Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John C. Calhoun/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2016 [1].

---

John C. Calhoun

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... John C. Calhoun. John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesmen who held a number of high political offices in the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Checkingfax

• Hi, Display name 99. I made a deep scrubbing starting here. I would suggest adding alt text to all images that could use it. I will be happy to !vote on this when the FA review process is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Dead links via Checklinks: None
  
• Bare URLs via Reflinks: None
  
• Disambig links: None
  
• Redirects: In order
  
• Citation bot: No issues
  

Checkingfax, I do not have a good understanding of what alternative text is, nor do I know which images in the article could use it. Would you explain this more please? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Display name 99. I would suggest reading the alt text link I provided above and also consulting with Natalie.Desautels and Graham87. Maybe they will make some other comments while they are here Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99. I have taken the liberty to add the first three 'alt text' captions. You will of course be able to see the 'alt text' code structure in Source view. Visually impaired persons often use a screen reader, and I like to provide information about a photo they cannot see. Since the reader reads all text, I wouldn't state what is already there. For example, since the second image is of Calhoun's wife Floride, there is no need to repeat this; so I added '|alt=oval image of young woman seated, with pinkish white frilled head bonnet and dress top, black narrow waist dress and straight dark hair parted in the middle]]. Normally I would not say 'image' or 'photo' of since, well, what else could it be; but I did want to emphasize that it is an oval image. My own taste is to provide 'alt text' which is a bit longer than recommended, and my implementation has been successful. It's a good idea to check with Graham87 for a conclusive opinion. I'm sorry my time is a bit taken right now, but if you need further help, just write. ...hope this helps. You can see all alt text at a glance here. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99 I did a few more 'alt text' captions. Please feel entirely free to revert or correct in any way you see fit. I'll be very happy to answer questions, if you wish. kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Display name 99: Hello Graham87 I've completed the 'alt text' for all the images in this article. I am hoping you will be able to review, as time permits. Your help and opinion is always much appreciated. Kindest regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels:Thanks, they sound good. I've added a metric conversion to one o them. Graham87 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels and Graham87, thank you for your help. I am pleased to say that I now have a better idea of this for the future. Display name 99 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Display name 99. As this is a new paragraph, I feel you need a year added to this: In July a group of Yale students requested in a petition that Yale rename the Calhoun College, one of the University's twelve residential colleges. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. A different editor wrote that, and I should have caught it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'm doing some detailed comments, but to start you, I'm somewhat concerned about the term "minority rights" in the lede. Wouldn't that in present-day usage be assumed to be referring to racial or ethnic minorities?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I understand your concern and it has been voiced before. The fact is that Calhoun was very concerned about the idea that, as the North continued to expand in population, and if it was able to get control of the territories and outlaw slavery there, it would overwhelm and oppress the smaller and weaker Southern states. In defense of the South, Calhoun defended such practices as nullification and advocated for the expanse of slavery in order to "protect minority rights from majority rule." That becomes clear if one reads the article's body.

I understand that "minority rights" sounds confusing to anyone trying to understand it in 21st century context. Obviously Calhoun was not concerned about protecting blacks, immigrants, etc. After a question on the talk page here, I agreed to add "in politics" to the end of the sentence. If you can think of a still better way to clarify it, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's an oldie, but what about "state's rights"? That would probably be up there with "slavery" if you asked people (who knew of him) for quick summaries of Calhoun. Or "sectional rights for the South"? Or possibly just expand the sentence to explain as you just did, that the minority rights spoken of are that of the (white) South. Possibly "minority rights for the South to maintain its way of life without outside interference" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• "His positions heavily influenced the South's secession from the Union in 1860–61." Since he was dead at the time, maybe "opinions" or "teachings"?
• " to serve as " "as" is probably enough. I would even delete "the seventh", which seems only put in there to hang a link you don't really need because you can get there from the infobox.
• "Calhoun had a difficult relationship with Jackson primarily because of the Nullification Crisis and the Petticoat Affair, in which Calhoun's wife humiliated Jackson's allies. " I would cast this in terms of their political differences, as that's really what caused the crisis and aggravated the affair.
• I quote two statements: "He began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs. By the late 1820s, his views reversed and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs"

and "In contrast with his previous nationalism, Calhoun vigorously supported South Carolina's right to nullify Federal tariff legislation which he believed unfairly favored the North, putting him into conflict with unionists such as Jackson."

As far as I can see, you're using the words "nationalist", "unionist" and "proponent of a strong national government" to mean the same thing. At least, that's what I'm getting when I parse this. I also note that there is considerable repetition in the lede as exemplified here, at least in my view, and the second sentence makes the reader follow a bit like a tennis match, first starting on the strong government side, then off to the other, then back again. I try to avoid that personally. But this is a long article, I think the lede can be shortened somewhat as I suggest.

Got to go, more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt. I've made some changes based on your recommendations-please see. "Nationalist" and "proponent of a strong national government" basically mean the same thing. However, the word "unionist" was meant to describe anyone opposed to nullification and secession. Andrew Jackson was not really a supporter of a strong national government, and generally favored states' rights. However, he made it clear that he was staunchly opposed to nullification. That is what I meant by calling him a "unionist". Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done up to Secretary of War. Very well written. A few points.

• Is the recitation of the birth dates and deaths of Calhoun siblings really necessary?:

Done. I suppose not. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Do we need the discussion of the Petticoat Affair in the marriage section, in view of the fact that it is fully set forth later? I'd rather see something about her intelligence, say, or how she got her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents. Deal with the petticoats later.

I'm not aware of any accounts regarding her intelligence. I'm not sure what you mean about getting "her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents." I think that would we have in the section now about the Petticoat Affair, which is already less than one sentence, is appropriate, considering how notable it was in Mrs. Calhoun's life. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in the capitalization of "Petticoat Affair"

Done. I have capitalized it one place where it was not. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• The final sentence of the marriage section appears out of place.

Do you have a better place to put it? I'm not sure I see one. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The absence of the national Bank had also distressed the Treasury, so Calhoun called for a new national bank. " not only is there a repetition, but the reader has no reason to pick up on any significance except the Treasury might be upset. Why a national bank was thought to be a good idea might be a useful interpolation (why people thought it was a bad idea can come with Jackson's actions)

It was part of the system promoted by Calhoun and others of increasing consolidation and reformation. I made some edits to this section to help clarify this point. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why is the rhetoric section here?

