Talk:Zachary Taylor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Legal?

Th FHEH paragraph in the bibliography is shared with http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/zt12.html I am concerned with the legality of this.

Works of the US Government are public domain. --Golbez 23:34, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Compromise of 1850

Needs something about the Compromise of 1850.--CMacD

That was under Fillmore, I think. --Neutrality^talk 04:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Taylor's death

I added more detail of Taylor's death, the exhumation of his body, and the examiner's conclusion. It was largely reported in the press that the levels of arsenic were not high enough to be fatal, even though the examiner's report concluded that the symptoms and circumstances were in the scope of arsenic poisoning. Critics like Michael Parenti use this example to demonstrate the media's lacking of journalistic integrity. I could not find any websites to cite, but Parenti documents this extensively in his book History As Mystery [1].

In any case shouldn't the name of the bowel disease be morbus chron rather than cholera morbus ?

Upon the exhumation of Taylor's body in 1991, what condition was the body in? I'm really surprised if there were any remains in tact. Centers 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making a few changes. Specifically, I removed the exhumation from "Trivia" and placed it in "Death." I think it belongs there. I incorporated Parenti's research, but did not incorporate his conspiracy theory angle. Let me know what you think of the changes.--Nick 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Only reliable sources can be used--historians and medical experts have to approve a theory before we post it. Booklist says "In his dogmatic insistence on finding a proslavery conspiracy behind the death of Zachary Taylor, Parenti crosses over from paranoia to absurdity." We can't use either paranoia or absurdity. Rjensen 03:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see paranoia or absurdity in my addition? I only said that Parenti stirred up controversy and made the legit point about the hair. I called it speculation. Whats the problem?

BTW, when you say that "medical experts have to approve a theory before we post it," let me cite Dr. Zebra, a source used on this article previous to my edit:

Pages 209-240 discuss Taylor's demise and the 1991 testing for toxic substances. Dr. Zebra has not read this book. Apparently, however, Parenti criticizes the arsenic testing performed on Taylor's hair because the arsenic concentration was reported as an average over the entire hair shaft. This would indeed tend to underestimate the arsenic concentration if Taylor had been poisoned, because if Taylor had been poisoned, arsenic would have been deposited only in the part of the hair that grew between the time of the poisoning and death -- supposedly just a few days. Thus, only the smallest bit of hair nearest the scalp would have arsenic and the rest of each hair shaft would be arsenic-free. The concentration of arsenic in the entire hair shaft is therefore irrelevant, and only the concentration nearest the scalp matters. This value was apparently not reported.

Are you questioning Parenti's research or his conspiracy theory? If it's the latter, then I don't see how my edit should be a problem. --Nick 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The reviewer for Booklist condemned the book as unreliable. Only reliable sources on Taylor can be used in his article Wiki. Rjensen 04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the wiki policy page endorsing the opinion of some reviewer for Booklist? Thanks --Nick 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really a big fan of the death section as it stood, esp. the last 2 paragraphs. I changed it. Nick 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki on every editing page says we MUST have reliable evidence. One-man conspiracy theories that attract no expert support (and have been denounced by major review journal) are not reliable--indeed no one relies on them! Rjensen 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen --

We don't seem to be on the same page regarding what should and should not be on Taylor's death page. You seem to have some fixation on Michael Parenti's 'conspiracy theory.' Personally, I don't find them convincing either. But you must keep in mind that the POSSIBILITY OF ASSASSINATION was such that HISTORIANS CONVINCED TAYLOR'S FAMILY to LET THEM DIG UP HIS BODY!!!

Thus, DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY of assassination is certainly worthy of the page. Here was my effort at trying to convey a motive for killing taylor:

Given the dynamic period during which Taylor served as president, some historians have proposed that Taylor might have been poisoned. His anti-secession and anti-slavery stances could certainly have been seen as acts of betrayal by some fellow southerners, although assassination would have been an irrational risk: Millard Fillmore, Taylor's replacement, was a northerner who also opposed slavery.

What's your rationale for deleting this section?

Next, Michael Parenti researched the autopsy and revealed a huge blunder in their method. NOW: WHILE PARENTI IS CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL, HIS RESEARCH IS NOT MADE UP. NOTE THAT I DO NOT ENDORSE ANY OF PARENTI'S CONCLUSIONS, MERELY HIS RESEARCH INVOLVLING THE AUTOPSY.

I leave the question of assassination very much in the air. There were questions, autopsy was done to answer them, errors in autopsy leave some question. THAT'S IT!

Please show me some respect and stop reverting back to inferior versions.

Nick 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Kanguru99/Rjensen discussion,

Rjensen, please stop fabricating Wikipedia policy and using it to back up your arguments. Theories regarding historical events can and are posted even if they are not backed by "historians or medical experts" -- the only requirement is that they are notorious enough to deserve mention (the Google test used to test personal notoriety and screen vanity posts could be used at this point). A good example of conspiracy theories posted on Wikipedia (and accepted by everyone) that are not supported by your proposed cadre of Experts can be found here.

Astrochris 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who here thinks Parenti is a reliable source--anyone??? The question is whether Parenti is a reliable source. If not Wiki does not allow us to use him. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources which says: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim. Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Evaluating sources Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative. For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field. In history, for example, the American Historical Review reviews around 1,000 books each year. The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (1995) summarizes the evaluations of 27,000 books and articles in all fields of history. Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources. Disagreements between the authoritative sources should be indicated in the article." [end quote on Wiki policy for history articles] Rjensen 09:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why conclude that Taylor was not poisoned, simply because there were no traces of arsenic? If he was poisoned - and I don't believe there is any evidence that he was - any number of poisons could have been used. To grandly state that he wasn't poisoned, because there was no arsenic, is either foolish, or deliberately deceptive. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I opt for the former. However if I was a conspiracy theorist I would say he was poisoned, with a poison other than arsenic, and that the descendants of the assassins knew this, and arranged a autopsy and tests to falsely "prove" that he wasn't poisoned!124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

changed image

I changed the portrait in the infobox. The new one just looks better than the old one.--Kross 13:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think that new image looks gross, but I'm willing to let it be... I added the previous image below. I see no reason to remove it totally. It's a good picture, IMHO. --Lord Voldemort 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gross? How?--Kross 01:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know. He just kind of looks fat and bald and old. Doesn't appear stately IMHO. Not that it really matters to me. --Lord Voldemort 15:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well they all can't be as ruggedly sexy as old George, rawr! :p--Kross 16:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Got that right! Booya! What?! Am I talking? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An Inappropriate Comment?

