This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The result of the proposal was No move. Cúchullain t/ c 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
List of Presidents of the United States → List of presidents of the United States – Per WP:CAPS and WP:JOBTITLES and MOS:CAPS, there's no need to capitalize the generic term "president" when it's not attached to the name of, or referring to, an individual; in the plural form, it certainly is not. This is fixed in Category:Lists of presidents of organizations, but when some articles were fixed in Category:Lists of presidents, some editors pointed to this one as precedent to keep the capitalization on others. It makes more sense to achieve uniformity by conforming to WP style than by going the other direction. If we start here, the others should be easy. Alternatively, if there's something special about "Presidents of the United States", we should acknowledge that (but there doesn't seem to be, as lower case in that phrase in very common in books). Dicklyon ( talk) 06:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is "President" a proper name? Is "President of the United States" a proper name? Those are are asserting "it's a proper name" would do well to clarify which they mean, and provide support in terms of sources, since MOS:CAPS says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." I have proposed this move because I don't see consistent capitalization in sources. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: We have
Holy Roman Emperor and we do not place the "Emperor" there in lower case, even though "emperor" by itself is not a proper noun. the full title is a proper noun. We also have
Vice President of the United States as an article. There is no need for this useless "title change" nonsense where so many articles could equally be brought into the fray <g>. All I can think of is the thousands of words on the "hyphen v. n-dash" uselessness. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
15:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Those who argue from their own opinions of aesthetics should clarify how that is relevant here, relative to policies and guidelines such as WP:CAPS and MOS:CAPS and WP:JOBTITLES. Otherwise, their opinions add nothing relevant to the considerations. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"President of the United States" is, in fact, a specific person at any point in time, and is generally capitalized. CMOS disagrees, but that it not binding where others capitalize the title. Where the office is indicated, the word "president" is not capitalized on its own in any MOS. Thus one writes "The powers of the president of the United States are defined in the Constitution" every time. Of course, I think it might be nice to add all the "presidents of the United States in Congress assembled" starting with Hanson. Care to add him? Collect ( talk) 12:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
From the beginning, Wikipedia has always been the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However, some people have been creating mountains of rules and guidelines. It is grossly contradictory to say "... anyone can edit" and then add "... provided they learn and follow all the zillion policies, discuss what they want to do on talk pages, and get permission from the Grammar Gods". It's like starting with Orwell's "All the Animals are Equal" slogan and adding "but Some Animals are More Equal than Others". One person has suggested that the best way to fix Wikipedia would be to scrap the MoS—it's just too big and unwieldy. The most ridiculous aspect of MoS is the lengthy discussions of topics like "en-dash vs. hyphen". It's extremely difficult or even impossible for most people to see the difference, so a clear distinction needs to be drawn between essential rules and mere recommendations. The only justification for representing that something is a rule rather than just a recommendation or guideline is surely that (1) it's not controversial, (2) it will significantly improve the perceived quality of Wikipedia, as seen by real users, and (3) the rule is simple enough to be understood and remembered by a majority of Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia is a diverse community that depends on cooperation, so one of the most important rules is "no fighting". Any topic or "rule" (like capitalization of List of Past Presidents of [country]) that is controversial enough to upset considerable numbers of real users—and result in edit wars for years to come—needs to be avoided or handled gently as a special case. LittleBen ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Other examples: Include the term "Chief Justice" generally internationally and also in US usage - where the term is capitalised generally also on Wikipedia, including general articles and in lists. The argument that "President of the United States" when referring to specific people, rather than the office in the Constitution, should be lc fails on that directly. Collect ( talk) 12:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
In the article, it reads "Since the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1951, no person may be elected to the office of President (or Vice President) who has already served at least six years as President" (first paragraph). However, in the 22nd amendment, it says that no one should be elected twice and not that no one should be elected if he/she has already served six years (cf. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/22nd_Amendment_Pg1of1_AC.jpg). Name1234567890 ( talk) 19:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What Name1234567890 said! This article used to incorrectly talk about the 22nd ammendment limiting someone to ten years in office. I pointed out (on the talk page) that that's wrong, and suggested language (that was then used) to correctly reflect the limitations imposed by the 22nd ammendment -- that you can't be elected more than twice, and you can't be elected more than once if you've served more than two years of a term that someone else was elected to. So why was it changed to this "six years" construction, which is not what the Ammendment says? Get back to the accurate description of what the 22nd ammendment says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 ( talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I should note that the article as currently written is wrong. Suppose: (1) Mr. A gets elected Vicen President; (2) The President dies 1/2 year into the term; (3) Mr. A succeeds to the presidency and serves the remaining 3 1/2 years of the term; (4) instead of running for President, Mr. A runs again for the Vice Presidency and gets elected; (5) The President dies 1/2 year into the term; (6) Mr. A succeeds to the presidency and serves the remaining 3 1/2 years of the term.
After that, Mr. A is still eligible to be elected President even though he has served 7 years.
So fix the darn article. There had been good wording that correctly reflected the 22nd Ammendment. I don't understand why that correct language was replaced by incorrect language. Geez! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 ( talk) 20:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In the Articles of Confederation the term president is mentioned only once, as head of the committee which acted on behalf of Congress when that body was not in session. The person was elected to preside over that committee and was therefore not actually President of the Congress. CharmsDad ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement in the first paragraph that "Since the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1951, no person may be elected to the office of President (or Vice President) who has already served at least six years as President (whether he or she was elected as President or succeeded to the office of President upon death, resignation, or removal of a prior President): is incorrect. Remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 ( talk) 00:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll explain it. But you have me wondering if you actually read the 22nd Ammendment?
