Talk:Presidents of the United States on U.S. postage stamps

Page Name

The title of this page was changed to a name that attempted to define the article in the title. The new name was so long it was ridiculous. 14 words! (List of Presidents of the United States by appearance on United States postage stamps). The page title has been duly restored to its original and quite adequate name. -- As is plainly evident, the article is not a list, but an historical account of presidents and their role on postage stamps since 1847. The sections for the various stamps are in chronological order, per Presidential term, each one like a small chapter. 'Lists' contain similar and simple subjects. i.e.Names, addresses, dates, etc. An article that resembles a list looks like this and this or that. The sections in the US Presidents on US postage stamps page are filled with textual information on stamps in general and which also discusses the history of stamps, the engravers and famous artists involved, and the major role presidential images have played in US stamp production and presents this information in a chapter and verse like manner, encompassing far more about the aspects of this subject than a list could ever offer. --- Gwillhickers 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Second attempt to change name. Using 'US' without periods to be consistent with other spelling of other official names US Secretary of State. Gwillhickers (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your case would be more convincing if the article were not actually at United States Secretary of State. :-) MoS officially prefers U.S., and nearly all articles follow that, or spell out the name in full. Stan (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Its true they are changing the U.S. to US. If the majority of articles still say U.S. then it will change shortly. --Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the name involves a title to an essay or encyclopedia it seems the 'US' without the periods is appropriate, whereas 'U.S.' with periods seems to be better used in official documents or news articles. I originally had the page title with 'U.S.' but changed it as the 'U.S.' occurred twice in the title and seemed visually redundant when periods were used. Without the periods the 'US' is visually more absorbed into a phrase and seems less redundant. Those are personal reasons however. For now I would just as soon leave the title as is. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this article (8/9/2016 & noting it here in this old discussion as it's related, even though separated by 5+ years) from U.S. presidents on U.S. postage stamps to Presidents of the United States on U.S. postage stamps for consistency with other articles related to the POTUS. Drdpw (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Overuse of non-free images(?)

The number of non-free images on this article has skyrocketed. Please work towards reducing the amount of non-free content. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of non-free content images in the article is within guidelines. Wikipedia:Non-free content makes no mention to a specific number but instead refers to conditions of use in matters of non-free content images regarding long articles that can be considered as a list. In particular, it says..

From: Wikipedia:Non-free content

Non-free image use in list articles:	* Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements. * ..non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic.
Images allowed:	7. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject. 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.

All non-free content images in the article meet the above conditions. Also, non-free content images of US Postage stamps are unlike all other non-free content images as they are works of the federal government, and the USPS, now a quasi-private company, is still under its domain, and postage stamps are produced with tax dollars. Moreover, USPS publicly grants permission for (post 1978) stamp image use for educational reasons with no limits placed on the number of images involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What the US government states means nothing, the images are non-free, and are governed by our non-free media policy, which is by far more strict, the excepts you have above are from a guide, the actual policy is at WP:NFCC you should review, 3 and 8 which highlight minimal usage and significance of each image. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Have reviewed the section, once again. The sections to which you refer state:

• 3. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  -- This item does indeed refer to multiple non-free content images but only in regard to one topic. That is not the case on the US Presidents on US postage stamps page. On that page each non-free content image is used for a different topic, a president in this case. i.e.One non-free content image per topic/president/section. Multiple non-free content images are not being used to convey the same information for one topic.

• 8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
  -- There is no issue or violation of any sort regarding this item either. Every non-free content image on the page has contextual significance and is used to discuss a separate topic entirely and therefore every such image has a legitimate fair use rationale and is not in violation of any policy you have cited, or any other that I have seen. Gwillhickers (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what's being missed is the intent behind this project and WP:NFCC. We're a free content encyclopedia, and in as much as possible while still serving our encyclopedic purpose, we limit the use of non-free images to things we must have in order to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a catalog, and we don't have to have images of every single thing within a genre in order to be encyclopedic about that thing. Going backwards from the bottom of this article, we see