The last sentence of the "Biography" section is: "He was a gay-assed little bitch with a bad case of craps. ~Greg Muller"

In what way is this appropriate to the topic?

RHG/21 Nov 05

It's what we refer to as vandalism and we appreciate you removing it!--MONGO 07:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting for himself

The last line of the trivia says that he voted for himself, while earlier in the article it states that he did not bother to vote in his own election. Which is true?208.45.79.174 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard that he voted for himself, but had never bothered to vote before. No sources, though. john k 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree

Atchison

Several-year-old discussion of that here by the way. Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the secretary of state appear as Ivana Humpalot (porn star) on my screen

when I look to edit the story. It has Henry M. Clayton.

Cherries and Milk?

Has anyone got any information on how his death caused the folk superstition that eating cherries and milk together is bad for you? Ithesu 02:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First US President born after Revolution?

Depending on how you parse it, the second footnote is either incorrect or else it states something quizzically uninteresting (it's also got an incorrect comma):

"Taylor, is the first President to be born after the end of the Revolutionary War and the Treaty of Paris. This makes him the first President born to the undisputed, self-governed American Colonies."

Taylor's two predecessors in the presidency, John Tyler and James Polk, were also born after the revolution, though Taylor was older than Tyler and Polk. So Taylor may be said to be the first native-born citizen to become President, he wasn't the first person to hold office and be native-born citizen. Should this footnote be changed?

More Vandalism Found

Hi,

I found more vandalism in the reference section (#2). I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to delete it, unfortunately. If someone would kindly tell me how, I will happily remove it. Officermed (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

The article states that Taylor was born in "Montebello, near Barboursville in Orange County, Virginia." Montebello is neither near Barboursville nor in Orange County. Anyone have any thoughts? Bws2002 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Montebello. I can find no such place in Virginia.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange dates

Why does the article refer to 'the war of 2016' for what must be 'the war of 1812' and gives the date he was made captain as '2034?' Deedeebee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be vandalism that seems to have already been reversed. If you are still seeing these numbers, reload the page. If that doesn't work, try emptying your temporary internet files. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not holding prior office

The article states the second U.S. president never to hold any prior office (George Washington being the first). That's not really accurate - Washington obviously never held any office in the United States government before becoming President because he was the original President. But he had been a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress as well as some minor elected offices in Virginia. So Taylor was really the first not the second. MK2 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone messed up the whole article!

Just wanted to let everyone know that someone desecrated the Zachary Taylor article. It says he was Mongolian, he was a magician, etc. I don't know exact information, so I couldn't fix it. Someone please help!

-Fioredellaluna (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Rough and Ready

I didnt see it, but is it stated within the article why Pres. Taylor was known as "Old Rough and Ready"? --Omnipotence407 (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See Zachary Taylor#Military career. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, cant believe I missed it. Thanks! --Omnipotence407 (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exhumation

Changed information on exhumation because it was inaccurate in saying that the autopsy was conducted by the ORNL. As someone who was present in an official capacity during the exhumation, examination of the remains, and the reinterment, I believe that the new version accurately reflects the events and observations of that date in June 1991. --152.133.8.3 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is valuable information, not to be summarized into 2 sentences. The details can be very important. Perhaps though, instead of having this information practically identical on both this page as well as the presidential assassination page, Zachary Taylor should be the summarized version, with a link to the assassination page.--omnipotence407 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Defenders of slavery"

My understanding is that Taylor tried to admit the new states (such as California) as free states. What evidence is there to support the claim that he's a "defender of slavery"? -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to change infobox main picture.

I would like to propose that the picture in the infobox is changed. I changed it earlier, but the change was reverted, so it seemed to me that the change is controversial to the degree where it requires a consensus decision. I realise that I should have seeked a consensus decision beforehand. Below on the left is the current picture, a daguerreotype taken in 1849, and below on the right is a painting done in 1848:

The reasons why I believe the picture on the left should be replaced with the one of the right are:

• The picture on the left not only shows the daguerreotype of Taylor, but also the frame, which I don't think looks very aesthetic.
• The picture on the left is relatively grainy.
• The picture on the right is much more colourful, and isn't grainy.

If anyone else can offer any other pictures for consideration, please do so. Thanks for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The picture on the right is a much more realistic depiction of Taylor. --omnipotence407 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the picture on the left is that grainy, nor does it have significant aesthetic issues. I think that when we have a choice between a real image (daguerreotype) and a painting, we should go with the real image, as a real image conveys more true information about the person. The real image here looks acceptable to me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thank you, you two, for your input. Atm, there isn't a consensus to change the image, so I won't. Terrakyte (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the daguerreotype looks more "Presidential" and he is best known for having been President, not for being a military leader. Also, it depicts him realisitically, rather than idealistically. Finally, the one on the right has him in uniform, which the next section here attests, makes some people wonder. So, I would keep the daguerreotype as his infobox image. --Habap (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. I think the painting looks somewhat more official, but I'm generally change-averse. Either would be fine for me =) --Kangaru99 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

White House Portrait

Is there a reason that his White House Portrait has him in military uniform? He is apparently the only President to wear it, even among retired generals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am doing a report on this guy so help me out here!!!!