It's wrong because that's not what the 22nd ammendment says. The relevant part of the Ammendment says: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Now, I realize that that six-year language you have in the article is based on the idea of someone completing serving two or more years of someone else's term and then being elected once. That person is inelgible to be re-elected -- but his ineligibility does not result from serving six years. In fact, if he resigned after being elected, and only served the two years of someone else's term, he would still be ineligible to be elected a second time.
Or, look at it this way. Suppose the following (admittedly unlikely) sequence of events occurs: 1) Mr. A is elected Vice President. 2) The President dies a week into the term. 3) Mr. A succeeds to the Presidency and serves four years (minus one week). 4) Mr. A does not run for the presidency, but instead runs again for the Vice Presidency and wins 5) Again, the president dies a week into the term. 6) Mr. A again succeeds to the Presidency and serves another four years (minus one week).
Under the above scenario, Mr. A is still eligible to be elected President (since there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it). But the article, as written, says that he is ineligible because he has served more than six years.
Getting away from all that, wouldn't it be best to simply have the article state what the actual restrictions are? Something like: "Since the ratification of the 22nd Ammendment to the United States Constitution in 1951, no person may be elected President more than twice. Furthermore, no one who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected may be elected more than once."
What's amazing here is that I've gone through this before. There was a time when this article had incorrect language stating that a person couldn't serve more than ten years. I pointed out that that was wrong, and suggested a change. The change was made, and for a time the article was correct. I have no idea why you guys went in and replaced correct language (no one can be elected more than twice) with incorrect language (no one who served at least six years can be elected).
I'll also note that this was pointed out above (in the "22nd Ammendment" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.173.103 ( talk) 04:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't have at it. The page is locke for editing. Something about edit wars between partisans on both sides of the aisle around the time Obama took over from Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 ( talk) 13:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 ( talk) 11:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Since the color code reflects the presidential political party, why don't we apply it to the background color of the "Party" column instead of the chronological "No." column? Like this:
No. [n 1] |
President | Took office | Left office | Party | Term [n 1] |
Vice President | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
George Washington (1732–1799) [1] [2] [3] |
April 30, 1789 | March 4, 1797 | no party | 1 ( 1789) | John Adams | ||
2 ( 1792) | ||||||||
2 |
John Adams (1735–1826) [4] [5] [6] |
March 4, 1797 | March 4, 1801 | Federalist | 3 ( 1796) | Thomas Jefferson | ||
3 |
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) [7] [8] [9] |
March 4, 1801 | March 4, 1809 |
Democratic- Republican |
4 ( 1800) | Aaron Burr | ||
5 ( 1804) | George Clinton |
Hoof Hearted ( talk) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we get a better (painted) image of Obama? The current pic sticks out like a sore thumb. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη ( talk) 19:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Left office" column, for Obama, it lists "January 20, 2017". I suggest that this be changed to read: "Incumbent (term ends January 20, 2017)".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmorearty ( talk • contribs) 7 November 2012
Having "office" as the column heading is rather vague, it seems like having "profession" or something like "prior occupation" would be less vague. Also, having it right after the information on the vice presidents makes it even less clear that this is referring to information about the president.
JonathanGodwin ( talk) 14:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) JonathanGodwin ( talk) 09:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Would such a section be a problem? Clinton, Bush & Obama are the first 3 consecutive US Presidents to win reelection, since Jefferson, Madison & Monroe. Of course, should Obama serve out his second term, they'll become the first 3 consecutive US Presidents to serve two complete terms, since Jefferson/Madison/Monroe. GoodDay ( talk) 01:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
There's an error regarding most of these pages that most people wouldn't know about. Even before the first death in office, a man does not become president until they are sworn in. So on April 5, 1841 and March 4, 1849, the office of president was vacant since the successor was not yet sworn into office. You can count those days to those persons, but you should at least include a note about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.51.3 ( talk) 23:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
did President Cleveland got 2 painted official portraits? because of his non consecutive terms like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Grover_Cleveland%2C_painting_by_Anders_Zorn.jpg
which is different than the one portrait on this page.-- 76.106.45.248 ( talk) 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I know the issue of adding a Home State column to this list has been discussed before and the issue has either gone unresolved or the decision has been made to not include the home state of the presidents as a column in this list, since in some cases, the home state can be a fuzzy definition (is it state of birth, state of residency, etc). But I think an unambiguous addition to the list could be the person's last political (or otherwise) job before attaining the presidency (Senator of state XX? Governor of YY? Representative? Vice-President? Etc). Phloyd ( talk) 08:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
the home state is the one the president was representing or living most of his life like Obama count as a President from Illinois and not Hawaii, or the first Bush count as a president from texas rather than Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_birth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_primary_affiliation
-- 76.106.45.248 ( talk) 22:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The footnote to the right of him says that he had no office held prior to being President. The footnote furthers this by saying he was a "soldier" and makes it seem as if he came off the street and became President. In fact, he was a general in the army and served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Other military generals who proceeded to become President are marked as such, and it should say that Taylor was a general in the army versus saying "none". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.193.102 ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1781-1782: John Hanson served on the congress and then was elected president in 1781, making him the first elected president. George Washington himself congratulated him on being the first president after his election. Each term was 1 year until George Washington took an 8 year term.