I didn't make that section, but it basically summarizes Calhoun's speaking styles while he was a member of the House. Perhaps it wasn't placed later in the article because it could create a confusing jumble of contradictory quotes, some nationalist and others sectionalist. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Is there anything useful to be said about his re-elections in 1814 and 1816?

I'm not seeing much about it, so maybe not. I he was most likely relatively popular in South Carolina at that time, and so I imagine that he did not have much trouble from the state legislature in gaining reelection. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "He promoted a plan, adopted by Monroe in 1825, to preserve the sovereignty of Eastern Indians by relocating them to western reservations they could control without interference from state governments." In other words, a trail of tears. I'm not sure that this phrasing adequately fits present-day views of such things.

The statement makes sense to me. I think that one reading it carefully will get the idea. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "but Congress either failed to respond to his reforms or responded with hostility. Calhoun's frustration with congressional inaction, political rivalries, and ideological differences spurred him to create the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1824." it might be useful to note that he acted without Congress's say so.

I personally don't see a reason, and think it's implied anyhow.

People wouldn't necessarily think a bureau was something just authorized by the secretary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Wehwalt. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "where John Quincy Adams was declared the winner over Crawford, Clay, and Jackson, who had previously defeated Adams in both popular vote and electoral vote. " Well. Not defeated obviously. "Led"? And he was only declared the winner over Crawford and Jackson as Clay had already been eliminated because the 12th Amendment says the House shall choose from among the top three electoral vote getters and Clay wasn't.

Done. Jackson did do better than him in both categories, but he did not attain the necessary majority-thus the election was decided in the House. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Jackson selected Calhoun as his running mate," Again, this point. Possibly something along the lines that Jackson let it be known that electors pledged to support him should also vote for Calhoun. Calhoun had his own power base,the South Carolina legislature was going to choose electors who were going to support Calhoun no matter what Jackson said.

Calhoun's biography on Senate.gov reads:

"The old hero welcomed Calhoun's support, assuring him that they would "march hand in hand in their [the people's] cause," cementing one of the most ill-starred partnerships in the history of the vice-presidency."

This shows that Jackson was willing to accept Calhoun's support, and in exchange effectively named him as his choice for vice president. Our article makes it clear that the two were never close allies in the same way that Jackson and Van Buren were. But they were, for this time, partners. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Jefferson explicitly endorsed nullification.[46] Calhoun differed from Jefferson and Madison in explicitly" overly explicit

Done.

• In the Nullification section, I would separate the theory by putting the events surrounding the famous toasts in a separate paragraphs.
• You are inconsistent in usage "U.S." or "US"

Done, I think. I replaced one "US" with "U.S." I have noticed no others. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Did Calhoun actually do anything during his first term as vice president?

Under "Nullification", his opposition to the Tariff of 1828, enacted during his first term, is mentioned. I see how this can be confusing, because the sub-sections under "Vice Presidency" are organized according to issue or event, and not by term. The biography that I linked above discusses some things from his first term, but I personally don't find many of them particularly relevant. Calhoun's second term was more eventful. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Did Calhoun attempt to gain a third term as VP at any point?

I don't think he ever made a serious attempt to do so. I read once that Jackson made it known as early as December of 1829 that he didn't want Calhoun on the 1832 ticket. Their relationship only got worse after that. He was more effective on the Senate floor, which was why he eventually resigned. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't Calhoun's tie-breaking vote on Van Buren's nomination as minister to Britain worthy of mention?

Done. I added it into the Petticoat Affair section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• It may be worthwhile to mention directly the battle over the reauthorization of the Second Bank of the United States. You keep kind of dancing around it.

That isn't my intention. I just covered a web search, typing in thing such as "Bank War Calhoun", but the sources don't really seem to mention Calhoun in connection with the Bank War. My guess is that Calhoun would have opposed its rechartering, because he would have seen it as a threat to states' rights, and because he later allied with Van Buren over many of the same issues that led the Democrats to oppose the bank. It's unfortunate then, that the sources that I am examining only seem to mention Calhoun's vice presidency in connecting with nullification and the Eaton Affair, and in the Bank War focus almost exclusively on Clay and Jackson. Rjensen, is there any way you could help here? Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

DN99 is right. He was a jeffersonian agrarian who distrusted capitalism & banks. he opposed renewal of the Bank in 1837, but did not play a central role. [see Coit 328-31] Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Did Huger resign to clear a place for Calhoun?

I think so. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• "through its Northern majority, passed the bill several times" Since the Wilmot Proviso was not always a bill, but sometimes a rider or amendment, I'd say "the proposal" rather than "bill" and some other substitute for the other use of "bill"

Done.

One more tranche to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I have responded above Wehwalt. I thank you again for all you have done to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No trouble. Your responses are fine, and Rjensen's. Thank you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Resuming

• "staunch slaveholder" how is this unusual?
• "" the expansion of slavery into the backcountry" I would cut "into the backcountry which is a bit uncertain if we're talking about SC or USA. The expansion of slavery is the nub of it.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Alexander portrait of Calhoun in the Slavery section is surely the lead image recut.

These paintings are not the same. The most noticeable difference is the placement of the hands. Check that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "and postponed the declension" I would find a synonym for declension more likely to be known.

Let's teach the reader some vocabulary. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Phillips explains how:" This has more the feel of news reporting than an encyclopedia. Maybe "According to Phillips:"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "the War with Mexico" proper noun for war?

Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "bring in Mexicans, deficient in moral and intellectual terms." I might put "whom he deemed" after the comma.

Done. I added "whom he considered". Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "which led immediately" not immediately, a month and a half.

Done. I removed that word. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "They formed the new Confederate States, which, in accord with Calhoun's theory, did not have any political parties." Does the source draw the conclusion, that because of Calhoun's theories, the CSA lacked parties (it did not lack for factions)? There was no prohibition on parties in the CSA constitution that I'm aware of.

There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States. Southern leaders, like Calhoun, saw them as a source of corruption. Factions did emerge, but no true parties like the ones founded during the Second Party System, which nominating conventions, etc., were ever formed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Historian Richard Hofstadter (1948, 2011)" possibly leave it with the 1948 as he was most certainly not writing in 2011!

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "has garnered a super-regional application in American political thought." I'm not sure what this means. I would have thought concurrent majorities more common in nations with multiple large ethnic groups, at least in theory.