Was he a Jew? Why is his name Zachary if he wasn't a Jew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.89 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

title says it all!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.247.23 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He is obviously not Jewish; it says right there in the article that he was Episcopalian. Zachary is not an exclusively Jewish name. Zachary Space, Zachary S. Reynolds, Zachary Andrews, Zachary Scott...none of these people are Jewish. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fort Smith, AR

Wasn't President Taylor a commander at Fort Smith? I live in a neighboring town, and there is a house (or rather, what's left of it) that Zachary Taylor lived in. If I have my facts right, he was some sort of military leader there. Should there be anything about this in the article? Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

PLEASE REVIEW FIRST PARAGRAPH. someone has inserted some inappropriate language at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.84.172 (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE REVIEW FIRST PARAGRAPH. someone has inserted some inappropriate language at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.49.130 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources and Taylor's death

I am wondering: What is the source for this statement in the article: "On July 4, 1850, Taylor consumed a snack of milk and cherries at an Independence Day celebration." This "snack" seems to be an important element in the prevailing theory regarding the man's death (subsequently described in the article), so it should probably be properly sourced.

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In Sherman's memoirs he states that Taylor died after eating too much ice cream-

"General Taylor participated in the celebration of the Fourth of July, a very hot day, by hearing a long speech from the Hon. Henry S. Foote, at the base of the Washington Monument. Returning from the celebration much heated and fatigued, he partook too freely of his favorite iced milk with cherries, and during that night was seized with a severe colic, which by morning had quite prostrated him. It was said that he sent for his son-in-law, Surgeon Wood, United States Army, stationed in Baltimore, and declined medical assistance from anybody else. Mr. Ewing visited him several times, and was manifestly uneasy and anxious, as was also his son-in-law, Major Bliss, then of the army, and his confidential secretary. He rapidly grew worse, and died in about four days."

Taylor's Secretary of the Interior (the first one ever, actually) was Sherman's foster father and father-in-law Thomas Ewing, and Taylor attended Sherman's wedding. So Sherman knows what he's talking about. 8.25.157.162 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This aspect of Taylor's death has been repeated in numerous academic monographs covering this period, including Michael Holt's Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party. They come from various newspaper reports of Taylor's illness and subsequent death, including for example the Albany Evening Journal, 9 July 1850. Idiots...

Mri113 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Zachary Fox

Cant edit that out, some z fox has replaced himself in the second paragraph.

Galenanderson (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Last southerner elected president until Lyndon B. Johnson

I've noticed that someone has written that Taylor was the last southerner elected president until Lyndon B. Johnson was elected 116 years later in 1964. I edited that section to correct it. Taylor was the last southerner elected president until Woodrow Wilson was elected 64 years after Taylor in 1912. Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia and raised in both Virginia and South Carolina. My correction subsequently was replaced with the original, erroneous information. I attempted to correct that line again, but saw that my edit was again removed. As I am new to editing Wikipedia entries, I wanted to ask if there are moderators who examine the accuracy of entries, or if entries are entirely constructed and monitored by users.

Mri113 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely removed that from the article because it was unsourced and appears to be contentious. There are no no specific moderators that verify the accuracy of information. It is everyones responsibility to verify accuracy and that is done by having reliable sources to verify the information. The information is not that important and instead of leaving it in and edit warring back and forth it is better to temporarily remove the information until a source is found that answers the question one way or the other. I can see both sides of the arguement since Wilson was originally from Virginia (southern state), but from New Jersey when elected (northern state) was he a southerner? Johnson was definetly a southener. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Andrew Johnson was a southerner as well, from Tennessee, only 17 years after Taylor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateedits (talk

It is also false that Taylor was the only President before Donald Trump to have had no previous experience in elective office. Presidents Grant and Eisenhower also had no previous elective office experience (also some of the earliest Presidents as well, but they don't really count). When making statements like this, one should be more careful. • contribs) 19:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Daguerreotype

I recently uploaded this amazingly detailed daguerreotype of Taylor, but it needs some significant restoration around the edges...

Early life

I'm having a hard time squaring these two sentences in the Early Life section: "Zachary Taylor was born on a farm[2] on November 24, 1784 . . . He was a 1650 graduate of Harvard College . . . " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.73.250 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The early life section claims that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Robert E. Lee were relatives. I am skeptical about the assertion that Roosevelt is related to Taylor. But if they are you surely can't say that Roosevelt and Lee were counted as relatives, that is awkward. (Ocyril (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

I have replaced the following crest image with a pic of Taylor's birthplace, with the assumption that it adds more information. File:Crest of Zachary Taylor.svg

Cause of Death

Cause of death originally indicated in the article as Gastroenteritis, citing a White House Biography, which does not appear to give a cause of death. The Boston Daily Evening Transcript, reporting the day after Taylor's death, indicates bilious diarrhoea, or a bilious cholera as the likely cause. Edited to suit contemporary report. Haruth (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Contention between two articles

From another article (Zachary Taylor) "Taylor was the last President to hold slaves while in office, and the last Whig to win a presidential election."

From this article: Millard Fillmore (January 7, 1800 – March 8, 1874) was the 13th President of the United States (1850–1853) and the last member of the Whig Party to hold the office of president.

Both cannot be correct.--90.208.224.173 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No contradiction. Taylor won the office while a member of the Whig Party. Fillmore was not elected to the office but assumed office on Taylor's death. Both statements are accurate, though perhaps they might be clearer. older ≠ wiser 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

James Madison was the 4th president of the United States, therefor he was a past president and not a future president. May somebody be kind enough and update that piece of inaccurate information located in the last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Early Life" section. 68.175.31.189 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it was correct usage as the timeframe of the sentence was during Taylor's childhood. I have made the change anyway, as I see no reason not to. It is correct either way, but I do see the confusion in the formatting.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Event after which Taylor died

At Zachary Taylor#Death, the article currently says:

On July 4, 1850, Taylor was known to have consumed copious amounts of iced water, cold milk, green apples, and cherries after attending holiday celebrations and the laying of the cornerstone of the Washington Monument.

There is a supporting a citation from John S.D. Eisenhower's book on Taylor.

