Talk:Martin Van Buren/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Martin van Buren? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Readers of this RFC are encouraged to read the earlier section, #Infobox portrait, for background. The above four images are discussed, as well as four others. Various criteria for evaluating images are also discussed. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Favonian, Illegitimate Barrister, and Fdewaele: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the Martin Van Buren page as well as your continued interest in the article evidenced by your recent edits, you are invited to participate in an Rfc on the article's lede image. Should you be inclined to do so, please share your thoughts on this thread. Thank you for your time.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option D: Although option A is visually striking, option D depicts Van Buren during his presidency. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option D: In the earlier section, I proposed a modified (further cropped) version of Option D, but I am also satisfied with the original. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I gave reasons for preferring Option D in the earlier discussion, but I will recapitulate them here for convenience. First, as other editors have noted, Option D represents Van Buren as he appeared to his political colleagues and rivals, while Option A represents him after years of retirement. Second, Option A is simply not an attractive portrait. Besides the bags under his eyes, Van Buren has hopelessly unkempt hair and an ill-fitting suit; it's almost as if he didn't take portrait sittings seriously any more. Images used in the body of the article don't have to be attractive; but the image used in the infobox plays a special role, and should be as close as we can get to representative and attractive. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option A While this photograph was taken after his presidency, he remained a significant public figure and elder statesman, so I think it is probably fine. It is a high-quality Brady, and is a Featured Picture. Curbon7 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think an article should always be represented by a featured picture if there is an appropriate one available. Secondly, while I have supported paintings over photographs in discussions in the past (such as at Napoleon III) when the painting is far superior than the photograph, I think this case is the opposite. I'm not an art critic and so am not critiquing the art, but rather its appropriateness as the lede image. I think the color contrast (that being, the painting is entirely dark except for his face) isn't great and as such it lacks framing when compared to that of the photograph (or even other contemporary paintings like c:File:Andrew jackson head.jpg). It is also worth noting that the photograph is significantly higher resolution than the current scan/photo of the painting, The photograph is also not taken that long after his residency (14 years), so I don't think the Carter comparison is convincing, especially considering Carter already has a photograph. Curbon7 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option A ideally depicts the person D.S. Lioness (talk)
• Option A I typically would choose Option D in a similar scenario since it covers the period that was the height of his career. However, Van Buren's largely portrayed in public today as an older man, and this is a well-known photograph that is of historical significance, and it's largely what a reader will expect to see. Certainly not against D, and if there isn't sufficient consensus for A, I'd happily support D as my next option.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option A I hold a position similar to Curbon7 and CoffeeCrumbs.
• Option A This has been the stable image now for 6+ years and there doesn't appear a good reason to change it. For these older biographies, unless there's a great reason to make the change, this type of RFC is a tax on valuable editor time. Almost all of these RFCs are ending in the status quo. So what's the point? Nemov (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you view it as a "tax" on your time, neither you nor any other editor is obligated to participate, Nemov. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

One can say that Option A has been the "stable" image, but numerous attempts to replace it have been made; just since late 2020, I have found , , , , and . I think that in a situation where there are multiple images that could plausibly be used, the way to save editor time and effort is to have a full discussion of all of them, in the talk page rather than in edit summaries, using thumbnails for convenience, as I have done here. I haven't seen this kind of discussion in Wikipedia policy, but I participated in a comparable discussion at Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2#Infobox image, which I thought was useful and turned out well. Future editors can cite such a discussion in subsequent discussions and/or edit summaries.