• File:AMERIPEX 1986.jpg, an apparently user created montage of non-free work with is discouraged by WP:NFC. The source is inaccurate, as the source shows just one of the four panels used in this image. Used with a purpose of use in the rationale of "Philatelic. The stamps, design/artwork and/or commemoration on US postage stamps are discussed in article.", the four sentences in this section regarding (the effectively) four non-free images refers to any particular element of the image just once; in the last sentence.
• File:Ronald Reagan 2005 Issue-37c.jpg has a source of "photo". What photo? Who took it? When? The image should probably be tagged with {{nsd}}. The purpose of use is "Stamp is discussed on page". If all it took to allow non-free usage was to discuss something, there'd be absolutely no barrier to including non-free content anywhere in the project. We could liberally allow it, free of concern. Hey, it's discussed! At least in this case the stamp's design is discussed to some degree.
• File:Gerald Ford2-41c.jpg used with a purpose of use in the rationale of "Discuss stamp image on page". In the section where it is used, Ford's presidency is discusssed. Following that, there's a single sentence about when the stamp was issued. No discussion of the stamp, the image on it, or anything about it other than when it was issued. We need a non-free image for that? Hardly.
• File:Richard M Nixon 1995 Issue-32c.jpg again has a source of "photo". That isn't a valid source. The purpose of use? "To illustrate the Richard Nixon postage stamp". Again, if that's all it took to be included, there'd be no barrier to including non-free content anywhere. 'Hey, we're illustrating! Stop removing my images!' The stamp's design is discussed in exactly one sentence.

I could go on for a while here. In short, and with no disrespect, it is blatantly obvious that very little care and thought went into the selection of non-free images, adding appropriate rationales and/or sources, and actually discussing the stamp designs in such a way that we must have non-free content in order for the reader to understand the topic. There's multiple failures here across WP:NFCC. A reading of WP:NFLISTS would also be useful to those who think the images should be retained. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your original objection was that there were too many non-free content images on the page. When I point out that there is only one NFC image used per topic you then change your argument and object that the individual stamps are not discussed as much as they need to be. Also, as it says on the rational of each stamp, each stamp is used to discus that stamp, and no other non-stamp image will suffice as a substitute. Yes, more can be said about the artwork and details of some NFC images/stamps, and I would be more than happy to include more material in this area. Also, you never alluded to any acceptable number limit for non-free content images, not even an estimate. I would be interested in such a number along with the specific policy that justifies it. Meanwhile I will work to improve on the descriptions of these non-free content images in the article. As the article is quite large and is still being built it needs work in a few other areas also. Meanwhile please provide the actual specific policy I requested. Thank you. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• The discussion about original argument vs. what's being talked of now is circular, and doesn't help move forward. What matters is the points raised, regardless of in what sequence. As to a particular number, there is no particular number. Some articles could never host a single non-free image. Some can host dozens. It depends, and varies on a case by case basis, but there is always pressure to reduce usage in as much as possible. Case point: History of painting. At one time, there were more than 400 images on that article. A large number of them were non-free. There's been a lot of work to reduce that, and they've made considerable progress. The basis for this is WP:NFCC, in particular #1, #3 and #8. Also, Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy requires non-free usage to be minimal. Also, adding discussion of a stamp's design is fine, but if its done without citations it's fluff and doesn't work to solve the problem. Retrofitting an article in an attempt to retain content that shouldn't have been there in the first place isn't the way forward. If there's secondary sourcing to support notability of a particular design and why it's significant, fine, but just discussion the design without citations won't fly any further than a lead duck :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