However, Ken Jennings says here, in his blog:

I’ve been snowed in all week doing the copyedit for my next book, Because I Said So. The manuscript did have the single most heroic correction I’ve ever seen by a proofreader, however. He/she/it fixed a factual error that is wrong in numerous print sources and Wikipedia, which I thought was amazing work.

If you read many accounts of the death of President Zachary Taylor, including the one on Wikipedia, you’ll learn that he got overheated at a Fourth of July celebration in 1850, at the dedication of the Washington Monument. Ace Proofreader informs me, however, that the Washington Monument was actually dedicated two years earlier, on July 4, 1848. The ceremony that eventually killed poor President Taylor was a fundraiser for the still under-construction obelisk, two years later.

Certainly Wikipedia's Washington Monument article says that the monument's cornerstone was laid on July 4, 1848, and this is confirmed on the monument's own web site here and here. So I think Jennings and his proofreader are right, but I don't have direct evidence to support this. I've attempted a Google News archive search to find contemporary newspaper articles about the ceremony Taylor attended, but their coverage for that period is weak, and since they don't support searches by date any more, the results are swamped by modern articles referring to the events of 1850 (many of them repeating the same error that it was the cornerstone-laying; others just describe the event as "a ceremony"). I have online to one newspaper from that period via my local public library, but it didn't print any details about the event Taylor attended.

I can't edit this article since it's semi-protected. I considered planting a contradict-other tag on the Washington Monument article, but that doesn't seem fair when I think this must be the one that's wrong. I can't place an edit-request tag without a consensus on what to do. So I'm just going to say that this bit of the article seems to be wrong, and invite someone to find some reliable sources (preferably ones from 1850), to check out what really happened, and take it from there. I am related to him directly and I know a lot about him if anybody has any questions.

--65.92.2.230 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(Same person, different IP address) Okay, the article is no longer protected. I've made an edit based on the above sources and, since Jennings says it's wrong in numerous print sources, included an explicit statement to that effect in the article rather than just correcting the error here. --50.100.189.5 (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Assassination theories

I've reverted a few insertions by a new user that appear designed to argue the specific case that a 1999 Michael Parenti anthology chapter successfully refuted the consensus of prior and subsequent Taylor research. Perhaps Parenti's book chapter deserves some mention, but adding things like "allegedly" to a statement from a historian writing a 2008 full-length biography seems obviously loaded. At a minimum, I see no reason to emphasize Palenti's conclusions over historians specialized in the field. (It also seems that Parenti's book seems to have gotten quite poor reviews, rather than becoming the sort of definitive work that supplants prior scholarship.) These are good-faith edits but seem to me to violate WP:NPOV.

What are your thoughts, Designate? You've been over all these sources recently. Even if we disagree, thanks everybody for their work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I defer to WP:UNDUE, especially the quote from Jimbo. Parenti makes a good case, but as far as I can tell, it was a self-published book (a bookstore in San Francisco), so we can't represent it as a reliable source. If the theory does not have substantial presence in academia, it "does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." If we do include it, it shouldn't be presented as fact over the existing consensus. —Designate (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think City Lights Books is actually a reputable publisher. But as you say, Parenti's theory doesn't appear to have been widely accepted since the book's publication fifteen years ago. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find a scholarly review of the book using JSTOR. It seems like the burden is on the party wishing to add the material to establish that historians, since 1999, are accepting Parenti's conclusions. I think Parenti's background is sufficient to warrant a mention in the article, but not to the point of damning standard interpretations with words like "allegedly". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Bhawke, in response to your odd statements in your edit summary: The very first sentence in the "death" section, which you've tried repeatedly to change, is referenced to a 2008 book. Second, I did try to engage you here at the talk page (above), and you refused to respond and reverted again instead. Let's try to discuss this rather than edit-warring. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to talk and explaining your objections in detail. I am indeed new to this. For some reason, my lengthy defense on the Talk page was deleted. That is why my edit comments seemed "odd" to you. I am pasting them again below and hopefully it will stay up this time.

The reasons given for privileging the 2008 biography over Parenti on the narrow topic of the president's death are invalid.

1. Parenti is an academic political scientist (PhD Yale). He taught at the University of Vermont and his articles have been published in peer reviewed journals. His book chapter is extensively sourced with primary documents (91 endnotes) and conforms to accepted scholarly standards. An earlier version of the same work was published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

2. The publisher in this case has been established since 1955 and is well known. It has it's own wiki article. This hardly qualifies as "self-published."

3. The author of the 2008 biography is a retired general with no academic training or credentials. He is far from "a historian specialized in the field." His book contains only 8 endnotes on "the death of the president." None of them cite primary documents. None of them even mention the assassination controversy. This does not even come close to accepted scholarly standards.

4. What older biographies say is irrelevant, since those authors do not deal with the assassination controversy. Parenti is being cited and discussed under the Assassination subheading as an expert on that topic. His conclusions on this topic are the most recent published and remain unchallenged in the scholarly literature.

5. What evidence do you have that Parenti's work "doesn't appear to have been widely accepted?" The original article was peer reviewed. The most recent review I located (by an academic historian with a graduate degree in the field) praises Parenti. It states: "Parenti effectively demolishes the traditional viewpoint of Taylor's death." I also have a graduate degree in the field and I agree. Parenti's research is cited with approval in a recent scholarly book on presidential assassinations. The authors are both professional academics with university appointments and both are acknowledged experts on the topic.

6. Since the specifics of Taylor's diet are under dispute, "allegedly" is the appropriate neutral term.

In short, Parenti is a professional academic with credentials, publishing in an established press, with copious citations to both primary and secondary sources. The author provided in refutation is not a scholar, has no professional credentials, and provides only a few citations to old secondary sources. Parenti's research is peer-reviewed and has been further vetted and approved by expert scholars in 2005 and 2010.

That's one peer-reviewed work and four professional scholars vs. one non-scholar writing a trade press biography.

