Talk:Zachary Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zachary Taylor article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Zachary Taylor is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Legal?

The last 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)

[edit] Compromise of 1850

Needs something about the Compromise of 1850.--CMacD

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Atchison

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)