400 images on one page?? Okay, there are practical limits to everything, of course. There is only 17 NFC images on the page in question here, each image used judiciously, one image per topic/president. And unlike that page with 400 images, this page describes the various aspects of each individual image. I can work to include more information on stamp designs, etc. Sometimes I am involved with other writing and may not get back to an item that needs attention in a timely fashion. Also, let me point out that because the stamp image is used in a philatelic capacity, as is always stated first in the image's fair use rationale, the image doesn't always need to be verbally defined in every aspect, when the image itself can do this. Aside from historical and general information (stamp issue name, date, etc) few people need a bit by bit description of a picture they are already looking at. Still in all I intend to include some of this info, as that is what I have done for most stamp images in that article. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• The point I missed making about the article with 400 is that it did have 400. It does not now. Now it has 43 non-free images. If you were to make the same % reduction here, that would drop you to two images. I'm not asking you to verbally define the image. That's pointless. Having a slavish description of the stamp will not help it pass WP:NFCC standards. If you can't have a discussion about the stamp's design without rooting in citations to secondary sources, there's no point to the discussion, and therefore no point to using a non-free image. I can't stress this point enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, so you added some description of the Grant stamp and provided a cite. The problem is the reference in the cite contains nothing sustaining any notability of the design of the stamp, such that we need to include the stamp in the article to complete the article. The reference barely even mentions Grant, and says nothing about that specific stamp. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to add more material, meanwhile I would like you to provide the exact passage that supports every expectation you are now placing on images. When you tagged the article your objection at first was too many, then later you turn around and refer to a page that is now allowed to have 43 NFC images. Now you feel that every detail of the stamp has to be defined at the site and on the Wiki'page. I mentioned the stamp design was from a photo taken by Civil War photographer Brady, the photo is colorized, designed by Mark Hess, shows Grant wearing his general's uniform, leaning on a post at his encampment, a 32-cent stamp...and this is still not good enough for you?? What exactly do you feel is missing? Again, please provide the exact passage that supports what you feel is missing from the Grant stamp. No general referrals open to interpretation please. This is your quote "contains nothing sustaining any notability of the design of the stamp". Please provide the reference for this. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers, I am trying to work with you. There is absolutely no need to get hostile. Let's just start with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That's policy. Adding material to an article doesn't start with your ideas of what is important about a particular subject, or your description of it, or anything the like. It starts with grounding articles in citations that support the text of the article. If that can't be done, then the text is likely not encyclopedic, and shouldn't be here. So you added some text and provided a cite, but the cite doesn't support your text at all. Adding material must be done with Wikipedia:Verifiability in mind. Adding non-free images to an article where there's no tie to the text, just placed because the thing is mentioned, constitutes a failure of WP:NFCC #8. You can re-quote that policy back to me if you like and once again educate me as to how this usage passes. But, I've been doing non-free enforcement for a long time now and I can tell you this is a clear violation. If we had an article about a specific stamp, then fine; including it in the article makes sense, even if there's no discussion of the stamp's appearance. Having it here, on what is effectively a list, doesn't make sense and violates WP:NFCC. No, that's not an argument for splitting out each subsection of this article into their own articles. Most of them would fail notability and be turned into redirects back to this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from unfounded accusations. My questions and reservations regarding your involvement here are just that: reservations and questions. Again, you make a generic reference to rules,(i.e. Wikipedia:Verifiability) that doesn't address my fair questions/reservations regarding the Grant stamp. I have provided much info for this stamp. Please tell me exactly what you would like to see, in addition, and support it by the exact policy quote and I will be more than happy to use this example as a model to deal with any other NFC image that may need it. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

-- Also bear in mind that all info for a stamp image does not have to come from the source of the image. Info for the stamp can come from any number of other sources. I mentioned that the stamp was modeled after a Brady photo. This info and any citation does not have to come from the source of the image. I have supplied a cite for that item, btw. Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Quibbling over policy wording is not going to be productive; the key point here is that the overall goal of the project is to have all free content, and every non-free picture takes us further from the goal rather than closer. I know you really really really want to have the images, and are willing to do whatever it takes to have them there, but be honest with yourself - are you doing it because it serves the free-content goal of the project, or are you indulging your personal desire? To take an example of a non-free image I decided to add, consider the Nixon invert; although I attempted to describe its appearance verbally, it's really difficult to comprehend the bizarrity without an image. By contrast, the Civil War Grant stamp has nothing remarkable about it; nothing about the design or production process distinguishes it from hundreds of other recent USPS issues. We simply don't have a reason to make the permanent investment that is entailed by each non-free image that WP includes. Stan (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Recommended course of action with NFC images

Well, my foremost personal desire is to build the page to its most complete state, and yes, I would do whatever it takes to do this, within rules and reason of course. All I expect is that when someone tells me that a policy is being broken that they show me that policy. So far this has not happened. Lot's of general referrals to rules, none of which have been violated or even stretched as far as I can tell. There are a few items on the page that still need a few extra cite's, but as the stamp images go I believe the fair use rationale on all NFC images on the page are in order and that the stamp image is being used for the main reason stated: Philatelic. to show the president, artwork etc on a particular stamp. Okay, Stan, what do you suggest be done here? Eliminate a few, some, all, NFC's images in that article? Eventually I want to make the article a GA or FA so I may as well swallow the difficult medicine now, that is, if I must. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers, I've desperately tried to show you the basis in policy. I've completely failed to do so. I'll try one more time (below). More than myself have been telling you that this page is in violation of our guidelines and policies, and you've been shown how. Yet, you remain adamant that we are all wrong, that your interpretation of policy is correct, and we've done nothing to prove you wrong. Δ's long experienced in these issues, and across two accounts has ~100,000 edits. Stan is a bureaucrat and an administrator. He's got ~50,000 edits and has a declared interest in stamp collecting, which of course is highly relevant to this article. I've got long experience in NFC issues. You've been here less than a year and have about 10k edits. I'm NOT saying your opinion is any less valuable because of less experience. I'm a very firm believer that an editor making their first edit here has every bit as much say in things as someone who's been here from the beginning. But, I do raise the comparison so you understand that we're not just blowing smoke here. We speak from long experience on this issue. I'm sorry that three of us, with such experience, have been unable to make it clear to you how this article is failing our WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline.