Done. I replace it with "some acceptance". Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "abstract treatise of Calhoun's definitive and comprehensive ideas " abstract and definitive seem to clash some.

Done. I replaced "abstract treatise" with "essay", which is much more simple and straightforward. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "he worked on it intermittently for six years until its 1849 completion" I would say after "years" "until he completed it in 1849." It is because you seem to be suddenly shifting from active to passive.

I think the timeline is important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Disquisition section seems awfully long, especially the blockquote. Maybe some of this is best placed in the article on the book.

I tried shortening it a bit. The blockquote, though, seems important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The Calhoun doctrine said Congress could never outlaw slavery in the territories" nor could the local voters.

Done. I added this detail in. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• It may not be obvious that the image to the right in the legacy section is a postage stamp, and I might make that clearer.

Done. I added "postage stamp" to the caption. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Calhoun is often remembered for his defense of minority rights by use of the "concurrent majority"" Why the quotes? I think by this point, we know what the concurrent majority is.
• I am not convinced by the legacy section. It seems more a recitation of various things named for Calhoun. What influence has he had on political thought, for example.

I know that it's a bit dry, but "Legacy" sections are often used for reciting these things. Outside of the information on the things that Calhoun is named for, there are three sentences about how Calhoun is remembered, and the influence of his ideas, as well as information on more modern controversies surrounding him. Adding more would seem redundant, as it is already noted in the "Political philosophy" section. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, please see my comments above. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've read them and there's nothing I have an issue with. I do consider the legacy section a major impediment. The community colleges and Alabama lakes don't do it. What I would like to see is a short essay on Calhoun and his place in history, or tracing how he has been viewed historically over time. This is standard for FA articles on historical figures and I urge you to examine them. In my view, any historical figure of more than minimal importance needs to have a section that in an organized and coherent fashion puts his life in perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I made some changes to the section. Not much text was added, but I think it helps. You will find it on the latter half of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The second half of it is more along the lines that I want, but I think there needs to be more of it. Possibly the tributes like the lake and so forth could be split of into its own section, as is often done in such articles. I would settle for a paragraph or two tracing how Calhoun has been viewed over time. I just don't feel that there is as much substance there as I would like. If a student comes to the section trying to figure out how Calhoun has affected history, he's not coming away with much, I think. I'd be grateful for Rjensen's view on the section in question. This is really my main remaining point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I divided the sections into "Monuments and Memorials" and "Historical Reputation". and added a quote from Wilson. We now have one paragraph discussing Calhoun's influence on secession and his legacy as one of the most important senators in history, a quote from a historian, and an introductory sentence followed by two paragraphs describing how Calhoun has been viewed negatively for his support of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Between there and the section on his philosophy, I think that's fine. Very nicely done and congrats for being willing to take on an important (and ever divisive) figure like Calhoun.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• I've never seen anyone use this style of ref= in the templates. It works, but how do I know what has been referenced and what hasn't? This means a lot of work for me; tomorrow I'll have to check manually. It would be much better IMO to use ref=harv in every case, so Ucucha's script could check....

I looked at the harvard template and it looks like what's in place. Could you put one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow and fix? Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lingzhi. If you open the page then Preview it, the system will throw any errors at the top of the page in red so you can address them. CS1 errors will already display in light green in the references section if you have the show hidden errors JavaScript installed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• There are two Ford sources, both 1988. Normally I would say they should be 1988a and 1988b, but in this case I strongly suspect only one of the two is actually being used (probably "Republican Ideology in a Slave Society"). If that's the case,"Origins of Southern Radicalism" should be deleted....More later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Your suspicion was correct. I deleted "Origins of Southern Radicalism". Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• You've got a Krannawitter 2004 and a Krannawitter 2008 but the refs just say "Kranawitter"..ok so you have "ref=Krannawitter" on one template but no ref= on the other. This works on the surface but is misleading under the hood. Why do you have two Krannawitter sources if only one is used, and...how is the reader to know which Krannawitter the body text cites? You'll say "click the blue number" but I suspect this has the potential to go wrong... yeah, this is how it goes wrong: three sources with ref=Calhoun.

I agree that's weird. I removed the 2004 Krannawitter source because I couldn't find any matches for it. Please remember that I personally did not enter many of these soures in. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing intended to be personal here I'm sure. Hoppyh (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• You've got ^abcde Bartlett with no page numbers.

I noticed this while attempting to improve the sources before nominating this as a FAC. Unfortunately, I have no printed copy of the work, and could not find it on Google Books. I have no idea what to do here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternate sources could be used. Hoppyh (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Belko, William S. is not inside a template, nor is Capers Gerald M. You need to be consistent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I have fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Can I get you to ditch this ref = Ford1988 and ref = Ford1994 system and just make everything ref = harv?