The text I added should be restored. Bhawke (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the way that Wikipedia weighs viewpoints. We don't simply publish the most recent statement on a controversy as a definitive fact. Often papers are "unrefuted" because almost no one pays attention to them, as seems to be the case here. (I've published more than a few "unrefuted" journal articles in my time, but I don't kid myself that it makes me the undisputed final authority on my subject; in fact, I think it demonstrates the opposite.) Outside of this mention in the assassinations book, is there any other evidence of impact? A Daily Kos blog post doesn't really count--nor, unfortunately, does your graduate degree. (On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.)

You've definitely persuaded me that this is worth a mention of a sentence or two; I'm still not convinced that it requires us to rewrite the whole section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt reply and clear statement. I keep getting "loss of session data," when I try to make changes, but I think I'm getting the hang of this.

So, let's boil it down to essentials.

We have a scholarly peer-reviewed journal article expanded into a book chapter, with supportive citations in another scholarly book by two experts in the field. A trade book by a non-scholar ignores the issue. Why is the latter viewpoint weighted more? Please explain.

If the need is scholarly consensus, we have three scholars who agree the exhumation was deeply flawed, and no scholarly studies that disagree. Note that I did not change any of the text under the assassination subheading. I merely added a description of newer research that casts doubt on the immediately preceding text. How is this "rewrit[ing] the whole section?" Please explain.

That leaves the insertion of "allegedly," which occurs under the death subheading. The current text reads: "Taylor was known to have consumed a lot of cold milk, iced water, and cherries." Aside from the vague "a lot," that sounds pretty definitive. The citation is to the 2008 trade biography. Said biography does not cite primary sources, but cites an older book, The Presidencies of Zachary Taylor & Millard Fillmore, published in 1988 (before the exhumation revelations). The 1988 book states: "Probably suffering from a mild sunstroke, Taylor returned home and ate raw fruit, probably cherries, and, reportedly, various raw vegetables as well, which he washed down with large quantities of iced milk." Probably...probably...reportedly. Not "a lot" of cherries. Maybe no cherries at all. No "iced water" at all. Nothing definitive.

Parenti argues that there are contradictory reports about Taylor's exact diet and sun exposure. Even if true, he points out, mild sunstroke and cherries are non-lethal to a person in normal health (which seems obvious). He cites numerous reports of the President's good health. He also challenges assumptions about food poisoning. Again, peer-reviewed in 1998, cited by two scholarly experts on the topic in 2010.

I don't know what your definition of "scholarly consensus" is, but when you have one non-scholar biographer saying one thing and three accomplished scholars saying another, there is at minimum a dispute. Thus "On July 4, 1850, Taylor allegedly consumed..."

Your move.Bhawke (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say it still seems to me that you're overstating things. Am I right that one of your three "accomplished scholar"s is Tony Seybert, a blogger with an MA whose best-known writing is "An Open Letter to John Kerry: Don't Be An Asshat"? These just aren't the kind of sources Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

The milk and cherries bit appears widely reported as fact, and not disputed outside of Parenti. Looking only at post-Parenti works, there's the book you yourself cited [2], this, this, this, this. Some of these sources are not ideal, but they show that the milk and cherries story continues to be the dominant narrative, while almost no one is listening to Parenti. A 1993 Taylor biography from a university press also states as fact that Taylor consumed cherries and milk.[3] Parenti seems to me clearly the minority opinion on the cherries issue.

As for cause of death, beyond those sources that adhere to the cherries story, Encyclopedia Britannica attributes his death to cholera, as does Britannica Biographies and Hutchinson's Biography Database; all of these three date their articles years after Parenti's appeared. It thus seems to me that both the milk & cherries explanation and cholera explanation are much more widely accepted than Parenti's, and the article should be weighted accordingly.

Here's what I propose--a line summarizing Parenti's objections be added, and a quotation from the most recent analysis--[4]--be added: "There is no definitive proof that Taylor was assassinated, nor would it appear that there is definitive proof that he was not ... any notion that Zachary Taylor was in fact the first president to be assassinated remains a rumor." Does that seem fair to all parties? I'll bow out for a bit now in either case to give others a chance to respond; apologies if I've been dominating discussion here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Three accomplished scholars being Parenti, Willard Oliver and Nancy Marion

You still have not explained why a retired general writing a trade biography for military history buffs = scholarly consensus but peer-reviewed scholarship later endorsed by two professors ≠ scholarly consensus.

None of the additional books you mention are cited under the death and assassination headings to support the cherries and milk statement. Only the 2008 trade biography is cited. This book cites a 1988 book, which is equivocal on the cherries and doesn't even mention "iced water" at all. So the statement on the wiki as it is now is demonstrably false.

But just for fun, let's go through each additional book you mention (even though they're not cited in the wiki) and see if they support your claim:

1. Killing the President: Cites some historians on "the legend...that he ate cherries, drank milk, and then died." But legend is not fact. The authors are equivocal about the cause of death, but state firmly: "It is unlikely that cherries and milk were the cause." The authors are very careful to say "assuming the fruit had been washed in the water" and "assuming" he drank "water rather than milk." He may have contracted Cholora, but maybe not. There is no definitive statement either way - other than the fact that the cherries and milk "legend" is false.

2. Presidents: A Biographical Dictionary: repeats the "iced water" claim and offers no citation whatsoever for cherries and milk. Not a work of original scholarship.

3. Problems of the Presidents and Vice Presidents: no citation whatsoever for cherries and milk. Self-published in an online bookstore by a non-scholar.

4. Grover Cleveland's Rubber Jaw: no citation whatsoever for cherries and milk. Not a work of original scholarship.

5. Secret Lives of the U.S. Presidents: no citation whatsoever for cherries and milk. Author is not a scholar. Not a work of original scholarship.

The 1993 book was published years before Parenti's research, so is not really a critique of Parenti. At best, you could say there is disagreement (although not really, because the author has not weighed in on the new evidence - he could very well agree with it). I do not have access to the encyclopedia entries you mention.

Once again, we are left with three accomplished scholars vs. a random assortment of unsourced tertiary accounts. And yet the latter is somehow scholarly consensus on the topic of Taylor's death and exhumation? Please explain.