• Now, for my last attempt. We do not use non-free imagery of N whenever N is mentioned. Why? Because WP:NFCC #3 on minimal usage, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy which requires non-free media to be used as little as possible. Instead, if there is an article about N, we place a link to article N, and host the non-free image of N there. That reduces the burden of non-free usage across the project. We maintain lists of files that are used more than five times, and are constantly working to reduce those usages to comply with this policy and the Foundation's stance on the issue (see list). Now, if article N does not exist, that does not create a loop hole where N can be used anytime it's mentioned. If N isn't notable enough to have its own article, there's precious little justification for including the image in the first place. This is why WP:NFLISTS exists. The use of N where article N does not exist and N is mentioned creates a failure of WP:NFCC #8. If it isn't notable enough for its own article, it's not significant. This is just one of a dizzying array of ways in which non-free media can fail WP:NFCC #8. In this particular case, we have this article which is a compilation of all US postage stamps that have US presidents on them. Whether you want to call this a list or not is semantics and would miss the point. We have dozens of subsections in this article. Each of these discusses a particular issue. Illustrating each subsection of the article with media is fine; with non-free media, it's not fine for the reasons I outlined above.
• When looking to include non-free content, the appropriate perspective is not to look at all the policies and guidelines with a view towards finding a statement that would seem to permit the usage. The appropriate view is to see if there is anything amongst the policies and guidelines that can be construed as not allowing the use. If there is, the usage is most likely not permitted. In the least, questions should be asked as to appropriateness. The opposite approach is to include the media because you think you found a statement that allows it, and then challenge anyone to come up with a reason to remove it, a reason that you insist must make sense to you. Yet, three people have tried to do just that here, and you've remained judge of that and claim we have failed, and thus the content is allowed. I could be equally combative about this. I could rewrite the article, dropping much of the uncited material, pushing much of into tables (which probably makes sense for much of these) and stripping out most if not all of the non-free content. My guess is, and forgive the guess please, you would revert that change and demand we show something in policy and guideline that supports us doing that. Be honest with yourself (you don't have to answer); is that what you think you would do? Here's another policy to think about WP:OWN.
• While this discussion is going on, I certainly won't be revamping this article. But, whether it be me or somebody else, it will eventually be revamped to be more encyclopedic. If you doubt this would happen, propose this article as a featured article. You can nominate it by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. I will guarantee you this article will be savaged in such a review. It has massive failings, and not just in non-free content.
• So your choice; believe you are absolutely correct, and three editors with a combined experience far, far exceeding your own are absolutely wrong. Or, consider the possibility that you just might be wrong. Your move. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the images in question do satisfy the objective criteria in WP:NFCC, and the question at hand is whether they also satisfy the more-subjective criteria of NFCC, plus the guidelines that we've evolved in the hopes of not having to have the same debates over and over. This particular case is unprecedented for WP, as it has the most non-free stamp images in any philatelic article - and yet if it were a magazine article, it has about the right number.