See my reply above - could you do one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow that and fix the others? Hoppyh (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Can I also get you to delete unreferenced sources?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are indicating the 2 mentioned, absolutely. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Lingzhi is saying that every item listed under "Sources" needs to be referred to in the article or should be removed from the list of Sources. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll remove them if I see any more. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• He rarely mentioned religion... although he loved to discuss the subject. Spot the contradiction.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. The second part was actually unsourced. I took it out. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I am very much not a fan of dangling a lone quote thing at the end of the article: " The whole South is the grave of Calhoun"   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a quote box for this. I still don't think that it looks excellent, but it does appear to be an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I recommend incorporating the quote and author's name into the body of the Legacy section in order to remove this objection. Hoppyh (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have bad news Display name 99. template:quote box is only for pull quotes. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Checkingfax, I have placed it in the body of the article as suggested by Hoppyh. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Display name 99. It is a powerful quote. Now that it is in the body you can add it as a pull quote in a little quote box. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think I would rather leave it in the body of the text. It seemed to be positioned as a pull quote before, which was what caused the concern. There are plenty of other quotes in the main body, and I think this will do fine with them. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• He is above all sectional and factious prejudices .. Historian Charles Wiltse agrees, noting, "Though he is known today primarily for his sectionalism". Spot the contradiction (being "last" doesn't negate it).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When considered, there isn't really any contradiction. The quotation from Adams comes in 1821, when Calhoun was still recognized as a leading national figure, rather than as a representative of Southern interests. The quotation from Wiltse in some way affirms Adams's comment by claiming that Calhoun took longer than many other political leaders of his day to take a sectional position. There might be a way to make that more clear though. You may suggest something to that end. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove the apparent contradiction. Hoppyh (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That looks better now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• "If the whole community had the same interests..." Mine eyes glazeth over. Is there really no option other than a blockquote large enough to swallow a small country town? Is there no way to break this down into its key parts, and render them more digestible to the reader? BTW, I'm consistently not a fan of blockquotes hanging at the end of a paragraph anyhow (see two items above)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll have some time later on. I will attempt to determine if anything can be done then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• in the aftermath of a minority veto, when the ubiquitous demagogues betray their constituencies and abandon the concurrent majority altogether... is missing some quotation marks somewhere. Direct quote... and.. did Freehling quote there or did you...? And... stop me if I'm wrong, but... are there sorta kinda lots of direct quotes embedded in sentences w/out quotation marks up in there? I was taught the magic number is 3: more than three sequential directly quoted words means you must set it off as a quote somehow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I barely have a clue WTH you're talking about. Please explain more clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW...the text here does look highly intellectual and does make me wonder if it needs quotation marks. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hoppyh, I just copy/pasted the phrase that Lingzhi quoted, and was only able to find it written in places that seem to copy directly from Wikipedia. Once again, I do not have the text of the source available to me, and cannot find it on Google Books or jstor. As for the intellectual sound of this sentence, at least one of the primary writers of this article before I first began work on it apparently wrote with a very eloquent style. I suspect that it could just be that. Lingzhi, please identify any other specific quotes to me that you suspect are not original to Wikipedia so that I can check them. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your checking this out certainly satisfies me with respect to the quote issue. Hoppyh (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If further help is needed trying to get access to the source, Rjensen may be able to help. Hoppyh (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, thank you for your comments and advice on improving the article. Please see my responses above. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The more I look, the more inconsistent the refs get. Very tempted to Oppose because fixing this will be a nontrivial task, but will relent because FACs take plenty of time. Why are some instances of {{cite book}} & {{cite journal}} inside <ref></ref> tags inside the body text, but others are in the bibliography section? Why are some author names first middle last ("Patricia Cline Cohen") and others last comma first MI ("Belko, William S.")? What does "|author1 = Ford Jr. |author2 = Lacy K." mean? Choose one method and stick with it, preferably putting them in the bottom section. I will try to help but am feeling a little irritated.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I understand the concern and I just got your message on my talk page. There is one editor who, during the GAN and FAN processes and time in between, spend time adding content to the article, some of which I opposed. His referencing style was rather sloppy and I guess I didn't do enough to fix it. I'm not sure if I'll change all the formats as you suggested, but I will try to work to keep things consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Display name 99. May I suggest a consultation with editor Jerome Kohl about F M L vs L, F M ? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) No need to consult. Just make every damn template "|last= Smith |first= John" (or) "|last1= Smith |first1= John |last2= Jones |first2= Sam". I am still tempted to Oppose or suggest withdrawal.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Display name 99: I did a lot of work but much is left yet to be done. I will try again tomorrow. Maybe you can look at what I've done & imitate. Many problems being revealed in this process e.g. two sources for Capers but never mentioned in text; eighty sources for Wiltse but years never given, etc. More later. It is in a mess now because it is in an intermediate state, but it will get better and better.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help Lingzhi. I'll look at it later today and see how much I can replicate. I get the idea that I'm not as good or experienced at this as you are, and I don't want to screw up something and make more work for you. However, I will do what I can. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Display name 99 (with cc to Lingzhi and Natalie.Desautels). It is my understanding from listening to Jerome Kohl opine that body citations should be in First Middle Last format and that Bibliography and List citations should be in Last, First Middle format. Also, to use harv= parameter, three criteria must be followed. See {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} for details. Please keep me in the loop. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my opinion is correctly represented here. However, since such matters are based on what is actually practiced, it is certainly true that inverted author names are found in footnotes all over Wikipedia. I am not accustomed to seeing this done in books and journals, though my experience may be limited, and I know of no style manual that recommends this practice. (Again, I do not claim to have comprehensive knowledge of all style manuals).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern. The plan here is to move all of that mass of multiply-formatted shtuff out of the footnotes and into the works cited section.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, the books are looking considerably better now. Not done yet (esp. probs with John Quincy Adams), but much better. Now... journals... I have exactly zero idea why so many journals are listed in the References section (should "Footnotes" be added as a subheading there?) and so many others are listed separately in the "Specialized studies"... and WTH is "Specialized studies" anyhow? Me personally I wanna move all those journals OUT of the notes and into the "Specialized studies" (whatever that means), but that would be a task. I could do it programmatically to save time (as I did for the books), but it would still be a task. Input/opinions from other participants on this page would be welcomed..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Specialized studies I think is more commonly referred to as Scholarly studies - academic/doctorate desertations etc.. but has fallen into disuse. Rjensen is knowledgable on this. Hoppyh (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Specialized studies" section to me simply looks like it is meant to include any scholarly work relating to Calhoun, that has thus been cited, but is not meant to be a complete biography of him. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the presidential articles don't employ a section like this. Hoppyh (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Could we eliminate all 3 of the sub-sections under "Sources", simply leaving all of the works cited grouped under "Sources" or "Further Reading"? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be consistent with the FA presidents' articles I have looked at. You might keep Calhoun's own works separate under "works" or "primary sources". Hoppyh (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Hoppyh:@Display name 99:Someone really does need to do an RS check on all those websites to determine their reliability. Some of them are looking shaky to me. Your best option would be to find the exact same information in a book or journal, especially (but not necessarily) one that you already have cited before (just because that saves trouble). In some cases you might even simply delete the info and the web cite, if it doesn't seem all that important or useful.... and finally, if you replace a web cite with a book or journal, you could, you know, move the reference down to the bottom of the page and put a {{sfn}} in the body text where the web cite used to be. :-)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference 109 is redlinked and needs to be fixed. I tried to repair it myself but, alas, this is not one of my strong subjects. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 05:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

