Talk:John Hay

Untitled

I don't think there is enough in this article about the relationship of John Hay with President Lincoln, and I have tried to add some.

Andrew Szanton 5/06

--Editorial Content--

This line is completely inappropriate, and I'm removing it:

This is unlikely to be the case, but it does honor Hay for the quality of his writing; no one else around President Lincoln but the President himself could have written this letter with such grace.

This is not cited. It's the opinion of this author who has no intimate knowledge of the subject.

Diplomat, not politician

I removed "politician" from the article, seeing little basis for that term, and added "diplomat," seeing considerable basis for that one. Objections? AllanJ 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this merely a political biography? The man had a wife and children, too. NickJones 05:36 September 28 2006

I have edited incorrect information about the Hay/Adams house in Washington, D.C. The original houses designed by H.H. Richardson are no longer standing. The building that occupies the site is named the Hay Adams hotel in their honor, but was built after both John Hay and Henry Adams were dead.

In 1904 Hay gave to engraver Haydon Jones a silver match case and the mohogany lap desk which Lincon used to write the hand written part of the gettysburg adress.The typed draft was left in washington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.27.218 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's death, premonition?

Apparently Lincoln had a premonition of his death and mentioned it to Hay, who later wrote it about it in a book. Robert Todd Lincoln had problem with it, he thought it was too personal. In 1881 James Garfield had those premonitions and called upon Robert Todd Lincoln to talk about it, and Robert Todd Lincoln was there at the 6th St. Train Station in DC when Garfield was assassinated. No mention of any of this in the article? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

John Hay the Ottomans for help against Moro Muslims

John Hay instructed American minister to Turkey, Oscar Straus (politician) to ask Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II for help with the Moro Muslims. The Sultan then sent a letter to the Moros of the Sulu Sultanate telling them not to resist American takeover and cooperate with the Americans at the start of the Moro Rebellion in 1898. The Sulu Moros complied with the order.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PvVlS3ljx20C&pg=PA235&dq=Pleased+sultan+Philippines+khalif+Sulu+chiefs+understanding&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sGYZU4-EC-vC0AGgmYGgDg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Pleased%20sultan%20Philippines%20khalif%20Sulu%20chiefs%20understanding&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=PvVlS3ljx20C&pg=PA235&dq=Straus+Sulu+Ottoman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmQZU8hTpvDRAebrgJgM&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Straus%20Sulu%20Ottoman&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=S5q7qxi5LBgC&pg=PA397&dq=Straus+Sulu+Ottoman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmQZU8hTpvDRAebrgJgM&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Straus%20Sulu%20Ottoman&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zOLE6zY-AewC&pg=PA22&dq=Straus+Sulu+Ottoman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmQZU8hTpvDRAebrgJgM&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Straus%20Sulu%20Ottoman&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2mRXt7NtFhEC&pg=PA159&dq=Straus+Sulu+Ottoman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmQZU8hTpvDRAebrgJgM&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Straus%20Sulu%20Ottoman&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=pc5FAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA204&dq=Straus+Sulu+Ottoman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmQZU8hTpvDRAebrgJgM&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Straus%20Sulu%20Ottoman&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hwdPWJMbZCQC&pg=PA358&dq=Straus+Sulu+Ottoman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmQZU8hTpvDRAebrgJgM&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Straus%20Sulu%20Ottoman&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=e9vfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA358&dq=Straus+Sulu+Ottoman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cmQZU8hTpvDRAebrgJgM&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Straus%20Sulu%20Ottoman&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vDzjkrTDKjYC&pg=PA405#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=vDzjkrTDKjYC&pg=PA406&dq=Abdulhamid+issued+decree+people+territory+support+America+Muslim+accepted&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2GYZU6m3IonU0QHHmoCQAw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Abdulhamid%20issued%20decree%20people%20territory%20support%20America%20Muslim%20accepted&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

