Talk:List of presidents of the United States with facial hair

Next steps

Now that the AFD is resolved and we have all of the fine sources turned up by Milowent to consider, we should discuss the scope of the article. A simpler title with a more general scope might be Presidential hairstyles. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved to United States presidents with facial hair for now. The "during their tenure" qualification can be explained in the article, and is already clear. Also, going to the broad title of "hairstyles" would be beyond what the normal focus has been.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On Vacation Beards

• I would propose we don't include presidents who grew out their facial hair on vacation in the list portion of the article. This can be mentioned in the text, noting that coverage of presidential facial hair has been so thorough as to even note presidents who stopped shaving while on vacations -- this happened for Truman once and FDR at least twice.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is somewhat related...Woodrow Wilson COULD be included on this page. While recuperating from his post World War One stroke, he grew a beard, but only because he was physically incapable of shaving. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.21.81 (talk) 26 December 2011

Lame Gallery

I notice the image gallery uses mainly stamp and currency pics. Is there a reason for this? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the gallery was added as a joke, though I haven't gone through all the edit history. I am in favor of dumping it in favor of portraits already on wikipedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense then. Yeah, dump it, definitely. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the table is removed is not a problem. I made the table (and the current table) as part of the deletion discussion. To which I would like to add that I am in favour of removing the mention of presidents who grew facial hair on holiday. Even when a prsident is on holiday he should behave appropriate to his office. In the case of growing facial hair, however, I believe some leniency is in order. --JHvW (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe people would make jokes about this subject! It saddens me how immature some Wikipedia editors are. Here we are, trying to democratise knowledge pertaining to which US Presidents forgot to shave while on holiday, and all they can do is poke fun at us! Sometimes you've got to wonder where the world is headed. MaxWeberJr (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The world is no different today than its ever been in terms of silly knowledge. Humans love trivia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ford, Mckinley, Johnson, Jefferson

I've reverted these edits to the list (except the formatting fixes) by user:99.23.xxx.xx because some are incorrect, and the remainder needs discussion.

• File:Lyndon B. Johnson_1972.jpg - That photo is from after his tenure. See Lyndon B Johnson#Post-presidency
• commons:William Mckinley - no pictures of any facial hair seem to be available. Citation required.
• commons:Thomas Jefferson - seems to have strong sideburns in 1805.

I'm not sure about this one.

• File:Ford sworn-in.jpg - Does this photo document "Sideburns"? Reliable sources would be preferred.

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Also, adding dates in the table, for the presidents' tenures, would be helpful. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• We probably need to rip out all the sideburns presidents from the table anyway, that is truly more WP:OR than something covered in the sources I added to this during the AfD. The table should contain beards and mustaches, and we can include some text about sideburns, etc. elsewhere in the article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems legit. Add it 👍 Isaachartley767 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

New table

As is requested, I have added a table discarding the "sideburn issue". This table has been remarked out. All that is needed is to fill in the tenure and remove the remark tags. Or the table can be removed as is desired. --JHvW 23:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep sideburns. They are still on a face. Isaachartley767 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevant?

How is any of this information valuable? Pages like this make wikipedia look unprofessional and juvenile. 71.162.47.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Deletion was discussed; the decision was to keep it. You can read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure (same link as that in the box at the top of the article). TJRC (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

relevance of the article

is this article a joke? If we give an article to this than we have to make one for tekno viking meme lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.181.19 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I seriously thought this article was a joke as well when I first seen it and now I'm just astounded at the collective lunacy that has allowed this article to stay on wikipedia. It doesn't matter how interested certain eccentric individuals are in this extremely niche subject, to have this as a wiki article is farcical. It does kind of demonstrate that wikipedia will always be susceptible to this kind of nonsense, since there is no mechanism to stop the lunatics taking over the asylum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.1.238 (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• you go on being ignorant if you wish, your personal opinion of the importance of the subject is your prerogative.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I will thanks, especially when it's on such puerile stuff contained in this article. I'm looking forward to articles on "US Presidents with big noses", "US Presidents with monobrows" and "US Presidents with protruding bum chins". Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.1.238 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