1782-1783: Elias Boudinot(1740-1821) was a congressman from New Jersey
1783-1784: Thomas Mifflin(1744-1800) was a congressman from Pennsylvania, Speaker of Pennsylvania's House of Representatives, President of Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council, and a Major General in the Continental Army.
1784-1785: Richard Henry Lee(1732-1794) was a Senator from Virgina that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
1785-1786: John Hancock(1737-1793) is famous for signing the Decoration of Independence with a very large signature. He was the first governor of Massachusetts.
June to November 1786: Nathaniel Gorham(1738-1796)served a short term and was more into Massachusetts Court.
1786: Arthur St. Clair(1734-1818) He became a Major General in the revolutionary war but lost his title after a bad retreat. He was appointed Governor of the Northwest Territory but disputes with Native Americans created a war and in 1791 he had the worst loss of Americans against Native Americans. He died in poverty.
1788 Cyrus Griffin(1736-1796): He resigned after the ratification of the US consitution made the old congress obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.207.234 ( talk) 05:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Adams did not win the electoral college vote, in 1824. In fact nobody won that vote in 1824, as nobody got a majority. Adams was selected President by the US. House of Representatives. Therefore, I'm removing Adams from the paragraph-in-queston. GoodDay ( talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Only 17 Presidents have been elected to the Presidency more than once (all twice, except Franklin D Roosevelt),
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Dwight D Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama.
Should this not be included in the article? This includes Grover Cleveland, who served two non-consecutive terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillParker1979 ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vice President Joe Biden's Senate Service is incorrect in "List of Presidents of The United States" wiki. It should be 1973-2009, not 2005-2009. 98.144.35.151 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC) [1] 98.144.35.151 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Permit me to second the concern about the columns. Yes, the headings are lost off the top of the screen when you scroll down far enough, and there is confusion about that "Previous Service" column (referring to the President) in its present location due to the presence of a different individual's name (the Vice President) just left of there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I will submit an edit request, because the message you are reading is under the heading of an edit request which was not done. Is there a way of indicating "declined" for the above (Jan. 21) request?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In referring to FDR, I have found:
"He is the only president to serve more than two terms and a constitutional amendment was passed to prevent that from reoccurring."
The suggested change is at the end of the item you are reading. First, let me explain:
This obviously refers to the 22nd amendment, but that amendment does not prevent all possible cases of serving more than 2 terms. At the end of his term on 20 Jan. 1969, Lyndon Johnson had served 1 full term and also the last 14 month's of J.F.K.'s unexpired term; AND L.B.J. (who had chosen not to run in 1968) was still legally eligible to be elected President once more. If, in addition, he had served a full term starting 20 Jan. 1969, he would have served more than 2 terms (would have been 2 terms plus those 14 months).
So try this in place of what I quoted earlier:
"He is the only president to serve more than two terms, and a constitutional amendment, affecting presidents after Harry Truman, was passed to limit the number of times an indivdual can be elected president."
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Here is a summary of what I know about efforts to exceed what has since taken effect per 22nd Amendment:
-- Grant, after his 2 terms (1869-1877), sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1880, but that ended up going to Garfield.
-- Teddy Roosevelt served all but about 6 months of McKinley's unexpired 2nd term, then followed this with a full term. TR then ran in 1912 on what we know as the "Bull Moose" ticket, and I have seen it on Wikipedia that he was being considered for 1920 Republican presidential nomination, but this was nixed by his death in 1919. (That 1920 nomination went to Harding, whose campaign was for "return to normalcy".)
-- Truman started a run in 1952 but dropped out after poor showing in New Hampshire primary.
So FDR is the only person ever to exceed the limits now specified in 22nd Amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove President from the 'previous office held' columns, for the reelected Presidents. It might be confusing readers. GoodDay ( talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
On Jan. 25, 2013, I do NOT see President in "Previous Office" column, except for the 1893-1897 presidency of Grover Cleveland (remember he had 2 non-consecutive terms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Notes, I find:
"For the purposes of numbering, a presidency is defined as an uninterupted ..."
OK, but please fix the spelling of "uninterrupted".
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In reading the edit request for Jan. 21 (a request which was declined), there was concern noted about the columns. Thus, I am submitting the request you are reading:
Please move the Vice President column, together with the color stripe indicating the party the VP was from, to the far right, changing places with the Previous Office column, and adjust the column headers accordingly.
(The person who submitted the Jan. 21 request was (understandably) confused by seeing the reference to President Obama's U.S. Senate service and thinking it was that of Vice President Biden. It wasn't helping matters that the column headers are lost off the top of the screen when you scroll as far down as President Obama.)
