I find it somewhat baffling that this article contains precisely no mention whatsoever of the They Might Be Giants song about Polk. Particularly as it's probably the only reason that a lot of people (especially outside of the US) have even heard of him... Seb Patrick 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, there was a bit on that song in this article for years. Someone removed it just two days before you posted this. As always, if something obvious seems to be missing from any article, check the history. People frequently delete stuff from Wikipedia for various reasons, many of them bad, and this often goes undetected or unchallenged. --Kevin (complaints?) 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Polk has since been immortalized in a song by They Might Be Giants, which recounts his presidential accomplishments." This sentence is disrespectful. Do not post it again.

How is this sentence disrespectful? This sentence is truthful. This sentence is no more disrespectful than saying that The Beatles wrote Yellow Submarine. Besides, the TMBG song in question is actually quite fun, as well as factually accurate. They write a lot of "Edutainment" songs. The one on Belgian painter James Ensor is also wonderful.

75.92.147.10 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, ought to be referenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.206.201 (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Can someone say with certainty whether he pronounced his name Polk or Poke? I have been told both by well-informed historians. Adam 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

/ˈpoʊk/ is the Southern American English pronunciation (where Polk was from), while /ˈpoːlk/ is the modern General American pronunciation. Both should be listed, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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). I've changed the article appropriately. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FA with two citations?

I am troubled by this article's FA status despite having what appears to be only two citations. Croctotheface 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error?

It seems to be rather inconsistent that this article, in its opening paragraph, asserts that Polk was the first President who "retired after one term and did not seek reelection" when the Wikipedia article (and other sources) on his predecessor, John Tyler, also indicate that he served one term, did not seek reelection, and subsequently retired. (See also Tyler's biography on Congress's website, one of the links on the Tyler article: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=T000450) (stating Tyler "took the oath of office as President of the United States on April 6, 1841, and served until March 3, 1845; did not seek reelection ...").

I believe this article's assertion concerning Polk is factually inaccurate and, as such, should be withdrawn.

-- MTMcCorkle, 12/06/06

I believe the distinction is that Polk made it clear that he did not want a second term and retired completely voluntarily, whereas Tyler's not seeking reelection was a function of his unpopularity and his party refusing to renominate him (of course, Tyler had never been elected President to begin with). If you think this article is unclear about this point, of course, you should feel free to edit it to clarify. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First president photographed while in office?

"Portrait photography arrived in America just in time to record the likeness of the newly inaugurated ninth president of the United States, William Henry Harrison ... The most successful one-term president, James Knox Polk, the “dark horse” Democratic candidate from Tennessee, was the first president to be extensively photographed in office."

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/08/subs/08_b.html

"James K. Polk was not the first President to be photographed - William Henry Harrison gets that distinction - but Polk was a highly sought after subject for early photographers when portrait photography was really coming into its own."

http://www.jameskpolk.com/new/exhibits.asp

It would seem that this fact is incorrect, so I'll edit it to include the "extensively" qualification. -- Exitmoose 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation really needed for length of retirement?

(Originally posted to talk:mrzaius) Your recent edit to the polk article might not be up to WP standards. In the comments you mention "no need to cite since it's referenced in other Wikipedia articles." However, WP:ATT (which recently obsolted WP:RS) basically says that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. So it would probably make sense to put back the citation-needed template, or to find the reference the other articles also refer to. Since you made a series of edits, I wasn't sure which was the best route. Best regards --Otheus 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, as the statements were nothing but comparisons of the ages of Presidents. As the date of every President's death is public knowledge and present in each President's article, I'm not sure I see why a source would be necessary for the trivially simple statement that he was the youngest former President to die or that he enjoyed the shortest time of retirement. Note that List_of_U.S._Presidents_by_time_as_former_president is already linked to in that same sentence, and that it fully explains the situation.