There is a clear contradiction in what the prose lede of the article states, and what is contained in the table. The lede clearly states that John Quincy Adams was the first president to sport notable facial hair (his sideburns), but the table includes both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who were in office before J.Q. Adams. Which is correct, the table or the prose? Horologium (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the prose is more accurate. Honestly I'd like to limit the table to true facial hair (mustache or beards) and knock off the sideburns and temporary-beard entries. They can be mentioned in prose. As a historical matter, the mustache/beard presidents have been the subject of the sources cited, and even the subject of statistical studies.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to that, but I can't speak for anyone else. I don't plan to edit this page, but I did want to call the contradiction to the attention of editors who watch it. Horologium (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we completely redo this article. First and foremost, it presents problems with notability: The intro fails to mention any importance of facial hair until the fourth paragraph, when in fact it should right off the bat considering this article has had so much problems with relevance in the past (as per WP:LEAD (lead section, second paragraph) "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences"). Also another quote from WP:LEAD, the lead "should define the topic", logically quite early on. The article doesn't establish what it considers facial hair at all: Everyone in reality has hair on their face - women's is just too fine to see (most of the time), for some others it is just unnoticeable. What does the article consider facial hair, then? As per the deletion discussion here, it is apparent that there is an effect on people when it comes to facial hair, and I believe there would be studies to show this (or else this article wouldn't exist per WP:VER).

For these reasons, I propose we make this an article with a list, or at least make a proper article for it separate to this one. It would serve to justify to many Wikipedians why this is not WP:TRIVIA, why it is notable. It should contain conclusions from studies in to the effect of facial hair on a candidate's vote share at different time periods, presidents' opinions on facial hair, as well as the actual list itself (or as a separate article) for quick and easy reference, and anything else relevant - not just some random non-justified list as is the current state.

Now, I'm not particularly interested in researching nor writing the article. I will monitor it's progress - if this proposal is agreed on - and do some minor editing if necessary, but I'm putting it on the people who wrote the list and/or any others interested to convey some notability. Thanks. --User:Kris159 (talk | legacy) 17:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• "List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair" is my favourite ever Wikipedia article title!! 86.160.84.230 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh

Wow, can't believe I stumbled upon this article. Can't believe it even is an article. But you know what, as silly as I think it is, you can, and do, make the point that facial hair can sway a Presidential Election, even if by a very minuscule amount. I have no requests, just wanted to say I support keeping the article. What does it hurt? Is it interesting? Yes. Is it useful? Probably not, but then again, why not keep it, who is it hurting.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We should have one similar article with the list of American presidents with a fake tan. --86.30.69.229 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

We have a dispute about some content relating to beards and tuberculosis. User:bkatcher is edit warring over this claiming that the material is unsourced. This seems nonsensical as the paragraph in question gives two sources. Perhaps he wants a better citation but that's a different matter. Andrew D. (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe US presidents stopped wearing mustaches out of a fear of TB. Your source only mentions 'a documentary' with no supporting links, including the name of the documentary. bkatcher (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Moot point now, as someone added the source.bkatcher (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, please note that such issues are best dealt with by placing the famous {{citation needed}} template inline after the text in question. Removal is more disruptive because it leaves no record of the need for action and so the matter may not get attention. Andrew D. (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD?

@QubecMan, Clarityfiend, and Bearcat: What are your views about this article? Do you think we can nominate it to AfD? I don't find this page much different than the recently deleted List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair. Kraose (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep this article is well sourced unlike the other page. QubecMan (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• If this ridiculous list comes up for AfD I'm suggesting Delete. It is devoid of encyclopedic interest and uncontaminated by purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision after AfD

Now that the most recent AfD was closed as "keep", I'd like to initiate a serious discussion about renaming and revising the page according to some of the discussion there.