yes thanks, I mentioned this above. I'm having problems with this and with books that have several volumes. I will try to sort it out later...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• beginning with "Biographer John Niven says..." Here there's an uncited direct quote, but you might not need to add a cite because the quote seems trivial/irrelevant anyhow. Then the pronoun "He" in "He graduated as " is syntactically ambiguous (who graduated?). I would solve all these problems in one swoop by just deleting all the stuff about the teacher.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Lingzhi, I removed that material. For what it's worth, it was added in by a different editor about 2 weeks ago over my objection. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaand it was just reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

everyone--including Yale this year--says that Yale had a major impact on his political thinking and Niven explains the influence in detail. How an intellectual got his ideas from his most important teacher is not trivial, it's important. so I restored it. 1) Brooks M. Kelly calls Dwight the "mentor" of John C. Calhoun. Kelly, 1974: p138; 2) in Brown, Calhoun's Philosophy of Politics stressed his "his celebrated discussions with New England Federalist Timothy Dwight". 3) Gordon Post (Into to Disquisition p viii) thinks Calhoun got his ideas on secession from Dwight as does Gordon Wood Radicalism p 268. [Dwight's brother was a leader of the Hartford convention of 1815 that called for secession] Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well Rjensen. I will not contest it further. However, Lingzhi did have a question about one of the sources. Citation 8 applies to the direct quote as well as the sentence after it, does it not? Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I added some depth from Coit's bio. Yes quote = Niven p 20 and next sentence. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that looks good enough, then. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Also Rjensen, when citing books, it would be helpful if you would place the full bibliographical citation at the bottom under "Sources", leaving only a smaller page citation in the body of the text. This would be good for maintaining consistency. Would you be able to do this for the 2 sources that you just added in? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) @Rjensen: The reason we're having this mild disagreement is because what you're saying in the article isn't what you said you're saying. The quotes above (here on this FAC page) look very nice and very relevant. The quotes on the article about " awesome mastery of the classics" look like extraneous padding. Very strongly suggest you remove the "awesome mastery" quote and insert what you wrote just above my words here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

well i don't see a problem. Niven has an excellent statement about the powerful influence of Dwight on Calhoun's mode of thought --[Biographer John Niven says "Calhoun admired Dwight's extemporaneous sermons, his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge, and his awesome mastery of the classics, of the tenants of Calvinism, and of metaphysics. No one, he thought, could explicate the language of John Locke with such clarity.]. that seems very important in explaining how Calhoun learned to understand political philosophy & prepared himself to be a leader in that field. Second is the different point raised by Coit that Dwight & others taught Calhoun about nullification & secession & convinced him they were legitimate options. These became central themes in Calhoun's career and their origins are important. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem here, which you don't see, comes from the fact that you know what you're talking about ;-) The implication you hope readers will draw from your quote is too subtle. You imagine a reader thinking, "Oh.. Dwight explained Locke to Calhoun...Calhoun thought this over, deeply, then...compared Locke's beliefs about natural rights to his own beliefs and... OH YEAH, I GET IT!" That's a charming picture, but unfortunately you have forgotten to write to the real target audience: an intelligent but uninformed reader. So what will actually happen is more like this: "Locke... what.. but the article doesn't draw a clear connection... and in Western culture at least, it is the article's responsibility to point out all connections to me, the reader, or at least offer me a clear waypost from which I can draw an inference... so.. this must all be an exercise in padding an article." To make a long story short, please, I beg you, delete the "awesome mastery" quote and add the quotes you offered up above my post here...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

ok i'll work on it.  :) Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Questions

• What makes Haysville Community Library a WP:RS?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

th haysville cite is a long quote from Howe, Daniel Walker. What hath God wrought: the transformation of America, 1815-1848. 2007. Pulitzer Prize winner. Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Kept, per above. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• What makes Advameg, Inc. a WP:RS?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

it's a copy of a major RS = Graff, Henry F., ed. The presidents: a reference history. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1997. (3rd ed ??) --may be illegal copy Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything proving that it was illegal, so I kept it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• What makes The Rational Argumentator a WP:RS?

I think it's very poor quality. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• What makes law.jrank.org, Net Industries a WP:RS?

I think it is poor quality Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• What makes cwmemory.com (Kevin M. Levin) a WP:RS?

I think it's very poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• What makes ehistory.osu.edu a WP:RS, considerig thatthe bottom of the page has a caveat emptor warning: "This item was created by a contributor to eHistory prior to its affiliation with The Ohio State University. As such, it has not been reviewed for accuracy by the University and does not necessarily adhere to the University's scholarly standards"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I removed it. 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Display name 99 (talk)

• This looks very fishy: "Jewell, Michael E. (2015) Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy." Can't find it on kentuckypress.com, which is already a deal-killer, and also his name is Malcolm not Michael.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I can attest to this. Jewell is a leading political scientists and I looked. Fulltext is on line at http://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_political_science_american_politics/14/ Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I removed it. Rjensen added another Jewell citation which seemed good enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. This one is a student project: Andrew Jackson 1767–1845 A brief biography: Tariffs and Nullification – Again American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. University of Groningen.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The Welling project is pretty high quality. I've used it for many years. However, I would rather use a more sophisticated longer source. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Kept. If it is reliable and contains the necessary information, it is sophisticated enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm having problems with the Freehling (1965) reference, and I admit that I might have been the one who screwed it up. But how can a journal article that runs from pages 25 through 42 have so many cites to pages 222, 223 etc.?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The sites beyond page 42 hard to have an unknown and uncertain book by Freehling – you wrote a lot of them. So I will try to replace with better sources. Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Rjensen seems to have done so. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "He saw attacks on Eaton stemming ultimately from the political opposition of Calhoun, who had failed to silence his wife's criticisms" I'm not sure I see this information on the web source provided.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I read it that way as OK. However I would delete the low-quality journalism in the previous footnote = http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/01/andrew-jacksons-tragic-love-story Andrew Jackson's Tragic Love Story] U.S. News. April 1, 2011 Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Display name 99,Rjensen,Hoppyh-- is anyone gonna fix all these, and check for more I may have missed?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I'm sorry about that. I fixed a couple and probably would have done more today and yesterday. However, a tornado taking out my neighborhood's electricity got in the way. I should start working on it tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the severe weather; hope there was no serious damage. No rush on this FAC of course, so long as it gets done some day or other.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