Barring those situations where a citation template shows up in a tiny summary with a fully sourced article linked to with the main-article template, I would normally always support the notion that the Wikipedia is not an adequate source in and of itself. Recursion is bad. However, these statements seem so trivially simple that I simply do not see the need for a reference. Will copy these comments to the Polk article to make them more accessible to any other interested parties. Might be best to carry on this conversation there, if it need continue. MrZaius^talk 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources & citation, where they describe the primary reason and need for citation as the establishment of authority when making controversial claims. MrZaius^talk 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mexican and Latin American Relations

The events of the war played out in Mexico as a forced sale, to the point that even today it is the Mexican version. The Mexican War gave the United States a bad reputation in Mexico, Latin America, Canada, and most parts of Europe. Many mexican immigrants mention its not them invading, but the other way around. The US invaded Mexico. Where the true intentions of the United States are always scrutinized for its own financial gain, pillanging thirld world countries, because of this war. Certainly places like the middle east can point to this event as an example of US policy. Thus, Polk's legacy is one that can be pointed to making Anti-Americanism.

Moved this main page contribution by 200.56.176.186 to here. It's actually an interesting point and the current Mexican view (especially that of immigrants) should probably be addressed either in this article or (probably a better fit) the Mexican-American War article. I remember reading a newspaper article about where billboards for the Alamo movie a few years back had been vandalized precisely because of this. Also, the point about contemporary international reaction isn't really covered as well. While the writer really overreaches with an unreferenced POV, it's probably something worth doing a bit more work on by someone. Old64mb 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

Someone had removed the section on Cuba, but I cannot see from here or the edit history as to the reason. I've put it back in merely on grounds that I assume the original insert was made in good faith. --Otheus 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"insane surgeon?"

Was Dr. Ephraim McDowell insane, as it says in this article? Because I could find no record of that fact in either Dr. McDowell's Wikipedia entry, nor a brief google search.

Expert request - Sarah

I've hit up the United States and United States Presidents wikiprojects for help at Sarah Childress Polk several times over the last 8 months, but I haven't gotten any takers. There are a number of unanswered questions on the talk page and some potential concerns about NPOV issues due to the work being derived from a fawning government-issued article. Anyone willing to take a peak? MrZaius^talk 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Protect This Page?

Looking through the history, the vast majority of recent edits seem to be vandalism and the reversion of vandalism. Perhaps this article should be protected? 69.249.121.12 (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

<writtion by katherine davidson> when you believe in faith kox was ther in 1874 to help the poeple of his town! even tho he was president for texas he has NEVER step0ped one foot in the state of the loving glory of texas!! he was president of texas and never stepped one foot in texas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.213.209.145 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Great grandfather

and related to Scottish nobility through great grandfather Robert Bruce Polk III (1640-1703), who supported the Royalist cause of the Stuart kings of England against Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell and Parliamentary forces

Those are three remarkably long generations, and Royalist Ulstermen were thin on the ground. If a life of Polk confirms this figure, I will restore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the White House still standing?

Maybe the caption under the photo of that *other* house of Polk's could be changed a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.39.254 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

lead image

I see slight pixelation in the new lead image. Is there a version with higher resolution somewhere? Bms4880 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo appears twice?

The image at the top of the page appears again towards the very end, with the exact same caption. Any reason that this needs to be? 75.175.183.220 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

James K. Polk

I would like to expand this article to GA status, but I could use some help. Is anyone interested? If you are, either respond here or on my talk page. I intend to use Polk by Walter R. Borneman as the main source.-Kieran4 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can chip in here and there if need be. I have access to several books on Polk, if you need an extra source. Bms4880 (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources would be excellent. I should be able to get my hands on James K. Polk by John Seigenthaler too. Which sources do you have access to?-Kieran4 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Presidency of James K. Polk (Paul Bergeron, 1987); James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse (Sam Haynes, 1997); Manifest Ambition: James K. Polk and Civil-Military Relations During the Mexican War (John Pinheiro, 2007); Correspondence of James K. Polk (James K. Polk, editor Herbert Weaver). If any of these might be of use, let me know. Bms4880 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they will all be useful. When you have the time, can you add in what information your sources might contain but mine might be lacking?-Kieran4 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also consider sharing where there is commonality amongst the various sources so that you can balance the references. If most of the article becomes dependent on any one source then that raises issues.--Fizbin (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Strong" pre-Civil War president

What defines a "'strong' pre-Civil War president"? Xargque (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's... exactly what I was wondering. That whole paragraph has some serious POV issues. --Gragaband 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy and Garfield?