Any objection to swapping the lead image for this higher resolution one? It's not as tightly cropped, although, if we must, we could do so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My main concern is the shadow on the left side of his face.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reduced the shadow a bit; see if that works. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that thrilled. We're still losing a lot of the guy's face. This may be a case where "higher definition" does not mean "better".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, feel free to move it down. The original looks like a photocopy to me, though if we had a better quality scan of it, there'd be no competition. That said, are you sure your contrast or black level isn't set a bit high? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The shadow doesn't bother me so much, as it's slight. What bothers me is that the subject looks dark and distant. I would recommend cropping off some of the dark space on the top, zooming in toward Hay's face (via more cropping), and doing mild brightening. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is, if you brighten too much, it starts looking really unnatural. And if you crop too much, it starts to move away from being the original historic image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, then it's unusable then. It's too dark and distant. We need an image that focuses on the subject front and center. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think we should go back to the previous image until a better one can be found. The new one doesn't work for reasons stated by two contributors. This isn't to say the previous one is perfect, of course, but it was longstanding and served the purpose good enough. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've said about ten times: Feel free to move it elsewhere in the article. Having a zoomed-out image is useful, even if a zoomed-in one is preferred for the infobox. This is a style of photography that was popular in the early 20th century (compare 1, 2); the old lead - which I've even cleaned up a little - is an enduring classic style. Illustrations should not be excessively modified, so as to no longer reflect the original artistic choices if we're actually using them to document history.

When a new ability comes in - like "We could set up lighting as part of our photography! The early examples tend to use it a bit to excess before calming down and stepping back. Think of 1980s 3D movies, for instance. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments are interesting, but I'm unsure how they correlate to suitability as a lead image for this article. We need to concentrate on the best lead image without concern to explanations we might make for approaches used at the time of the image's creation. The simple question is: Is it a good lead image or not? Anyway, I'll take your recommendation for moving the new image down in the article, and restoring the previous one for the lead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I never said my reasons, did I? Remember that Wikipedia doesn't mark the resolutions of images under their thumbnails, so I think that if you start with a low-resolution image, people may give up clicking on images before the high-res images appear. Hence, given a low-res and a high-res image, I'll give more weight to high-res for the first couple images in the article, just to show that there are good images available. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand high resolution as one quality we consider, and it would be nice if we had a higher resolution of the current lead image, but I'm honestly not sure how the average user traverses an article in terms of images, and whether the resolutions of them affect that traversal. The current lead image seems to have a good enough resolution for the purposes of an article. Are there particular devices you have in mind where a user would see the lead image, then think they need to see a higher-res one? On my laptop, it looks pretty good. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, think of someone looking for an image of someone. They'll tend to start at the top and work down. If everything they find in the first, say, five images is fairly low quality (moreso for thumbnail-sized images, admittedly), they may stop before getting to a high-res image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see this point. Articles aren't image libraries. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they are for some people. They need an image of something, they'll scan the Wikipedia page first, presuming it'll highlight the best free-use images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hearing or claiming to hear

Re: the statement "He heard War Secretary Edwin Stanton's declaration, "Now he belongs to the ages."", does the reference corroborate that Hay heard it, or does Hay claim to have heard it? That would seem to make a difference in how it's worded. There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism if it is properly placed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out a circumstance under which he would not have heard it. While there is some dispute as to was at Lincoln's bedside and when, Hay and Stanton were both certainly there. Certainly it was an emotional moment, especially for Hay, but the words if said by Stanton, and there doesn't seem much doubt they were, would have been "heard" by Hay even if he wasn't fully taking it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing needed

The fact box at the top of the page shows Hay serving as Secretary of State until July 4, 1909. The article states he died in 1905. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.209.2 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Such things happen during an article's time on the main page. Looks to have survived pretty well though - one big error corrected (Bad Nauheim is fairly near Frankfurt, but nowhere near Hamburg - unless this is one of those cases where a town changed its name slightly to disambiguate itself) but otherwise, I don't see any damage. Might want to check the new reference, but... In any case, good work on the article, and congratulations again!

Thanks. I could review the sources to see if it was my goof or the source, but it's been corrected.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that, in addition to that, a new source was added to the article in the last day: Peet, Stephen Denison (1877). The Ashtabula Disaster. J.S. Goodman and Louis Lloyd & Co. LCCN 06028953. OL 7222137M. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. It is no doubt a gripping account, but it's by a local minister. May be worth adding to the more relevant articles, including The Bread-Winners.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bixby Letter

In regards to the revert of my edit removing the sentence "She was a Southern sympathizer who apparently destroyed the original.", such a definite statement shouldn't be made when both facts are contentious and debated.

For instance, the earliest mention of Mrs Bixby destroying the letter comes from grandson William A Bixby who in the Aug. 9, 1925 New York Times article here (paywalled) states he doesn't believe the letter survived but also that he has no information on it's actual fate. By the time William's son, Arthur wrote to the New York Sun in 1949 the story had morphed into her destroying the letter.