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the recurring requests in this article's feedback is for a list of achievements, or highlights during a president's term. I had dismissed this as being too detailed for an overview summary list like this, and potentially introducing some non-neutrality. But I notice they do that fairly well on the UK Prime Minister list. Do you think we could do something like that here? Hoof Hearted ( talk) 16:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
What about Atchison, who was perhaps acting president on March 4, 1849. While the claim is weak, I still think it should be noted as an aside. 202.179.19.24 ( talk) 13:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking the Vacant footnotes in the VP column under Nixon and Ford should be different than the ones used above that (n 3) as these occurred post-ratification of the 25th Amendment which is the "explanation" for these vacancies. I'm not the best with finding official wording, but perhaps something along the lines of the fact that the successor to the VP had not yet been named or was awaiting confirmation or something along those lines? It would make more sense to me than continuing the same spiel about how there was no mechanism for filling the void when the mechanism was in fact in place? Just a thought, something for those more involved in this article to look into. → ClarkCT Talk @ 09:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is so disappointing to see such a mistake in the title of an article as prominent as this one and even worse to see such a mistake defended in a move discussion. It truly makes Wikipedia look amateurish. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have three citations for each president? Wouldn't it suffice to have one or two for the list as a whole? There isn't exactly great controversy over whether Rutherford B. Hayes was ever the President of the United States. — TORTOISE WRATH 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the name of President Clinton to William J Clinton instead of Bill Clinton. Jpc-kings ( talk) 02:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter is also alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.145.166 ( talk) 18:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Could Wikipedia create an article about the former presidential candidates as well as Third-Party candidates?
Barack is an IDIOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.15.140 ( talk) 18:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Harry Truman's middle name is S Therefore there should not be a "." after the S and his name should read as follows "Harry S Truman" not as "Harry S. Truman" Tsombanj ( talk) 23:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you make "list states" by president (similar by vice president)? Akuindo ( talk) 13:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did someone replace the official White House portraits of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton with photographs of them instead? Is it because of a technical problem? I think the official portraits should be given for each president who has one (only George W. Bush and Barack Obama don't, as far as I know) - they provide a consistency in the representation of presidents on this page. Otherwise, there'd be no system to it - so why not just pick any old image for any of the presidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.143.103 ( talk) 11:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
actually George W. Bush have a portrait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PresidentGWB_OfficialPortrait.jpg http://www.npg.si.edu/collect/bushportraits.htm 24.50.192.181 ( talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I know there's been a lot of confusion about this, but that's not the official White House portrait (which hasn't been unveiled yet and might not be for several more years). According to the Wikipedia article on presidential portraits, "The official White House portrait of George W. Bush has not yet been unveiled. However, Bush's portrait for the National Portrait Gallery was uncharacteristically released several weeks before his administration had ended. Painted by Robert A. Anderson, it was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. on December 19, 2008. President Bush jokingly opened the unveiling with 'Welcome to my hanging', resulting in the room erupting in laughter. This was an official portrait commissioned by the White House, but funded by private donorship." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_portrait_(United_States)#George_W._Bush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.143.103 ( talk) 08:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
How about a picture of George W. Bush in a jacket and tie? I know that's an official portrait, but it (unfairly in my opinion) makes GWB look like the odd man out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.41.93 ( talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
yeah the official one got revealed today.-- 24.50.192.181 ( talk) 23:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Somebody's arbitrarily changed Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton to photographs now as well. I don't know why some people can't leave well alone - the official White House portraits work very well as a consistent way to represent the presidents in the list because they *all* have a White House portrait (except for the sitting president, who has an official photograph). If you change Reagan through Bush 43 to photos, then there's no reason why any of the other presidents should be represented by their official portraits either. Either change it back and be consistent, or just have an "anything goes" policy where users can upload their favourite photos of each president and it changes all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.216.30 ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
There are a few entries that have the term "mint note portrait" followed by a dollar amount: Washington, Jefferson, Harrison, Clinton, and Obama. I tried looking the term up, but that exact phrase only seems to show up on this page. Does this term mean anything and if so, should the meaning be explained somewhere on the page?
daikiki 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikiki ( talk • contribs)
Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm very much mistaken, Obama is not "of African-American descent". His mother was a white American, and his father a black Kenyan who, as far as I'm aware, never obtained US citizenship. Therefore Obama is African-American himself, but his ancestors were not. This point has been raised a couple of times above on this talk page, but without receiving any response. Unless anyone has any objection, I'll rephrase that part of the lede in a few days. Aridd ( talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"His mother was a white American, and his father a black Kenyan" If you allow for literal use of the phrase "African-American" then he would be, by definition, of African-American descent. If your father is Spanish and mother is Irish you would be of "Spanish-Irish" descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.41.93 ( talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a flat-out lie to call him the first "non-white president" when he is in fact half white.
The sentence " Barack Obama, is the only president of African descent.[10]" is conjecture at best. Change the word "only" to "first". The way "only" is being used implies there will not be another. The revised sentence will read " Barack Obama, is the first president of African descent.[10]" It is noted that George Washington is counted as the "first" president. Tyler is the "first" vice president to assume the presidency. Warren Harding was the "first" elected after women gained voting rights. Dwight Eisenhower is the "first" president to have been legally prohibited from seeking a third term. The election of the first president of African descent is a place-mark in the history of the presidency and deserves to be noted accordingly as "first". JohnnyClubs ( talk) 13:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
African descent?? SMH. Trying to influence history using clever wording. He is the first African-American President or the first Black President! FYI: all the people claiming he is Half 1/2 white would be calling him Black "or something worse in private" if he wasn't the president #FACT. What are they trying to do with using "African descent" is Take away from the fact that he is the First Black/African American president, and I'm pretty sure the editors push it are a little racist "yes I pull that card". FYI: Obama referred to himself numerous time as a African American/Black.