So we have to think about what the criteria ought to be for a philatelic article whose topic encompasses a large number of copyrighted stamps. Would 3 non-free stamps qualify as "minimal", or 33? If each could be justified in a separate article, why not when glued into one longer article? I don't know the answer, not well enough to write a project-specific guideline anyway, but my intuition says that 3-5 is about right for this one. There should be one that demonstrates the modern style for an earlier President (Washington 250th or Lincoln 200th for instance), one that demonstrates a consciously retro style (Polk 1995, or Washington&Jackson), and one or two for the recent Presidents not seen on free stamps. Non-free images do get black marks in FA evaluation, but the small number, each as an exemplar of trend, would get by. Stan (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stan. And 3 to 5 non-free images would really be a good number in this case. We have had somewhat similar discussions in Russian Wikipedia, since there is the same policy of minimal use for NFCC files there. And the overall conclusion is in favor of staying with a few non-free stamps, if any and if enough justified, per article. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft, thank you for taking the time to be diplomatic and with helping me in this matter. As Stan might tell you, I have gone along with consensus (sometimes reluctantly) more times than I care to count, so it's not that I can't take advice. However, you might want to consider your approach next time. Mind you that you first came in and tagged the article for having too many NFC's and then turned around and referred to an article that is allowed to have 43 NFC's, so at that point I was inclined to believe that you were just another bot-brain running around placing tags and making deletions with no real set of principles guiding your activity. This of course was and is the wrong notion. As edits go, I made my first edit in October of 2006 under a different user name (password lost then later found) and have been reading Wiki' history articles since they first started showing up in search results ten years ago, so at this point I am somewhat familiar with Wikipedia, editing and policy, however I am still a little confused as to what course of action should be taken now. Are multiple NFC's (for different topics) allowed on one page or not? And what number? Again, the article you referred to is allowed to have 43, the US Presidents stamp page has 17, one per topic/president. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft, regarding another item you brought up, I have indeed submitted the article for FA review and I was informed that a few of the NFC images needed to have their fair-use worked on a bit. No mention was made of too many or anything that even suggested this. There were 16 NFC's on the page during its FA review. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stan, at this point I am ready to remove some of the NFC's if it is absolutely necessary, however you bring up a good point. "If each could be justified in a separate article, why not when glued into one longer article? ", Again, each NFC I uploaded/used has a sound fair-use rationale and is used for one topic/president. At this point I am thinking of keeping the NFC's for Washington, Lincoln, Grant and for those presidents who only appear on a NFC image, like Johnson, Ford, Reagan and Nixon. If there is any way to keep the other NFC's without causing issues I would certainly like to hear about it. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Davis

I figured that we should mention the Jeff Davis stamp from 1995. He wasn't a US president, but he shouldn't have been on a stamp either. But he was, so I decided to give it a mention between Buchanan and Lincoln. BTW, Buchanan and Nixon didn't deserve stamps either, but there you goEricl (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for a rewrite of the intro

¶The introduction contains a great many arguable statements and word-misusages, and needs to be thoroughly rewritten. I have twice done so, but the original has been reinstated, the last time with the objection that the changes were made with out discussion.

• Opinion. If there are "arguable statements and word-misusages" then you'll need to present facts, backed by reliable sources, that confirms your opinion is anything more than that. As for "word-misusages" this is yet another highly opinionated claim. Unless you can cite factual errors this also remains in the real of opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

¶Below, phrase by phrase, I have pasted the current version and identified inadequacies in the writing that need to be corrected:

• As you have made many highly opinionated claims I have inserted my comments under the corresponding claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For more than 160 years the one subject that has appeared most frequently on the face of U.S. Postage stamps is that of American Presidents.

¶This is highly arguable. It was unquestionably true during the first twenty-two years of US Postage stamp issue. It is demonstrably untrue for the many many stamps issued since 1965, on which presidents have seldom appeared.

• Opinion. Presidents remain the most used theme compared to any other to date. No other single theme (e.g.singers, scientists, doctors, actors, etc) is used near as much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

When the U.S. Post Office released its first two postage stamps in 1847, George Washington, along with Benjamin Franklin, were the two subjects depicted on these premier issues.

¶This is illiterate. The phrase “along with” syntactically removes Franklin from the subject. As a result, the subject is simply “George Washington,” which requires the singular verb “was.” What you meant to say was “George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were the two subjects…” Also, the phrase “these premier issues” is a redundancy of the clumsiest sort. It should be replaced by the word “them,” which fully does the job. If you need the link, it should be placed on the words “first two postage stamps.”

• 'Highly opinionated and your choice of words and tone is confrontational and almost hostile. Please familiarize yourself in the ways of discussion here at Wikipedia. If you want other people to listen to you then you should learn how to have a conversation without dictating your opinion and talking down to others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The advent of Presidents on postage stamps has been definitive to U.S. Postage stamp design since the first issues were released and set the premise that U.S. stamp designs would follow for many generations.