This is a biography of John Hay and we're discussing part of one paragraph which describes Hay's possible authorship of the Bixby Letter. It would distract too much from the flow of the writing if we were too have digressions on whether or not she was a Copperhead or write a nuanced statement about her maybe destroying the letter. It's also not at all relevant to whether or not Hay was the author of the letter. There's a link to the Bixby Letter article if a reader want to learn more about it's history. Libertybison (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to something that sets forth the current state of play in that dispute? I have NY Times and JSTOR access, plus a host of others if it's needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure by what you mean by state of play; if you mean the general current state of Bixby Letter scholarship or about my specific objection. So I'll include a bunch of links about current scholarship just to be sure.

First, about Mrs. Bixby There was a follow-up article to the interview with William A. Bixby on the Front Page of the Aug. 12, 1925 Boston Herald with his sister, Mrs George M. Towers. She also said that she didn't know what happened to the letter but speculates Mrs. Bixby may have destroyed it because she resented getting the letter. This article is the first instance of Mrs. Bixby being called a Southern sympathizer, although the actual quote from Mrs. Towers is a little ambiguous if she's referring to Bixby's beliefs or her mother's opinion of Bixby. I don't have a link, but hopefully you have access to a newspaper database that has a copy. Unfortunately the last new scholarly study of accounts of Mrs. Bixby's life was in 1946 in F. Lauriston Bullard's book Abraham Lincoln and the Widow Bixby (Yes, 1946!)

Now to the general state of Bixby Letter scholarship; here's a link to pages 94-96 of Taliaferro's book where he talks about the Bixby Letter, for easy reference. Here's a link to Michael Burlingame's 1995 article on the Bixby Letter concluding Hay was the author; his book on Hay here explains his reasoning more in depth.

In March 2006 historian Jason Emerson discovered while searching the Robert Todd Lincoln papers, a 1917 letter to historian Isaac Markens where Lincoln told Markens that when he asked Hay about the Bixby Letter, Hay said he had no special knowledge of the letter at the time it was written. Here is Edward Steers describing it in his book. This is Jason Emerson describing the letter in his 2012 biography of Robert Todd Lincoln here on page 376. So Taliaferro is incorrect in his book when he states that Hay never denied authorship of the letter but I don't think it's conclusive of anything.

One of the most important studies of the language used in the Bixby Letter in regards to the authorship question is Joe Nickell's Winter 1989 article in the Lincoln Herald Journal. Nickell comes down on the side of Lincoln being the author, using similar techniques comparing phrases in the letter to Lincoln's other letters in the same way Burlingame does with Hay's writing and coming down on the side of Hay as the author. But Nickell went a step further and had University of Kentucky Professor Jean G. Pival, a specialist in linguistics and rhetoric, compare the two men's writing styles (syntax, vocabulary, etc). Pival also concluded that it's style resembled Lincoln's writing more than Hay's.

This is a link to Jason Emerson's 2006 article from the now defunct American Heritage magazine which I feel has the most to date overview of the authorship debate here. The link is set to page 5 where he talks about the letter to Markens but I would recommend reading the whole article

For reference, I was trying to link to Note#8 in the 1995 Burlingame article in my earlier post but it doesn't seem to be working and just going to the top of the artice. Libertybison (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that Hay's role is uncertain enough that we should not include it. Accordingly, I'll delete the passage. Thank you for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Militias

The text from the source is "The crisis came to a head at the end of June 1844, when anti-Mormon militias from Warsaw and nearby Carthage converged on the Carthage jail ... the vigilantes forced their way into the jail ... Even so, Dr. Hay did join the Warsaw militia as its surgeon. It was only after the governor of Illinois ordered the regiment disbanded that he and several dozen others decided to turn back."". Just for everyone's info.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

File:C.M. Gilbert. - John Hay, c. 1904.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:C.M. Gilbert. - John Hay, c. 1904.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-10-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

John Hay (1838–1905) was an American statesman and official, whose career in government stretched over almost half a century. Beginning as a private secretary and assistant to Abraham Lincoln, Hay's highest office was United States Secretary of State under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Hay was also an author and biographer, and wrote poetry and other literature through much of his life.Photograph: C. M. Gilbert; restoration: Adam Cuerden

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514120655/http://thebhc.org/publications/BEHprint/v028n1/p0133-p0142.pdf to http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHprint/v028n1/p0133-p0142.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary

I'm not certain the details regarding the O'Learys, whom Hay interviewed after the Chicago fire, such as this, are worth adding. This seems an undue amount of detail given this is a minor incident in a lengthy career. The text may do better in the articles about the fire or the O'Learys.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason we cited the quote we did is that is the quote cited in the source. We didn't select it. Mr. Zeitz did. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We try to take what the sources give us rather than go looking. Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)