Do editors think that it would be a good idea to revise this page to be a regular page instead of a list page, and to expand the topic to include facial hair in US politics, not limited to Presidents, with a move to an appropriate new pagename? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend what that would entail. I'd support a rename, with the intention of developing the prose part of the page such that it's not primarily a list (but which would retain the list). I.e. if there were a separate page on the topic in general, I would support merging the list into that page, so a rename makes sense. I wouldn't support [at this time, though it depends on where people want to take it] simply removing the list with the intention of expanding the prose or turning the list into a sentence-style list of names, for example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you about that. Any page move would require more than the token removal of the list section. It would also require an actual revision. Of course, it does not have to be a perfect revision right away, but it needs to be good faith. I deliberately did not spell out details above, because I want to find out what ideas other editors have about revisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The result of the discussion just now was to Keep the article. This endorsed multiple previous discussions which also agreed on a result of Keep too. Further nominations will be considered disruptive if they do not bring any fresh evidence but I'm not seeing any evidence in support of this fresh attempt to attack this article. If editors want to write some additional content then they should go off and do so. Get back to us as and when we have that additional content and evidence. Andrew D. (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused about what you are opposing. I'm not suggesting another deletion discussion. I'm suggesting improvements to the page. But if you recommend that editors just go ahead and add sourced content, I'm in agreement with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am opposing the move which Tryptofish has proposed as there is no evidence that this would be an improvement. The page has had this title and format since the outset over 8 years ago. This is quite reasonable as we have numerous other pages like this, including List of presidents of the United States by age; coat of arms; currency; education; Freemasons; rank; slaves; stamps; etc. The format has been quite successful, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers, and so "if it works, don't fix it". Andrew D. (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe useful to reframe. Let's assume we're not moving the page or touching the table at all for the time being. How could the prose be developed to better explore the subject of facial hair and politics/presidents in the US? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What I was thinking of was to keep the existing "Overview" and "List" sections without changing them. I thought we might change the section header for "Overview" to "Presidents", and to make "List" a subsection of that. But no other changes, and particularly no subtractions from, those sections. I was planning to look through the various sources discussed at the AfD and any other sources I could find, and add some new sections before the "Presidents" section, that would be about facial hair in US politics in general, and how public opinions about it have changed over history. But I don't want to do that if other editors strongly oppose the idea – and that's why I started this talk page discussion first.

I looked at Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. It seems to me that pages in that category, for the most part, list by features that are meaningful in distinguishing one president from another, or deal with features such as coats of arms that might not get covered on other pages. I don't think that applies here. But I'm not going to get into a fight over it. I think it would be easy to make List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair a redirect to the "List" section of the revised page, so that readers looking for the list would still find it easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

So, would this be worth doing? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland

I recently made an edit of Cleveland and made him only once on the table, because he is 22-24. This is my first time here, so could someone make a note explaining the reason Cleveland is 22-24? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ota Mota (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Hairy" Truman

Why is there no photo of Truman with facial hair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.29 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

He didn't have it for long; there may not be any readily accessible photos of it. TJRC (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Truman Presidential Library is aware of only two photographs of him with facial hair, and you can see one of them here: https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2011/12/09/facial-hair-friday-a-letter-from-hairy-harry/ Could that photo be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.29 (talk) 16:37, May 29, 2022 (UTC)

That page doesn't have enough info to determine its copyright status. In any event, it's from before he was President, so in the context of this article, would not be an appropriate photo to add. TJRC (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It's an army photo from 1927, which is the only year he had the mustache, apparently. Is this list only for presidents who had facial hair while in office? If so, he doesn't belong on it. Ann Teak (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's only while in office (or maybe while campaigning for office). But that's not the only year he had facial hair. As the article notes, he briefly grew a vacation beard in 1948. TJRC (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Should we add party shadings?

I like party shadings because they look good, they’re easy to know what party one is in, and they’re easy to code. What do you guys say? Isaachartley767 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any indication in published sources that the facial hair relates to party? The article doesn't indicate that. If there is, the article should be updated to reflect that, and then it would make sense to add that coloration.

But if not, the coloration should stay out, as it adds emphasis to an irrelevant factor, party membership. TJRC (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The party shading distracts from the red/green of the facial hair, which is the point of this article. Bkatcher (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

George Washington and John Adams

Should we include them to the list? Since they seem to have sideburns. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)