Bhawke (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you've just about exhausted my patience with your edit-warring and needlessly combative attitude. It's a good tactic to make your one good source sound like two by counting authors rather than sources, but it doesn't convince me it has any more weight. And Wikipedia actually does make use of tertiary sources; they're very useful in settling disputes like this one, where we have to summarize conflicting scholarship. The current encyclopedia sources I consulted make no mention of assassination theories at all. Since our article is far more detailed than most encyclopedias, it's appropriate that these theories have a minor place, but we should weight our discussion similarly to the reliable sources. That means emphasizing the majority viewpoint and de-emphasizing the minority. Again, it pretty much says it all for me that to find even a second source supporting Parenti, you had to go to a Daily Kos blogger. The opposing view, in contrast, seems to be everywhere I look, including in every book-length biography of Taylor we've found, both from trade and university presses.

Anyway, you and I are clearly repeating ourselves at this point without much progress. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree and let others chime in for a bit. I don't really intend to engage here further with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel my attitude is "combative." This was certainly not intended.

I have not mentioned the Daily Kos author since you told me it was disallowed. Yet you keep bringing it up. I have provided a 2010 scholarly book by two expert professors as evidence of impact. It is not "a tactic." I think two professors agreeing should be weightier than one.

You ascribe superior weight to tertiary sources, almost all by non-scholars. Yet reliable sources indicates that scholarly sources ("academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks") are preferred. There is no mention of tertiary sources without citations being superior. In fact: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources...should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."

I see that tertiary sources are sometimes used when secondary sources conflict, but I question whether there is a secondary conflict, since almost all scholarly biographies of Taylor were published before the exhumation revelations. I suppose it comes down to the quality of the tertiary source. Is it published by an established scholar? Does it have references and citations? If it does not, is still scholarly consensus? Or is it rather popular opinion?

No need to respond further. Agreed that someone else needs to break the deadlock. Bhawke (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair enough. I am up late waiting for an ear infection to burst my eardrum, which is no doubt darkening my view of the world. It's nonetheless childish of me to be snappish, and I apologize for that.

But I do think your shortened version of that guideline misrepresents it. The full version: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." I'm mentioning encyclopedias for exactly this purpose--to get an overview or summary of scholarship on this topic, to aid us in properly weighing our differing secondary sources. To me, this overview makes it clear that Parenti's viewpoint has had little impact. Citations within the article, though, will continue to go to secondary sources. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize as well for any misunderstanding. I have no ill will. Maybe this will come down to the validity of the tertiary sources.

Meanwhile, is my counter-proposal below still too strident? Maybe we could just hammer that part out and return to the other issues later.

Bhawke (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following be added to the end of the assassination segment:

Political scientist Michael Parenti has published a detailed critique of the Taylor exhumation suggesting that the results are far less conclusive than reported by major media outlets. Drawing on interviews and reports by forensic pathologists, Parenti argues that the procedure used to test for arsenic poisoning was flawed. Parenti also questions previous historians assumptions that "a lethal dose of cherries and milk" is the most plausible explanation. A 2010 study concluded: "There is no definitive proof that Taylor was assassinated, nor would it appear that there is definitive proof that he was not."

Bhawke (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My two cents is that this version still seems to give too much weight to Parenti per my comments above. His work appears ignored in both mainstream and academic sources outside of one book focusing on presidential assassinations, and shouldn't be allowed to dominate this section. This phrasing also seems to me clearly POV (Parenti's work being described as "detailed", for example, while the work of the mainstream historians is dismissed as "assumptions"). But again, Designate, let me defer to you if you're still following. You've reviewed some of these sources more than me here. What's your take? -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough on POV. Try this one:

Political scientist Michael Parenti has published a critique of the Taylor exhumation. Drawing on interviews and reports by forensic pathologists, Parenti argues that the procedure used to test for arsenic poisoning was fundamentally flawed. Parenti also questions previous historians' view that "a lethal dose of cherries and milk" is the most plausible explanation. A 2010 study concludes: "there is no definitive proof that Taylor was assassinated, nor would it appear that there is definitive proof that he was not."

References

Bhawke (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This thread is getting rather long. Just to summarize my position at this point:

The above paragraph relies on a peer-reviewed scholarly article/book chapter and a later scholarly book. All three authors cited are established academics. I believe this satisfies reliable source.

The "Death" section contains a total of 542 words. The "Assassination Theories" subsection contains 209 words. The paragraph above contains 79 words. I would argue that 79 words (out of a total of 621 or 288) is due weight.

So let's pick up from here? - Bhawke (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This sentence from your proposal, "Parenti also questions previous historians' view that 'a lethal dose of cherries and milk' is the most plausible explanation", is unacceptable. By taking the part directly quoted from Parenti out of context, you vastly oversimplify the position of the majority of historians. The first parapgraph under "Death" summarizes the generally accepted explanation and it goes quite a ways past "a lethal dose of cherries and milk".

I suggest that the entire section be rewritten something like this:

The theory that Taylor was poisoned by pro-slavery Southerners has occasionally been advanced. In 1978, Hamilton Smith based his assassination theory on the timing of drugs, the lack of confirmed cholera outbreaks, and other material.[1] In the late 1980s, Clara Rising, a former professor at University of Florida, persuaded the coroner of Jefferson County, Kentucky, (Taylor's closest living relative) to order an exhumation so that his remains could be tested.[2] The remains were exhumed, samples of hair, fingernail, and other tissues were removed, and radiological studies were conducted.

