Talk:James K. Polk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James K. Polk article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	James K. Polk is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result February 17, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

James K. Polk is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

James K. Polk is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

This article is part of WikiProject Tennessee, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Tennessee.

Contents 1 Mexico allies with Britain and France? 2 pronunciation 3 Opening of the Washington Monument 4 gallstones or gallbladder? 5 Silly 6 Oregon Territory versus Oregon State 7 Errors in the featured version 8 Slaveowner 9 Mexican War & House Censure Misunderstanding 10 Add Smithsonian Education link? 11 POV pushing 12 TMBG 13 pronunciation 14 FA with two citations? 15 Factual Error? 16 First president photographed while in office? 17 Citation really needed for length of retirement?

[edit] 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)

[edit] pronunciation

Can someone say with certainty whether he pronounced his name Polk or Poke? I have been told both by well-informed historians. Adam 06:13, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

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)

---

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)