¶Both the words “advent” and “definitive” are misused, and would be insufferably pretentious even if they were properly used.

• More opinion on grammar usage. At this point you will need to cite Wikipedia policy violations if you wish to make sweeping and opinionated changes to an article that has remained stable and accepatable to thousands of readers for almost three years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The paper postage stamp itself was born of utility, as something unique and simple to use was needed to confirm that postage had been paid for an item of mail. They were convenient and as a product of a fine engraving they were almost impossible to forge adequately.

• I am confident most half way intelligent readers do not need a detailed explanation as to why a postage stamp is unique and simple to use. It seems you are just looking for trouble. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

¶The first sentence is oversimplified, as well as arguable (why was something “unique” needed?). At the beginning of the second sentence “they” is misused, since there is no plural verb in the first sentence. “They” in this sort of usage must always refer to subject specifically named earlier. If you mean “Stamps were convenient,” say so. “Forge adequately” is tautological and thus amateurish as writing. (What would be the value of forging stamps inadequately?)

• The lede section is supposed to be a summary and written in simplified terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the theme inscribed upon postage and the honors and efforts that have brought it to bear as a U.S. Postage issue is what defines that issue in ways beyond the physical postage stamp.

¶This sentence is meaningless as written. What you mean to say is that there is some kind of ideological motivation behind the choice of stamp subjects, and that examining that motivation tells us something about the spirit of the age in which the stamp was issued.

• More opinion. The sentence carries definitive meaning. Apparently it's difficult for you to understand that the subject on the stamp makes it something that people regard as more than a physical object, and hence is why it is collected by many thousands of collectors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There exist entire series of stamp issues whose printing was inspired by the subject alone.

¶What subject? If you mean the subject of presidents, say so. Also, no stamp series has been devoted ENTIRELY to presidents, not even the Prexies of 1838 and the Ameripex sheets.

• What subject?? Oh my goodness, this is getting ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The portrayals of Washington and Franklin on U.S. Postage are among the most definitive of examples and have appeared on numerous postage stamps.

¶“Definitive” is misused. “Portrayals” is also misused. “Portrayals” do not appear: a “portrayal” is an appearance of a portrait, or an enactment or impersonation of a subject.

The presidential theme in stamp designs would continue as the decades passed, each period issuing stamps with variations of the same basic presidential-portrait design theme. The portrayals of U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage has remained a significant subject and design theme on definitive postage throughout most of U.S. stamp issuance history. [1] [2]

The engraved portrayals of U.S. Presidents was the exclusive design and theme found on U.S. postage from 1847 until 1869, with the one exception of Benjamin Franklin, the likes of whom was presidential in his aspect to many people.

¶“The likes of whom” is poor writing. Moreover, you over-simplify the history of how presidential images were chosen for stamps, and how they became a dominant subject over the years. It did not happen immediately, but came about in these stages: 1. 1847-1855. Washington (first president) and Franklin (founder of the US Post Office). 2. 1856-1868. Washington (five images) and Franklin (two images), with several other presidents gradually added. 3. 1870 and after. About half the stamps Washington and other presidents; the other half Franklin and other statesmen.

• Opinion More preoccupation with grammar and writing style than with facts and definitive content. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Twenty two years would pass as the U.S. Post Office continued to issue various postage stamps bearing the depictions of George Washington foremost, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, who didn't appear until 1866, one year after his death.

¶“Foremost” is vague writing. I suppose you mean that there are more images of Washington than of the others, but “foremost” doesn’t do it. “Didn’t” is unacceptably informal for an encyclopedia entry.

• Opinion -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

After twenty two years of issuing stamps with only American Presidents and Franklin, the Post Office [3] in 1869 issued a series of eleven postage stamps that were generally regarded by the American public as being abruptly different from the previous issues and whose designs were considered at the time to be a break from the tradition of honoring American forefathers on the nation's postage stamps.

¶“Generally regarded” and “considered at the time to be” are confused writing. There is no question whatever that the stamps were “abruptly different” and that the designs were a “break from the tradition.” They were not only regarded that way “at the time.” What you meant to say was that, because of these differences, the general public objected to the stamps.

• Uninformed opinion. The designs were indeed a sudden change. Hence "abruptly different" -- and the public was also indifferent to such changes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

These new issues had other non presidential subjects and a design style that was also different, one issue bearing a horse, another a locomotive while others were depicted with nonpresidential themes.