Neutron activation analysis conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory revealed no evidence of poisoning, as arsenic levels were too low.[3][4] The analysis concluded he had contracted "cholera morbus, or acute gastroenteritis", as Washington had open sewers, and his food or drink may have been contaminated. Any potential for recovery was overwhelmed by his doctors, who treated him with "ipecac, calomel, opium and quinine (at 40 grains a whack), and bled and blistered him too."[5] Political scientist Michael Parenti questions the traditional explanation of Taylor's death, and, relying on interviews and reports by forensic pathologists, argues that the procedure used to test for arsenic poisoning was fundamentally flawed. A 2010 review concludes: "there is no definitive proof that Taylor was assassinated, nor would it appear that there is definitive proof that he was not."[6] [7] [8]

The remains were returned to the cemetery and reinterred, with appropriate honors, in the mausoleum. A monolith was later constructed next to the mausoleum. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a tremendously good rewrite. I'm very happy with it. Thank you for putting it together - seriously.

I will push back just a tiny, tiny bit. As it is now, states Taylor "contracted 'cholera morbus, or acute gastroenteritis'" from possibly contaminated food. Fine. But food poisoning, as Parenti points out, does not explain all the symptoms. The supervising coroner in the autopsy himself admits Taylor's symptoms fit "acute arsenic poisoning." All this does not belong in the article, but I'm stating it here just for clarification.

On an unrelated note, I would move the dissenting opinions after the reinterment. This is an issue of chronology. They were published years later. I'm not wedded to this, but I think it makes logical sense since the rest of the article proceeds chronologically.

So I propose the following slight change:

The theory that Taylor was poisoned by pro-slavery Southerners has occasionally been advanced. In 1978, Hamilton Smith based his assassination theory on the timing of drugs, the lack of confirmed cholera outbreaks, and other material.[1] In the late 1980s, Clara Rising, a former professor at University of Florida, persuaded the coroner of Jefferson County, Kentucky, (Taylor's closest living relative) to order an exhumation so that his remains could be tested. The remains were exhumed, samples of hair, fingernail, and other tissues were removed, and radiological studies were conducted.[2]

Neutron activation analysis conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory revealed no evidence of poisoning, as arsenic levels were too low.[3][4] The analysis concluded he had contracted "cholera morbus, or acute gastroenteritis", as Washington had open sewers, and his food or drink may have been contaminated. Any potential for recovery was overwhelmed by his doctors, who treated him with "ipecac, calomel, opium and quinine (at 40 grains a whack), and bled and blistered him too."[5] The remains were returned to the cemetery and reinterred, with appropriate honors, in the mausoleum. A monolith was later constructed next to the mausoleum.

Relying on interviews and reports by forensic pathologists, political scientist Michael Parenti argues that the procedure used to test for arsenic poisoning was fundamentally flawed. Parenti also questions the traditional explanation of Taylor's death from contaminated food.[6][7] A 2010 review concludes: "there is no definitive proof that Taylor was assassinated, nor would it appear that there is definitive proof that he was not."[8]

I think we're very close to consensus. Thanks to all for your patience, especially Khazar2. Bhawke (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Bhawke, for adding this source in the first place. You were right that it belongs in the article and I appreciate your patience in discussing that with us.

FWIW, I think I prefer North Shoreman's version here. The "relying on interviews and reports by forensic pathologists" still seems to me to give a little too much weight to Parenti, as if he did thorough research while other authors in the section did not; I think it's fair to just state his conclusions and move on. I also like having it combined with the paragraph about the testing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Point taken on "relying on interviews and reports..." (here, I was trying to establish Parenti's reliability). But in the interest of compromise, I will drop it. Sentence should start: "Political scientist Michael Parenti argues..."

Is there a reason to put the reinterment in non-chronological order, when the rest of the article proceeds chronologically?

The sentence: " A monolith was later constructed next to the mausoleum." Is not sourced. In fact, the monolith was next to the mausoleum as early as 1930.[1]. That leaves a single-sentence paragraph that seems to conflict with MOS:PARAGRAPHS. For both these reasons, I suggest we place the dissent paragraph after the reinterment.

Consensus? Bhawke (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like the chronology on the monolith got screwed up at some point. The version I would propose is something like this, then. One paragraph for theory/exhumation, one paragraph for analysis:

"The theory that Taylor was poisoned by pro-slavery Southerners has occasionally been advanced. In 1978, Hamilton Smith based his assassination theory on the timing of drugs, the lack of confirmed cholera outbreaks, and other material.[1] In the late 1980s, Clara Rising, a former professor at University of Florida, persuaded the coroner of Jefferson County, Kentucky, (Taylor's closest living relative) to order an exhumation so that his remains could be tested.[2] The remains were exhumed, samples of hair, fingernail, and other tissues were removed, and radiological studies were conducted. The remains were returned to the cemetery and reinterred, with appropriate honors, in the mausoleum.
Neutron activation analysis conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory revealed no evidence of poisoning, as arsenic levels were too low.[3][4] The analysis concluded he had contracted "cholera morbus, or acute gastroenteritis", as Washington had open sewers, and his food or drink may have been contaminated. Any potential for recovery was overwhelmed by his doctors, who treated him with "ipecac, calomel, opium and quinine (at 40 grains a whack), and bled and blistered him too."[5] Political scientist Michael Parenti questions the traditional explanation of Taylor's death, and, relying on interviews and reports by forensic pathologists, argues that the procedure used to test for arsenic poisoning was fundamentally flawed. A 2010 review concludes: "there is no definitive proof that Taylor was assassinated, nor would it appear that there is definitive proof that he was not."[6] [7] [8] -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think the dissenting opinions deserve a separate paragraph, but this is good enough for now. I will make the change, and if we want to revisit this issue later, we can pick up from here. Thanks to all. - Bhawke (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to note in the article that there is no evidence of assassination. The statement that "A 2010 review concludes: "there is no definitive proof that Taylor was assassinated, nor would it appear that there is definitive proof that he was not assassinated" is absurd. There is no evidence of assassination, there can be no assumption that anyone who dies does so as the result or murder.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead Section

Lack of source

Lead section ends: "Plagued with bad health throughout his life,"

There is no citation, nor is this mentioned in the body. Appears to violate lead section guideline: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

Unless there is proof of "bad health throughout his life," this clause should be deleted. - Bhawke (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this should be added to the body with citation or removed from lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there aren't any objections, removing this for now. It can be restored if we find a source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Death

Statement does not comport with cited source

First sentence begins: "On July 4, 1850, Taylor was known to have consumed a lot of cold milk, iced water, and cherries..."