In fact, Option A or something similar has been the lead infobox image here far longer than six years. Not all the available images have always been available. For example, Option D was uploaded to WikiMedia Commons only in 2017. Option C has been here longer, since 2012, but it was not available when we started using Option A, in 2005. Another editor writes that "Van Buren's largely portrayed in public today as an older man", and I have to wonder if Wikipedia itself may have played a serious role in this. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Martin van Buren is primarily famous because of his tenure as President of the United States. While he may have had a career as an "elder statesman" following his presidency, it doesn't seem like he accomplished anything within that period which overshadowed his time in office. Therefore, I believe an image depicting how he appeared as President would be most appropriate as the lede image. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option A for the reasons expressed by CoffeeCrumbs. Option D would be my second choice. –EruFISH 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Agreement, A with D being second choice. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option D Option D represents Van Buren as he appeared to his political colleagues and rivals Teknologi Positif (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option D Van Buren and others (JQ Adams, Jackson, Tyler) lived long enough to be photographed, but only as old men, barely representing the dynamic individuals who were presidents. I would favor the use of portraits for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Option B Van Buren's photograph is good. I believe we should get a cropped version of it, as many images of people are head and shoulder portraits Wcamp9 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option A then B Highest quality image out of the 4 options, especially when compared to the other 2 portraits.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option DLooks like a good balance between A and C. B just looks like a more close up version of A.Coalcity58 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option B or A. MOS:LEADIMAGE states that Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. Although the portraits are nice paintings, they are not as natural as photography, which by its mechanics must be quite true to life in its depiction of the subject. Portraiture as an art form historically has often involved representing a subject flatteringly and thus not necessarily naturally. A photograph of Van Buren—I prefer B as it's cropped closer to his face, but A is fine—is therefore preferable. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  At the risk of badgering you, I will restate a point that I made earlier in the discussion. Due to Photo retouching, it is a serious error to assume that a photograph is more "true to life" than a painted portrait. With a photographer as experienced and skilled as Brady, and a subject as famous as Van Buren (and also due to Van Buren's advanced age), one may take for granted that A was retouched to a fare-thee-well. Of course, all the retouching activity no doubt improved the quality of the photo, and made it more flattering, insofar as that was possible. But "true to life" and "natural" are simply not applicable. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  A retouched photo is still closer to life than the wholesale construction of a portrait. Of course a good portrait artist tries to not only flatter but also recognizably depict the subject. But it remains the case that every brush stroke must be a consciously made choice, a creation of the artist. Brady was skilled and so has likely done his best to make Van Buren look his best, but he didn't directly control each photon reflected into the camera or the chemical process of development the way Inman controlled very stroke of his brush.

  In any case, there are still reasons to favor the photograph. Importantly, it's recognizable to audiences as a famous photograph of Van Buren. Also, it comports with his notability as not only a president but also as an elder statesman.

  On a third matter: your comment further up in the thread mentions a belief that the photograph is unattractive. Your opinion is your own, but I think it's worth noting that determining an image's attractiveness is unavoidably subjective. For instance, I find D least attractive; his body is plunged into so much gloom and his head is so searingly pale that D makes me think of a floating cue ball. Meanwhile, B/A portrays a man who is old, sure, but also standing tall, with a keen power to his gaze, like he's looking right at the viewer. He looks seasoned and intelligent. We obviously disagree about which image is most appealing; such disagreements are natural and happen when making a subjective assessment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  The template on the Commons page states the retouching was 8x10 crop, adjusted black level, removed artifacts; there has been no airbrushing or changing of appearance (besides the color tone) or anything like that. Unless I'm missing the point and you're saying Brady et al. were the ones who retouched the photograph? Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for asking. Yes, I'm talking about retouching before the photo left Brady's studio. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) A/B, as a photograph, even retouched, is a more natural and accurate representation than a painting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• D. The man is foremost notable because he was president. Ifly6 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Option A This is the most natural, accurate, and clear representation of Van Buren. Photos, when available, are the best choice in many cases. ^🦄✨bedazzledunicorn^✨🦄 15:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Option B Given the wide range of devices people use to access Wikipedia, and the different level of visual acuity among Wikipedia users, I think that in general Wikipedia editors underestimate the importance of clearly showing the face of the subject for things like templates, tables, and infoboxes. Personally, in the gallery above I can barely make out anything other than Van Buren's face in options C and D, and even option A seems insufficient to me. Having said that, I will say that it is a little bit of a shame to use a picture of Van Buren at such an advanced age given that he was a fairly notable figure even in his late 30s. Orser67 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