Lingzhi, please see my responses above. I will soon take care of the last of the concerns voiced in the image review and in the last review by Wehwalt, and from there I hope we can begin voting if nobody else has anything to say. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) Display name 99 There are still direct quotes with no page numbers, and books cited repeatedly with no page numbers. The former is definitely a deal-killer, and the latter leans that way. So these must all be fixed. I am on vacation and not able to do any more extensive reviewing, but can make quick responses like this one.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• "Organization and strategy were widely demanded " still missing page number. Are there more direct quotes w/out them?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, could you show me where that quote is in the article? I believe that I have taken care of all other direct quotes without page numbers. Display name 99 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read MOS:BQ, then come back to this article, hold the CTRL button and type F, then enter this text into the box (without quotation marks): "Organization and strategy were widely demanded".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, is there any way that you could help determine the page number for this quote? It is found as a blockquote at the bottom of the "Slavery" section. If you are able to find the page, you can give it to me here and I'll take care of the formatting. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No need. searchable Google books is a wonderful tool for occasions such as these.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I used an electronic version without page numbers. but it's Dict Am Bio v 3 p 416 Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There are now no quotations in the article that are without corresponding page numbers. Display name 99 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I know that you can't do any full reviews now, but I'm letting you know that today I was able to add page numbers to 7 different citations. That leaves only 7 more book citations without page numbers, 5 of which are from the same book, and none of which are for exact quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I was just able to replace one more citation that did not have a page number with a citation that does have a page number. That leaves us with only 6 citations with no page numbers, 4 of which are from the same book. One of these 6 citations, number 102, "Calhoun 1851", does not need one in my opinion. It is there to verify that a book was published by Calhoun, and is just a citation to the book itself. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg needs a US PD tag, as per the wording of the life+70 tag
• File:Statue_of_Hon._John_C._Calhoun_erected_in_Statuary_Hall_of_the_Capitol_at_Washington._Proceedings_in_Statuary_Hall_and_in_the_Senate_and_the_House_of_Representatives_on_the_occasion_of_the_unveiling,_(14762688871).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? We need to account for both the photo and the statue, since the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptural works
• File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg: source link is dead, is a new/updated one available?
• File:Closeup_of_John_C._Calhoun_grave_IMG_4649.JPG: what is the copyright status of the monument? Per above, no freedom of panorama here
• File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not warrant new copyright protection in the US. What is the copyright status of the pictured work? The given tag appears to be for the photograph rather than the work itself, which is what we need to worry about.
• File:JohnCCalhoun.jpeg needs a US PD tag
• File:Jcctypo01.jpg needs a US PD tag and a source - the current sourcing is circular. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC) amended 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, IMDb is not a reliable source.Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed IMDb by replacing its first citation with a more reliable source and removing the second part altogether after finding too little on the film. Just so that everyone knows, I am unsure of how to deal with all of the other concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Display name 99, I've expanded a few of the above points, and if you have specific questions I'm happy to try to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the link to File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg is dead. I clicked on all the links and was directed somewhere. Also, I tried adding US PD tags to all the pictures on Commons as you suggested, but am unsure that I did so correctly. Would you please examine those edits to be sure? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the image description page, there are two links under 'Source' - one redirects to the image description page itself and the other returns a 404 error. Looking at the tags you've added, File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg stands out - to use that tag you need to show that the image was published, not just created, before 1923. Can that be done? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I believe that I have fixed all the links. However, I can offer no proof that the image was published before 1923. However, Mrs. Calhoun died in 1866, and I highly doubt that the image, which was most likely created near the middle of her life, remained unpublished for as many as 57 years after her death. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What was the first publication that we can confirm? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I regret to say that I can't confirm anything. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. From what I can tell the portrait is in the collection of Fort Hill - could they be contacted to verify its history? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I found it in 1917 book = William Montgomery Meigs (1917). The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun. Neale Publishing Company. p. 80. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Great Rjensen. Your efforts to improve the sourcing for images and content in this article are appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Front image

Calhoun by Mathew Brady, 1849 photograph

Calhoun by Healy, c. 1845

Calhoun c. 1843

Recently a high-quality, dated photograph by Brady was replaced by an undated painting as the front image, and I do oppose this change. Never mind that the painting is a WP:FP, but compare it with the photos of similar age (one earlier one later) and note the difference between the artist's impression and reality. We do prefer photographs to artworks AFAIK. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Materialscientist, it was decided by several other editors, Jdcrutch, Hoppyh, and Wehwalt here to switch the image. I will quote Wehwalt and Jdcrutch, as I believe that their arguments adequately express why the image was changed.

"I do not think the lead image shows the man as he ought to be pictured by the world. While I understand photos are preferred, I don't see this as an absolute rule."

"The Brady photo shows Calhoun in the last year of his life, as he was dying of tuberculosis, not as the vibrant, charismatic man who nearly became president of the United States, and was twice elected vice-president."

There are many figures from this time period for whom photographs are only available of them near the end of their lives. A photograph taken of Calhoun in 1849, a year before his death, while of very high quality, is of a very sickly man. The Healy painting makes him look somewhat more presentable. In addition, I really don't see a big difference in Calhoun's physical features between this painting and photographs from around the same period. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have heard several times that photographs are preferred on Wikipedia over paintings and drawings, but I have never seen any WP policy to that effect. Can Materialscientist point us to one?

There appears to be a widespread prejudice in favor of photographs, to the effect that they are more "accurate" than "art works", but anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with the photographic process will realize that such a prejudice is unfounded. Photographs are art works. They are composed, just as paintings are (although some may be composed in an instant, or by selection after the fact). Alexander Gardner, who made many of the pictures Matthew Brady claimed credit for, once dragged the body of a soldier many yards to stage a photograph. (He may have done it many times, but we know certainly of one instance.) Photographs are affected by the quality of lighting used, and by the chemistry of the plate or film employed. They may be manipulated in development, and in the printing process, as well, such as by cropping, burning and dodging, touching-up, and so on. Such manipulation may be falsification, depending on the intentions of the photographer; but it may simply be art.

On the other hand, a given painting or drawing may be more "accurate" than a given photograph, particularly where, as here, the painting is in color and the photograph is not. A painting may convey truths about its subject that are known to the artist but not visible at the time of sitting to the mechanical eye of the camera. Such a presentation is necessarily subjective, but not necessarily more subjective, or less accurate, than that of a photographer.