FYI: I'm republican and I hate Obama, but the truth is the truth. And we can't let people with an Agenda push their Point of view as Fact I'm recommending the word be changed back, the wording African Descent is disingenuous!
First time I have looked at this article and I thought it had been vandalised, did adding the color-fest File:PartyVotes-Presidents.png actually have any relevance to the list and did it have a consensus or is it some sort of attack on the visual arts or some sort of protest against WP:ACCESS. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC
I agree whole-heartedly with Hoof Hearted and MilborneOne. If you must keep the Blue stars on the Red Presidents, then you must add Red stars to the Blue Presidents elected without a majority of the vote. This would include almost half of the Democratic Presidents: Polk, Buchanan, Johnson (not elected at all), Cleveland, Wilson, Truman, and Clinton. Olsonjs444 ( talk) 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=n>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The result of the proposal was No move. Cúchullain t/ c 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
List of Presidents of the United States → List of presidents of the United States – Per WP:CAPS and WP:JOBTITLES and MOS:CAPS, there's no need to capitalize the generic term "president" when it's not attached to the name of, or referring to, an individual; in the plural form, it certainly is not. This is fixed in Category:Lists of presidents of organizations, but when some articles were fixed in Category:Lists of presidents, some editors pointed to this one as precedent to keep the capitalization on others. It makes more sense to achieve uniformity by conforming to WP style than by going the other direction. If we start here, the others should be easy. Alternatively, if there's something special about "Presidents of the United States", we should acknowledge that (but there doesn't seem to be, as lower case in that phrase in very common in books). Dicklyon ( talk) 06:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is "President" a proper name? Is "President of the United States" a proper name? Those are are asserting "it's a proper name" would do well to clarify which they mean, and provide support in terms of sources, since MOS:CAPS says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." I have proposed this move because I don't see consistent capitalization in sources. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: We have
Holy Roman Emperor and we do not place the "Emperor" there in lower case, even though "emperor" by itself is not a proper noun. the full title is a proper noun. We also have
Vice President of the United States as an article. There is no need for this useless "title change" nonsense where so many articles could equally be brought into the fray <g>. All I can think of is the thousands of words on the "hyphen v. n-dash" uselessness. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
15:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Those who argue from their own opinions of aesthetics should clarify how that is relevant here, relative to policies and guidelines such as WP:CAPS and MOS:CAPS and WP:JOBTITLES. Otherwise, their opinions add nothing relevant to the considerations. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"President of the United States" is, in fact, a specific person at any point in time, and is generally capitalized. CMOS disagrees, but that it not binding where others capitalize the title. Where the office is indicated, the word "president" is not capitalized on its own in any MOS. Thus one writes "The powers of the president of the United States are defined in the Constitution" every time. Of course, I think it might be nice to add all the "presidents of the United States in Congress assembled" starting with Hanson. Care to add him? Collect ( talk) 12:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
From the beginning, Wikipedia has always been the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However, some people have been creating mountains of rules and guidelines. It is grossly contradictory to say "... anyone can edit" and then add "... provided they learn and follow all the zillion policies, discuss what they want to do on talk pages, and get permission from the Grammar Gods". It's like starting with Orwell's "All the Animals are Equal" slogan and adding "but Some Animals are More Equal than Others". One person has suggested that the best way to fix Wikipedia would be to scrap the MoS—it's just too big and unwieldy. The most ridiculous aspect of MoS is the lengthy discussions of topics like "en-dash vs. hyphen". It's extremely difficult or even impossible for most people to see the difference, so a clear distinction needs to be drawn between essential rules and mere recommendations. The only justification for representing that something is a rule rather than just a recommendation or guideline is surely that (1) it's not controversial, (2) it will significantly improve the perceived quality of Wikipedia, as seen by real users, and (3) the rule is simple enough to be understood and remembered by a majority of Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia is a diverse community that depends on cooperation, so one of the most important rules is "no fighting". Any topic or "rule" (like capitalization of List of Past Presidents of [country]) that is controversial enough to upset considerable numbers of real users—and result in edit wars for years to come—needs to be avoided or handled gently as a special case. LittleBen ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Other examples: Include the term "Chief Justice" generally internationally and also in US usage - where the term is capitalised generally also on Wikipedia, including general articles and in lists. The argument that "President of the United States" when referring to specific people, rather than the office in the Constitution, should be lc fails on that directly. Collect ( talk) 12:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
In the article, it reads "Since the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1951, no person may be elected to the office of President (or Vice President) who has already served at least six years as President" (first paragraph). However, in the 22nd amendment, it says that no one should be elected twice and not that no one should be elected if he/she has already served six years (cf. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/22nd_Amendment_Pg1of1_AC.jpg). Name1234567890 ( talk) 19:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What Name1234567890 said! This article used to incorrectly talk about the 22nd ammendment limiting someone to ten years in office. I pointed out (on the talk page) that that's wrong, and suggested language (that was then used) to correctly reflect the limitations imposed by the 22nd ammendment -- that you can't be elected more than twice, and you can't be elected more than once if you've served more than two years of a term that someone else was elected to. So why was it changed to this "six years" construction, which is not what the Ammendment says? Get back to the accurate description of what the 22nd ammendment says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 ( talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I should note that the article as currently written is wrong. Suppose: (1) Mr. A gets elected Vicen President; (2) The President dies 1/2 year into the term; (3) Mr. A succeeds to the presidency and serves the remaining 3 1/2 years of the term; (4) instead of running for President, Mr. A runs again for the Vice Presidency and gets elected; (5) The President dies 1/2 year into the term; (6) Mr. A succeeds to the presidency and serves the remaining 3 1/2 years of the term.