No idea why it's relevant to discuss other presidents who were also survived by their mothers; it seems a complete non-sequitor. Nonetheless, I'm adding a discussion heading in case anyone feels need to argue the deletion. Reyemile (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Great for random facts.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.238.168 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious Photograph

The photograph in the Mexican War section, supposedly showing Polk at his desk with a pen seems more 20th Century than 1849. The quality of the photograph is amazing if it were actually from 1849. The style of the clothing, especially the collar looks like it is from the early 20th Century. Finally, the man only vaguely looks like Polk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Knox_Polk.jpg

If this is legitimate, it is a great addition to the article, but I think someone needs to check up on this. York1066 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not only does the alleged photo come from a site about Japanese pens(?), but the person in the picture does not really look like Polk to me. I am going to remove until someone comes up with some better information about it. Andy120290 (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that that photograph is not him.Oreocookey (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That photograph definitely is not of Polk. I have tagged it for deletion, and my reasoning is laid out here.--Jim10701 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC) theres no point in complaining about this shiut. so shut tthe fuck up.

?Middle Name?

What is his middle name? I couldn't find it, is it there? Oreocookey (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Knox." First sentence. Bms4880 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability questionable

How is he notable? 11th President? Not first or tenth of 50th, but 11th? I don't think he's even on any bills. I move for deletion, or at least merge with other presidential articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.1.24 (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How is he notable well he gave America its modern boarder with Canada and Mexico. And expanded the continous States all the way to Pacific Ocean, accompished everything he set out to do. DoctorHver (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

James K Polk Tuesday

Important radio segment dedicated to giving a weekly fact about Polk. GBTV's "The 4th Hour", hosted by Stu Burguiere and Pat Gray, reaches over 233,000 paid subscribers every Tuesday with a fact about James K. Polk and should be noted in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.126.57 (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

James K Polk Tuesday has been suspended while Gray and Burguiere build the 4th Hour Constitution. Gray has advocated for the demise of the segment, often putting the measure to vote by listeners on The Feed, a live in-program chat. This usually fails by a tally of 69%-31% in favor of keeping the segment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.110.193 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Biography

In the list of references another biography "Young Hickory, The Life and Times of President James K. Polk" by Martha McBride Morrel should be added to the list. I cannot edit the page, but someone who can should look into adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.15.4 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Polk High" in TV series "Married with children"

Al Bundy and his family went to "Polk High" high school on the 1980's TV show "Married with children". T-Shirts "Polk High" are still available on the market. Could someone please include this trivia into the article? 209.121.198.180 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DEATH

It would be nice to mention WHEN he visited New Orleans and thus likely contracted the cholera that probably killed him. It is not clear, and I vaguely remember that he visited after his Presidency...Help? 147.226.205.170 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the James K. Polk article, it states that he was the only President who also served as the Speaker of the house. This is patently incorrect. Gerald Ford also served as Speaker of the House.

Thanks

Scott Cohen

96.224.250.6 (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Ford was never Speaker. He was House Minority Leader. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_ford#House_Minority_Leader Ratemonth (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done  Chzz  ►  06:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of James K. Polk's last name

My name is Keri Polk McClure and I am the 5th-great niece of former President James K. Polk. I would like to suggest that the pronunciation of his last name be changed to reflect that we do indeed pronounce the "l" in our last name. It does not sound like "poke", it sounds just like it is spelled, pōlk. I would love to see this corrected, as I take pride in being a Polk and don't want to see our name mis-pronounced for eternity. LOL!!! Thank you for your efforts; I, along with the rest of the Polks, appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.59.71.18 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the pronouncin' guide that tops the lede; I question its 'fact-ness', to wit: 1) What does it mean, or explain, to the reader?; 2) Is this meaning citable to a reliable, authorative source?. I will delete in a few days if a suitable cite is not offered.//Jbeans (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Some may indeed pronounce the l in Polk these days, but the President himself, and all his contemporaries, pronounced it as "poke." I think it is important to pronounce his name the way he did. Interestingly, the "poke" pronunciation gave great opportunities for the Franklin Pierce presidential campaign in 1852; one of their slogans was "we Polked you in 1844; we shall Pierce you in 1852." Pronounce the l in Polk and the slogan doesn't make sense. Lordmarmont (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Burch

Burch is a listed as being a Tennessee representative to Congress. This is incorrect. He owned the boarding house that Polk lived in. This article is locked, so I can't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.154.159.246 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)