Of course, what we mean by "accurate" is itself subjective. All two-dimensional graphic representations are inherently inaccurate, in that none reproduces exactly what the human eye perceives. All, obviously, are in two dimensions, whereas human vision is three-dimensional; although both can suggest the third dimension. All have definite boundaries, which vision in general has not. Both paintings and still photographs present an active subject as stationary, though both can suggest movement in various ways. A line-drawing may be called "a perfect likeness", even though its subject isn't really made up of lines and cross-hatching.

The point is that no medium is inherently preferable. Each image must be judged on its merits, and compared to other images without prejudice, but with regard to the purpose for which the image is to be used. Both paintings and photographs may be bad. Either may misrepresent its subject. Either may be better than the other for a particular purpose, and in a particular context.

In the present case, although the Brady photograph is valuable, and an important record of Calhoun in his last year of life, I believe the painting to be a better summary representation of the man and his character throughout his career, and therefore preferable for the lede. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Compare the c. 1843 photo and the c. 1845 painting. The painting has an odd, asymmetric "crop" (hand is cropped by the bottom) and shows a distorted, twisted face expression, which is an artist's impression (there is no evidence he ever produced such), while the photo shows a natural one. Colors are often distorted too, both in paintings and photographs, so this is a weak argument. Compare the c. 1845 painting with this one, for example. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Calhoun's face in the 1845 painting looks to be less full. This actually makes sense, as based upon the c. 1843 photograph and the 1849 Brady photograph, Calhoun does appear to have grown very thin in the last decade of his life. Calhoun's hair in the 1834 painting also looks different, but based on the photos I think the c. 1845 painting actually got it closer. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You hit the point - per WP:NOR we should avoid speculations ("I think .."), and photographs help us in this. Paintings do the contrary. The arguments above that photographs are also distorted are both true and useless - any fact is distorted by the observer, but photographic distortions are predictable and relatively small. As to "I think the c. 1845 painting actually got it closer" - no, they were made in different years. Yes, his health deteriorated in 1849, and this affected the photograph. This may well be mentioned, but this is not a reason to substitute reality with artistic view. For obvious reasons (money, fear of criticism, etc.) those who were asked to paint a portrait of a famous person tended to embellish that person. Very few did not, but then they might overshoot and exaggerate (the ugliness). Is this masterpiece close to reality? Nobody knows, but it deviates from other portraits. Further, we often deal with photographs of paintings, which are made in poor museum lighting, and the color deteriorates with time in old paintings - note the color variations in different versions of this same artwork. Lighting and image degradation don't affect professional b/w studio photographs that much.

Hence WP:NOR, hence avoid paintings when possible. Materialscientist (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

for the pre 1850 period I think paintings are much more accurate. a professional photographer in 21st century takes dozens -- even hundreds of shots-- with control over lighting lenses and photoshop editing. In 1850 the film, the lighting, the pose was all poor quality & artificial by 2016 standards -- the subject had to freeze in a pose for examples. One shot was usually all they got, not 50. The painter spent days getting the pose, facial expressions, etc as good as possible. with color of course, not artificial b&w Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

<indent>Thanks. I do value your opinion, but this is again WP:OR. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

By your definition of original research to include someone attempting to capture the likeness of a person through paint, how do you avoid including under the umbrella of original research all those works which seek to capture the likeness of someone through words? By your definition, any work from anyone that attempts to describe anyone else must be considered original research, and thereby to be discredited. Where does that leave us? Display name 99 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to make Materialscientist sigh, but I still find her or his arguments unpersuasive. He or she has not pointed to any Wikipedia policy favoring photographs over paintings, and merely continues to assert, without citing any objective evidence or authority, the opinion that photographs are more accurate than paintings. This she or he seeks to prove through an entirely subjective contrasting of some paintings with some photographs—which is no less "original research" than anything Materialscientist has pointed to. This only reinforces my argument that neither photographs nor paintings should be regarded as superior per se, and that each image must be evaluated on its own merits, in light of the purpose for which it is to be used.

Let us remember, after all, that nobody is suggesting the suppression of any of the images we have to choose from. We're really only debating placement of the various pictures within the article. It's quite evident that Calhoun had one of those faces that seem to vary markedly, depending on angle of view, lighting, mood, etc.; and that his appearance altered considerably over the course of his life. (This has led to the misidentification of at least one photograph as Calhoun's. See this archived discussion.) The article should accordingly include every available image of Calhoun, so that readers may compare them and draw their own conclusions. (Note that there is a life mask of Calhoun, unfortunately not dated, but apparently late; a photograph of which was deleted from Wikipedia for reasons of copyright. I suspect the Princeton library, assuming it's the copyright holder, would grant a license for WP to use the photo, but I haven't pursued it.)

The picture in question here, in any event, is for the info box, and will stand above the rubric, "7th Vice President of the United States". It therefore seems to me most appropriate to use an image of Calhoun made during his tenure in that office, if one exists. I would expect there to be an official vice-presidential portrait of Calhoun, though I haven't been able to find one with a cursory search of the web. If none exists, then I'd suggest the 1834 Peale portrait, which is close in time to Calhoun's second term as vice-president, and is the work of a celebrated portraitist. Failing agreement on that, I'd still prefer the c. 1845 Healy painting as a better general representation of Calhoun the statesman, over any photograph that I've seen. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the life mask of Calhoun, mentioned above, please note that I have uploaded a different photograph of (presumably) the same mask, which is dated 1844. See my note on the article's Talk page. Note also that that photograph looks very different from the photograph of the same mask on the Princeton web site, a fact with some significance for the discussion above. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Oppose - for the time being. There are problems with the references. This script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors will highlight them. Graham Beards (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham Beards, I have been unable to find the "Smith 2011" citation within the article. Do you know what number it is? If I can find it, I will either add the book or journal to the Bibliography or find a different source. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is cited - hence the problem. (There are others) Graham Beards (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham Beards, not cited where, under "References" or under "Sources"? I'm not finding it anywhere. All I see with the name "Smith" is a thing from 1911 under "Sources". And though you said "There are others", this is all that came up when I clicked on the script. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, here they are:

• 17. Wilson 2003, p. 254. Harv error: link from #CITEREFWilson2003 doesn't point to any citation

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• 105. Adams 1848, V, p. 361. Harv error: link from #CITEREFAdams1848 doesn't point to any citation

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Kuic, V (1983). "John C. Calhoun's Theory of the Concurrent Majority". American Bar Association Journal 69: 482. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFKuic1983.

Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Meigs, William Montgomery (1917). The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun vol. 2. Neale Publishing Company. p. 80. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMeigs.2C_William_Montgomery1917.

Done. I got rid of it. I have no idea what it was doing, especially with a version without a page being cited right above it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Smith, Henry Augustus Middleton (1911). "Calhoun, John Caldwell". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSmith1911.

Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Adams, John Quincy (1874–1877). Adams, Charles Francis, ed. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848. 12 v. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. ISBN 978-0-8369-5021-2. Retrieved June 12, 2016. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAdams1874.E2.80.931877.

Done. The source has been replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Adams, John Quincy. Charles Francis Adams, ed. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848. Lippincott. ISBN 978-0-608-43349-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAdams.

Done. I removed them without re-adding them to "Further Reading" because, unless they are being cited, Adams's memoirs don't belong at the bottom of a Calhoun biography. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Boucher, Chauncey S.; Brooks, Robert P., eds. (1931). "Correspondence Addressed to John C. Calhoun, 1837–1849". Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1929. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBoucherBrooks1931.

Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Calhoun, John C.; Wilson, Clyde (1959–2003). The Papers of John C. Calhoun. University of South Carolina Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFCalhounWilson1959.E2.80.932003.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham Beards, I think I've taken care of it all. Thank you for your help and please let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks Ok now. Graham Beards (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ian Rose. It's been 4 days since the last comment here, with one vote in support of the nomination and none against. Can you tell me when I may expect a decision to be made regarding the article's possible promotion? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, we try not to think in terms of 'votes' here but rather resolution of critical comments, per the FAC instructions. That said, articles do require several reviewers to declare clear support for promotion once issues are dealt with, so we need more input here before promotion. If I were to close the review now I'd have to archive it as not having gained consensus to promote but I'd prefer to give it chance to garner some further reviews, so I've listed it at 'FAC urgents' at the top ofWT:FAC and we'll see how that goes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, as I have been unable to gain consensus so far to promote this article, would you please say whether or not you believe the issues that you addressed were resolved to your satisfaction? I ask this so that this nomination can be concluded. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus

• It may be because I am a Social Justice Warrior but I find the usage of the phrase "minority rights" to refer to the rights of a parliamentary minority (in this case the parliamentary minority's right to keep abusing their ethnic minorities) to be grating. Is it possible to find a way to make it clearer earlier on that he was defending the rights of states within the federal system, not the rights of citizens as I believe the phrase "minority rights" are most likely to be understood by the naive reader in the 21st century? I am particularly referring to the first sentence in which the phrasing frankly comes across as self-contradictory (being a proponent of slavery and minority rights) - the sectoin where Hofstadter points out that his usage of "minority" differs from the meaing of that term also suggest that the term cannot stand alone undefined in the first sentence. I am unfamiliar with the literaturw but I think that perhaps his idea of "minority rights" corresponds best to what is today called "State's rights" in American politics?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This has caused confusion before. The conclusion that you reached is basically correct. Calhoun saw the South as a sort of beleaguered minority that required special protection from Northern tyrants attempting to deprive its citizens of their rights. In the process, Calhoun developed a whole philosophy regarding the protection of minorities, which is where the concurrent majority and nullification come in. But Calhoun's ultimate goal was to free the Southern economy of burdensome tariffs and prevent the North from making any move against slavery. To achieve these goals, Calhoun sometimes went against his states' rights ideology, most noticeably by insisting that a new territory or state had no right to abolish slavery even if its people voted to do so, which was of course total hypocrisy. I'm open to suggestions that you have that would help clear this up.Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

How about writing something like "best remembered for his strong defense of slavery and for advancing the concepts of "concurrent majority" and "nullification" in order to protect the values and interests of the South from perceived threats from the Northern parliamentary majority"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, I think that the term "minority rights" is important to use here. Whether we in the 21st century like to think of it that way or not, Calhoun's ideas had a lot to do with understanding the need to protect the rights of political minorities. It is important to give him credit for that. The sentence ends with this: "which he did in the context of defending Southern values from perceived Northern threats." That should make it clear what specific "rights" were, in Calhoun's view, at stake. Display name 99 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Dn99 as to minority rights. Some concepts are complex and should not be simplified. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia occasionally to send readers to the dictionary. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think some kind of work needs to be done to show that the term in his use is not at all related to the current usage of it - I dont think it actually sends the users to the dictionary unless they are made clearly aware that it means something other than what they are likely to assume. I will of course not insist, but I do think that many future readers will be perplexed and annoyed at the current wording. (note for example that looking in Wikipedia for Minority rights does not make us any the wiser regarding Calhouns ideas on the matter)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, Calhoun was concerned with political or social minorities. And once again, the very next phrase of the sentence, "which he did in the context of defending Southern values from perceived Northern threats", shows that Calhoun's arguments for minority rights and 21st century definitions of minority rights are very different. If people are still confused or annoyed, they should take a closer look at the man. The use of this phrase in the first sentence of the article has been questioned several times, and I'm just not sure that there's anything else that can be done to make it easier for people to understand. Display name 99 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• What is the relation of the third paragraph of the section "State Sovereignty and the 'Calhoun Doctrine'" to the tpoic of that section? Sounds more like it is about contemporary evaluatoins of his political style in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to "Rhetorical style", which is actually where it was once before it got moved for some reason. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Seems a little odd with an entire section on "Film and Television" with only one sentence in it. Any possibility of consolidating this into the legacy section?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I made it a subsection there. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• IN the Legacy section, going from "Wilson 2015" noting that the "run of the mill historian" is critical of Calhoun due to his defense of "the bad", to saying in the next sentence that "Recently, however, Calhoun's reputation has suffered" seems a little counter-chronological. Surely that is exactly the viewpoint Wilson is defending Calhoun against.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I moved it to the end of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, please see my comments above. Thank you for the helpful review. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry, while the nominator has been diligent in attempting to address critical comments, this has been open over a month and a half without achieving consensus for promotion so I'm going to archive it and ask that further improvements be made outside the FAC process. I'd recommend putting it up for Peer Review and inviting anyone who's commented here and at the GAN -- and also relevant Wikiprojects via their talk pages -- to look it over and when that's complete to renominate here; you can then leave neutrally worded notes that the article is up for FAC on project talk pages and on the talk pages of people who've previously commented. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.