¶“Depicted” is misused in this context. To say the issues “were depicted” is to say that nonpresidential themes that represented stamps (“depicted” stamps) were placed on the stamps. Moreover, it is not good writing to say that “themes” are “depicted.” A “depiction” is a specific visual image: one can “depict” a president, but it is wrong to say that an image can, say “depict” patriotism. What you meant to say was “others reflected nonpresidential themes.”

Washington and Lincoln were to be found only once in this series of eleven stamps and were also considered to be below par in design and image quality. As a result this pictographic series was met with general disdain and proved so unpopular that the issues were consequently sold for only one year where remaining stocks were pulled from post offices across the United States. [2][4] [5]

¶The first sentence inadvertantly says that Washington and Lincoln, as human beings, were “below par.” What you meant was “…and their images were considered below par in design and quality.” It is questionable, however, whether a phrase such as “below par” belongs in an encyclopedia entry.

¶“Where” is misused in the last sentence. You mean “after which time.”

In 1870 the U.S. Post Office resumed its short lived tradition of printing postage with the portraits of American Presidents and Franklin but now added several other famous Americans, including Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Alexander Hamilton and General Winfield Scott among other notable Americans. [1] [2]Indeed, the balance had now shifted somewhat; for of the ten stamps issued in 1870, only four offered presidential images. Moreover presidents also appeared on less than half of the denominations in the definitive sets of 1890, 1917, 1954 and 1965, while occupying only a slight majority of values in the definitive issues of 1894-98, 1902 and 1922-25. Presidential images did, however, overwhelmingly dominate the definitive sets released in 1908 and 1938: on the former, 10 of the 11 stamps offered the same image of Washington, while in the 1938 “prexies” series, 29 of the 32 stamps presented busts of presidents. The 1975 Americana Series marked a clear end to this tradition, being the first U. S. definitive issue on which no presidential portrait appeared; and presidents played only a minor role in the subsequent Great Americans series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.21.226 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yet other presidential stamps continued to follow, including an entire set that appeared in 1986, while other presidents continued to appear in 1995, 2006 and 2007. To date, no other single theme is used more on US postage stamps than presidents. If there is, please mention it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

U.S. presidents on U.S. postage stamps → U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps – Need to restore the original name, with Presidents in capital letters as 'US President' is an official title even in its plural form. i.e.He was a U.S. President. -- They were all U.S. Presidents. Gwillhickers 10:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:JOBTITLES. "President of the United States" may be treated as an "official title" and quasi-proper noun, but "U.S. president" is not. Deor (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The term US President can be used generically or officially. This page addresses the official usage. It addresses US Presidents specifically as Presidents, and individually as Presidents. i.e. They were all US Presidents. They are not being addressed "generically". Plural usage by itself doesn't make the term generic when the title/position itself is the subject of the article, regardless if we use POTUS or US President. -- Gwillhickers 21:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, in "U.S. president" the president is not capitalized in any usage, just as in "the French king Louis XVI" and "Roman emperors of the first century A.D." the names of the offices are not capitalized. Deor (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – there is no good reason to regard this generic term as a proper name or proper noun, even when it is "official". Only when it is attached to a name, like "President Nixon". Consider the evidence in books, where many of the capitalized usages are in titles and headings, yet the majority by far are still lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No GA nomination?

I landed here while working a New York Times crossword ("Like a 1938 Andrew Jackson stamp", nine letters). My immediate reaction was, wow. Why isn't this article up for GA? Mandruss (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Image of George Washington

I removed the statement in the caption to the image at right:

As there are no photographs of Washington and his portraits usually hang in halls or museums, or tucked away in history books, this is the profile, found on several issues of U.S. postage stamps, that most Americans came to know Washington's appearance by.

The problems with this statement are:

1. This is not the first image of Washington to appear on a U.S. stamp, nor was it the last. Different portraits of George Washington had appeared on U.S. stamps before and would do so later.
2. Washington's portrait had also appeared on the United States one-dollar bill at various times starting in 1869, and has appeared on the quarter since 1932. Hence, Americans also have had the opportunity to learn what Washington looked like by looking at their money. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Likely mistake

"In 1930, at the request of the widowed Mrs. Harding, the Post Office issued a new Harding 1-1/2c issue whose full faced portrait replaced the 1-1/2c issue with his profile.["

Mrs. Harding died in 1924.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)