'''Option B''': Close up shot of his face and is a real photograph. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Billmckern, Rjensen, GoodDay, Drdpw, Peaceray, and ITBF: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the Martin Van Buren page as well as your continued interest in editing it, you are invited to participate in an Rfc on the article's lede image. Should you be inclined to do so, please share your thoughts on this thread. Thank you for your time. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Helloguyswhatisup and JimmyCarterLover1: Based on your participation in prior discussions on the article's lead image, you are also invited to participate in this Rfc on the subject.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing In light of your recent posts in the preceding discussion entitled "Infobox portrait", do you have any thoughts you'd wish to share in this Rfc? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No. I think the choice of image for the infobox in this article is relatively unimportant. So long as editors aren't spreading false rumors (e.g., "We are Required By Policy™ to choose a photograph instead of a painting"), I don't actually care which image gets chosen for the lead of this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• D, per the reasonings of Bruce leverett, "D" is what you would have seen if you met the man at his historical peak. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• D This represents him at his most prominent as President. It is a simple reality that a number of public figures of this era only had photographs taken later in life after their most prominent period of office which means they aren't automatically the best option. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• D I know photos are preferred but for someone who was prominent before photography, a photo of him as an older man doesn't really do him justice. I mean, imagine showing a photo of 100 year old Jimmy Carter when he was most prominent during his presidency, when he was in his early 50s. D shows MVB at his most prominent -- during his vice presidency and presidency -- so even though photos are preferred, I think D is the better option. Billmckern (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option A I agree with Curbon7 generally, and also- I think historical figures who have photographs, should be represented by photographs unless the portrait is especially notable for some reason. (moved cause I'm a dummy and just hit reply instead of doing this correctly) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option B (summoned by bot) entirely agree with Orser67about importance of clearly showing the face of the subject for infoboxes. Agree that it is a little bit of a shame to use a picture at such an advanced age given that he was notable in his late 30s.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option A And honestly, it's not even a close call for me on this one. As I tend to participate in a lot of RfCs as one of my main talk space contributions on this project, I invariably get bot summoned to a fair few of these "which lead image?" discussions every year. Usually my feelings are pretty mixed between the options and I consider some subset to all be reasonable (and sometimes roughly equivalent) options. Not so in this case: I think if given the choice between a portrait photograph and a painted portrait, the former is almost always going to be the more desirable and useful to the reader as a lead image. Similarly, generally the full photograph is going to preferable over a cropped image; preserving all info, points of reference, and detail of the original. After-all, the reader can always click on the image to view a zoomed-in image if they desire that level granularity, whereas it is is a much more complicated (and for some readers technically unfeasible) process to try to backtrack a cropped image to the original version in our file hosting schema. Add in the fact that this is apparently the longterm, stable version of the infobox image and the call is even easier to make: I don't see the need for a change. Lastly, and least relevant, I just find the status quo image to be fairly quality (even considering it has been lightly doctored) and interesting. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, I concur with CoffeeCrumbs and Curbon7 sentiments.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Above I chose option D, but question why this cropped form of D wasn't used instead, a much better representation of the essential portion of the painting which probably would have eased some of the concerns of editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

'E

Here's a late-in-the-game addition, E, a crop of D. This is whaqt Van Buren would look like sitting across the desk from you in the non-oval office. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Emiya1980, can you relax on pinging all these projects? I can understand a couple, but your edit history could be considered WP:CANVASSING and apparently an editor at Talk:Vice President of the United States and Talk:President of the United States agree as well. You've now been cautioned by several different editors about your behavior in these image RFCs and your conduct is approaching the kind of disruption that will be taken to WP:ANI. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll make a point of more narrowly tailoring my Rfc notices in the future. Otherwise, given how you’ve consistently griped about me trying to change the status quo on EVERY SINGLE Rfc I’ve opened lately and opted to include this “discussion” in the middle of this Rfc thread instead of my talk page, your threat to report me to administration reeks of sour grapes and could be construed as status quo stonewalling. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You can either take the advice of several editors who who have attempted to steer your in the correct direction or you can continue to accuse others of silly things like WP:STONEWALLING which you either haven't read or don't understand. Nemov (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, like, listing this RfC at projects seemed pretty reasonable. But Emiya1980, then you kept on pinging, and it started to feel like you were just digging up more people to ping. I'd encourage taking the advice of Nemov et al. on this. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hydrangeans I pinged a total of 8 editors on the basis of specific criteria which are explicitly allowed for on the WP:CANVASS page. That does not constitute canvassing. If you're referring to the Rfc notices I've posted on other talk pages, I've already indicated I will try to narrow it down to articles which are more closely related to Martin Van Buren. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Commment Just for the record, after being cautioned about pinging projects, Emiya1980 kept right along and pinged 5 more projects a few days later. Nemov (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nearly all the projects which you are complaining about are listed at the top of this very talk page as having an interest in the Martin Van Buren article. Why is it a problem posting there? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.