After that, Mr. A is still eligible to be elected President even though he has served 7 years.
So fix the darn article. There had been good wording that correctly reflected the 22nd Ammendment. I don't understand why that correct language was replaced by incorrect language. Geez! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 ( talk) 20:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In the Articles of Confederation the term president is mentioned only once, as head of the committee which acted on behalf of Congress when that body was not in session. The person was elected to preside over that committee and was therefore not actually President of the Congress. CharmsDad ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement in the first paragraph that "Since the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1951, no person may be elected to the office of President (or Vice President) who has already served at least six years as President (whether he or she was elected as President or succeeded to the office of President upon death, resignation, or removal of a prior President): is incorrect. Remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 ( talk) 00:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll explain it. But you have me wondering if you actually read the 22nd Ammendment?
It's wrong because that's not what the 22nd ammendment says. The relevant part of the Ammendment says: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Now, I realize that that six-year language you have in the article is based on the idea of someone completing serving two or more years of someone else's term and then being elected once. That person is inelgible to be re-elected -- but his ineligibility does not result from serving six years. In fact, if he resigned after being elected, and only served the two years of someone else's term, he would still be ineligible to be elected a second time.
Or, look at it this way. Suppose the following (admittedly unlikely) sequence of events occurs: 1) Mr. A is elected Vice President. 2) The President dies a week into the term. 3) Mr. A succeeds to the Presidency and serves four years (minus one week). 4) Mr. A does not run for the presidency, but instead runs again for the Vice Presidency and wins 5) Again, the president dies a week into the term. 6) Mr. A again succeeds to the Presidency and serves another four years (minus one week).
Under the above scenario, Mr. A is still eligible to be elected President (since there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it). But the article, as written, says that he is ineligible because he has served more than six years.
Getting away from all that, wouldn't it be best to simply have the article state what the actual restrictions are? Something like: "Since the ratification of the 22nd Ammendment to the United States Constitution in 1951, no person may be elected President more than twice. Furthermore, no one who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected may be elected more than once."
What's amazing here is that I've gone through this before. There was a time when this article had incorrect language stating that a person couldn't serve more than ten years. I pointed out that that was wrong, and suggested a change. The change was made, and for a time the article was correct. I have no idea why you guys went in and replaced correct language (no one can be elected more than twice) with incorrect language (no one who served at least six years can be elected).
I'll also note that this was pointed out above (in the "22nd Ammendment" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.173.103 ( talk) 04:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't have at it. The page is locke for editing. Something about edit wars between partisans on both sides of the aisle around the time Obama took over from Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 ( talk) 13:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 ( talk) 11:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Since the color code reflects the presidential political party, why don't we apply it to the background color of the "Party" column instead of the chronological "No." column? Like this:
No. [n 1] |
President | Took office | Left office | Party | Term [n 1] |
Vice President | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
George Washington (1732–1799) [1] [2] [3] |
April 30, 1789 | March 4, 1797 | no party | 1 ( 1789) | John Adams | ||
2 ( 1792) | ||||||||
2 |
John Adams (1735–1826) [4] [5] [6] |
March 4, 1797 | March 4, 1801 | Federalist | 3 ( 1796) | Thomas Jefferson | ||
3 |
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) [7] [8] [9] |
March 4, 1801 | March 4, 1809 |
Democratic- Republican |
4 ( 1800) | Aaron Burr | ||
5 ( 1804) | George Clinton |
Hoof Hearted ( talk) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we get a better (painted) image of Obama? The current pic sticks out like a sore thumb. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη ( talk) 19:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Left office" column, for Obama, it lists "January 20, 2017". I suggest that this be changed to read: "Incumbent (term ends January 20, 2017)".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmorearty ( talk • contribs) 7 November 2012
Having "office" as the column heading is rather vague, it seems like having "profession" or something like "prior occupation" would be less vague. Also, having it right after the information on the vice presidents makes it even less clear that this is referring to information about the president.