Cited source is Eisenhower (2008), which states: "In the course of the day he ate large quantities of green apples and cherries, washed down with ice-cold milk." There is no mention of "iced water" and the "large quantities" pertains to the fruit, not the milk.

According to WP:RS, Eisenhower is not as reliable as a scholarly source. The scholarly book Eisenhower cites in this case would seem more reliable. It states: "Taylor returned home and ate raw fruit, probably cherries, and, reportedly, various raw vegetables as well, which he washed down with large quantities of iced milk." Here the "large quantities" pertains to the milk and not the fruit.

Since the exact quantity of each item is unclear, I propose a rewrite as follows:

"On July 4, 1850, Taylor reportedly consumed raw fruit, vegetables, and iced milk…"

If that's no good, I'm also open to suggestions. - Bhawke (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Eisenhower is actually okay for a reliable source, as it comes through a reliable (if not academic) publisher. (In my understanding, usually Wikipedia focuses more on the publishing house than the author's academic degrees in these evaluations). In any case, roughly this version also appears in Bauer, which was published by a univ. press [5] and in Oliver/Marion [6]. I think the cherries should stay mentioned here, since it's such a famous detail about Taylor, even if we introduce doubt as to the nature of the fruit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, three elements affect reliability: type of work, author, and publisher. Eisenhower may be reliable, but seems less reliable than a professional academic publishing in a peer-reviewed scholarly press. This may be a side-issue, though.

Bauer states: "He drank freely of iced water and chilled milk, as well as eating cherries and possibly other fruits and vegetables." This is the first mention of iced water, which is not mentioned in the other two biographies. As with the other two, the quantities of each item are unclear.

So now we have at least three different versions. The only common element is milk and cherries. One scholarly biography states cherries unequivocally. The other says "probably cherries." These are based on reports about what others said the president ate. So how about this:

"On July 4, 1850, Taylor reportedly consumed raw fruit, probably cherries, and iced milk…" -

Much obliged for your help. - Bhawke (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I will make the change, and if someone wants to reopen the issue of the president's diet later, they can pick up from here. - Bhawke (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. You may need to update the sourcing accordingly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Second Seminole War

It appears that the information in the article titled "Zachary Taylor" is incorrect regarding the Battle of Okeechobee during the Second Seminole War. To say that Taylor's forces "won" the Battle of Okeechobee is contrary to a definition of winning in light of the numbers of men injured or killed on both sides. Your own article titled "The Battle of Okeechobee" states the following:

"26 U.S. soldiers, including the majority of Taylor's officers and NCOs, were killed, with 112 wounded, against 11 Seminoles killed and 14 wounded. The battle stopped Taylor's troops from further advance south (for the time being) and no Seminoles were captured, although Taylor did capture 100 ponies and 600 head of cattle.[4] Years later Holata Micco (also known as Billy Bowlegs) visited Washington and on being escorted through the buildings of the Capitol and viewing many statues and paintings, he suddenly halted before a portrait of Zachary Taylor, grinned and exclaimed: "Me whip!"[5]"

To say the Taylor won the Battle further perpetrates the myth and should be correct and made consistent with the accurate information reflected in the Wikipedia page titled "Battle of Okeechobee". Thanks. 71.3.226.29 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Article rebuilding

This presidential article needs alot of rebuilding to match other presidential articles. The presidency section needs work. Any comments or objections. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

General clean up edits to the article have been made to comply with other presidential articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede photo change

I am going to change the lede black and white photo (1850) to the color portrait to the 1848 James Lambdin photo. I am keeping the (1850) photo in the artile. The Lamdin portrait is color and a high quality portrait. Taylor looks better in the Lamdin portrait and I think better represents his carreer in the U.S. military. 1850 was the year when Taylor died on office and he does not look very healthy in the 1850 photo. He looks more healthy in 1848. I am not a doctor though. These are only my impressions. The lede photo should present Taylor in his prime. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The current daguerreotype of a younger, healthier Taylor should suffice, right? Isn't a photo better than a painting if the photo is as high a quality as this? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Buena Vista

The content of this page refers to the battle of Buena Vista in completely different terms from those used by the page about the battle (here: crushing defeat, 1:2 death ratio, 20.000 Mexicans, there: inconclusive, 1:1 death ratio, 5.000 Mexicans). 78.34.36.166 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

168 Years

I noted the gap in time between Presidents with no prior office. Is the edit worded properly, and is it worthy of note enough to be WP:GOOD? - Sleyece 15:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sleyece I removed the text because no article should have information in the lead that is not discussed in the body paragraphs. Unless I missed it, I'm not seeing where Mr. Trump is mentioned. Perhaps it would be better if you insert your information about Trump's election in the body -- with proper sources of course -- and convert the lead to its previous form. This is an article about Zachary Taylor after all; the fact Trump replicated his feat is not entirely relevant to the understanding of his life and political career.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I will consider the reasons for revert. Any information on this subject added to the body by this user will first be suggested on the talk page, and a consensus will be reached before any action is taken. - Sleyece 01:32:23, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zachary Taylor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217094438/http://millercenter.org/president/taylor/essays/biography/9 to http://millercenter.org/president/taylor/essays/biography/9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702083159/http://millercenter.org/president/taylor/essays/biography/3 to http://millercenter.org/president/taylor/essays/biography/3

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) 08:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zachary Taylor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110401233745/http://www.selu.edu/admin/housing/housing_options/zachary_taylor_hall/ to http://www.selu.edu/admin/housing/housing_options/zachary_taylor_hall/

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) 02:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned up some redundant links and a dead link. Removed one link that I thought had nothing really to do about Taylor. Added a link to the Presidential online papers collection at UCSB and to the Taylor section at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. I did the edits individually, so if anyone thinks I removed something of value they can add it back in.

Thanks   // Timothy::talk 19:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1