JonathanGodwin ( talk) 14:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) JonathanGodwin ( talk) 09:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Would such a section be a problem? Clinton, Bush & Obama are the first 3 consecutive US Presidents to win reelection, since Jefferson, Madison & Monroe. Of course, should Obama serve out his second term, they'll become the first 3 consecutive US Presidents to serve two complete terms, since Jefferson/Madison/Monroe. GoodDay ( talk) 01:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
There's an error regarding most of these pages that most people wouldn't know about. Even before the first death in office, a man does not become president until they are sworn in. So on April 5, 1841 and March 4, 1849, the office of president was vacant since the successor was not yet sworn into office. You can count those days to those persons, but you should at least include a note about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.51.3 ( talk) 23:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
did President Cleveland got 2 painted official portraits? because of his non consecutive terms like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Grover_Cleveland%2C_painting_by_Anders_Zorn.jpg
which is different than the one portrait on this page.-- 76.106.45.248 ( talk) 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I know the issue of adding a Home State column to this list has been discussed before and the issue has either gone unresolved or the decision has been made to not include the home state of the presidents as a column in this list, since in some cases, the home state can be a fuzzy definition (is it state of birth, state of residency, etc). But I think an unambiguous addition to the list could be the person's last political (or otherwise) job before attaining the presidency (Senator of state XX? Governor of YY? Representative? Vice-President? Etc). Phloyd ( talk) 08:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
the home state is the one the president was representing or living most of his life like Obama count as a President from Illinois and not Hawaii, or the first Bush count as a president from texas rather than Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_birth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_primary_affiliation
-- 76.106.45.248 ( talk) 22:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The footnote to the right of him says that he had no office held prior to being President. The footnote furthers this by saying he was a "soldier" and makes it seem as if he came off the street and became President. In fact, he was a general in the army and served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Other military generals who proceeded to become President are marked as such, and it should say that Taylor was a general in the army versus saying "none". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.193.102 ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1781-1782: John Hanson served on the congress and then was elected president in 1781, making him the first elected president. George Washington himself congratulated him on being the first president after his election. Each term was 1 year until George Washington took an 8 year term.
1782-1783: Elias Boudinot(1740-1821) was a congressman from New Jersey
1783-1784: Thomas Mifflin(1744-1800) was a congressman from Pennsylvania, Speaker of Pennsylvania's House of Representatives, President of Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council, and a Major General in the Continental Army.
1784-1785: Richard Henry Lee(1732-1794) was a Senator from Virgina that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
1785-1786: John Hancock(1737-1793) is famous for signing the Decoration of Independence with a very large signature. He was the first governor of Massachusetts.
June to November 1786: Nathaniel Gorham(1738-1796)served a short term and was more into Massachusetts Court.
1786: Arthur St. Clair(1734-1818) He became a Major General in the revolutionary war but lost his title after a bad retreat. He was appointed Governor of the Northwest Territory but disputes with Native Americans created a war and in 1791 he had the worst loss of Americans against Native Americans. He died in poverty.
1788 Cyrus Griffin(1736-1796): He resigned after the ratification of the US consitution made the old congress obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.207.234 ( talk) 05:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Adams did not win the electoral college vote, in 1824. In fact nobody won that vote in 1824, as nobody got a majority. Adams was selected President by the US. House of Representatives. Therefore, I'm removing Adams from the paragraph-in-queston. GoodDay ( talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Only 17 Presidents have been elected to the Presidency more than once (all twice, except Franklin D Roosevelt),
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Dwight D Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama.
Should this not be included in the article? This includes Grover Cleveland, who served two non-consecutive terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillParker1979 ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vice President Joe Biden's Senate Service is incorrect in "List of Presidents of The United States" wiki. It should be 1973-2009, not 2005-2009. 98.144.35.151 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC) [1] 98.144.35.151 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Permit me to second the concern about the columns. Yes, the headings are lost off the top of the screen when you scroll down far enough, and there is confusion about that "Previous Service" column (referring to the President) in its present location due to the presence of a different individual's name (the Vice President) just left of there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I will submit an edit request, because the message you are reading is under the heading of an edit request which was not done. Is there a way of indicating "declined" for the above (Jan. 21) request?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In referring to FDR, I have found:
"He is the only president to serve more than two terms and a constitutional amendment was passed to prevent that from reoccurring."
The suggested change is at the end of the item you are reading. First, let me explain:
This obviously refers to the 22nd amendment, but that amendment does not prevent all possible cases of serving more than 2 terms. At the end of his term on 20 Jan. 1969, Lyndon Johnson had served 1 full term and also the last 14 month's of J.F.K.'s unexpired term; AND L.B.J. (who had chosen not to run in 1968) was still legally eligible to be elected President once more. If, in addition, he had served a full term starting 20 Jan. 1969, he would have served more than 2 terms (would have been 2 terms plus those 14 months).
So try this in place of what I quoted earlier:
"He is the only president to serve more than two terms, and a constitutional amendment, affecting presidents after Harry Truman, was passed to limit the number of times an indivdual can be elected president."
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Here is a summary of what I know about efforts to exceed what has since taken effect per 22nd Amendment:
-- Grant, after his 2 terms (1869-1877), sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1880, but that ended up going to Garfield.
-- Teddy Roosevelt served all but about 6 months of McKinley's unexpired 2nd term, then followed this with a full term. TR then ran in 1912 on what we know as the "Bull Moose" ticket, and I have seen it on Wikipedia that he was being considered for 1920 Republican presidential nomination, but this was nixed by his death in 1919. (That 1920 nomination went to Harding, whose campaign was for "return to normalcy".)
-- Truman started a run in 1952 but dropped out after poor showing in New Hampshire primary.
So FDR is the only person ever to exceed the limits now specified in 22nd Amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove President from the 'previous office held' columns, for the reelected Presidents. It might be confusing readers. GoodDay ( talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
On Jan. 25, 2013, I do NOT see President in "Previous Office" column, except for the 1893-1897 presidency of Grover Cleveland (remember he had 2 non-consecutive terms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Notes, I find:
"For the purposes of numbering, a presidency is defined as an uninterupted ..."
OK, but please fix the spelling of "uninterrupted".
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In reading the edit request for Jan. 21 (a request which was declined), there was concern noted about the columns. Thus, I am submitting the request you are reading:
Please move the Vice President column, together with the color stripe indicating the party the VP was from, to the far right, changing places with the Previous Office column, and adjust the column headers accordingly.
(The person who submitted the Jan. 21 request was (understandably) confused by seeing the reference to President Obama's U.S. Senate service and thinking it was that of Vice President Biden. It wasn't helping matters that the column headers are lost off the top of the screen when you scroll as far down as President Obama.)
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the recurring requests in this article's feedback is for a list of achievements, or highlights during a president's term. I had dismissed this as being too detailed for an overview summary list like this, and potentially introducing some non-neutrality. But I notice they do that fairly well on the UK Prime Minister list. Do you think we could do something like that here? Hoof Hearted ( talk) 16:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
What about Atchison, who was perhaps acting president on March 4, 1849. While the claim is weak, I still think it should be noted as an aside. 202.179.19.24 ( talk) 13:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking the Vacant footnotes in the VP column under Nixon and Ford should be different than the ones used above that (n 3) as these occurred post-ratification of the 25th Amendment which is the "explanation" for these vacancies. I'm not the best with finding official wording, but perhaps something along the lines of the fact that the successor to the VP had not yet been named or was awaiting confirmation or something along those lines? It would make more sense to me than continuing the same spiel about how there was no mechanism for filling the void when the mechanism was in fact in place? Just a thought, something for those more involved in this article to look into. → ClarkCT Talk @ 09:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is so disappointing to see such a mistake in the title of an article as prominent as this one and even worse to see such a mistake defended in a move discussion. It truly makes Wikipedia look amateurish. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have three citations for each president? Wouldn't it suffice to have one or two for the list as a whole? There isn't exactly great controversy over whether Rutherford B. Hayes was ever the President of the United States. — TORTOISE WRATH 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the name of President Clinton to William J Clinton instead of Bill Clinton. Jpc-kings ( talk) 02:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter is also alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.145.166 ( talk) 18:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Could Wikipedia create an article about the former presidential candidates as well as Third-Party candidates?
Barack is an IDIOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.15.140 ( talk) 18:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Harry Truman's middle name is S Therefore there should not be a "." after the S and his name should read as follows "Harry S Truman" not as "Harry S. Truman" Tsombanj ( talk) 23:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you make "list states" by president (similar by vice president)? Akuindo ( talk) 13:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did someone replace the official White House portraits of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton with photographs of them instead? Is it because of a technical problem? I think the official portraits should be given for each president who has one (only George W. Bush and Barack Obama don't, as far as I know) - they provide a consistency in the representation of presidents on this page. Otherwise, there'd be no system to it - so why not just pick any old image for any of the presidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.143.103 ( talk) 11:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
actually George W. Bush have a portrait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PresidentGWB_OfficialPortrait.jpg http://www.npg.si.edu/collect/bushportraits.htm 24.50.192.181 ( talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I know there's been a lot of confusion about this, but that's not the official White House portrait (which hasn't been unveiled yet and might not be for several more years). According to the Wikipedia article on presidential portraits, "The official White House portrait of George W. Bush has not yet been unveiled. However, Bush's portrait for the National Portrait Gallery was uncharacteristically released several weeks before his administration had ended. Painted by Robert A. Anderson, it was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. on December 19, 2008. President Bush jokingly opened the unveiling with 'Welcome to my hanging', resulting in the room erupting in laughter. This was an official portrait commissioned by the White House, but funded by private donorship." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_portrait_(United_States)#George_W._Bush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.143.103 ( talk) 08:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
How about a picture of George W. Bush in a jacket and tie? I know that's an official portrait, but it (unfairly in my opinion) makes GWB look like the odd man out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.41.93 ( talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
yeah the official one got revealed today.-- 24.50.192.181 ( talk) 23:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Somebody's arbitrarily changed Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton to photographs now as well. I don't know why some people can't leave well alone - the official White House portraits work very well as a consistent way to represent the presidents in the list because they *all* have a White House portrait (except for the sitting president, who has an official photograph). If you change Reagan through Bush 43 to photos, then there's no reason why any of the other presidents should be represented by their official portraits either. Either change it back and be consistent, or just have an "anything goes" policy where users can upload their favourite photos of each president and it changes all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.216.30 ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
There are a few entries that have the term "mint note portrait" followed by a dollar amount: Washington, Jefferson, Harrison, Clinton, and Obama. I tried looking the term up, but that exact phrase only seems to show up on this page. Does this term mean anything and if so, should the meaning be explained somewhere on the page?
daikiki 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikiki ( talk • contribs)
Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 14:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm very much mistaken, Obama is not "of African-American descent". His mother was a white American, and his father a black Kenyan who, as far as I'm aware, never obtained US citizenship. Therefore Obama is African-American himself, but his ancestors were not. This point has been raised a couple of times above on this talk page, but without receiving any response. Unless anyone has any objection, I'll rephrase that part of the lede in a few days. Aridd ( talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"His mother was a white American, and his father a black Kenyan" If you allow for literal use of the phrase "African-American" then he would be, by definition, of African-American descent. If your father is Spanish and mother is Irish you would be of "Spanish-Irish" descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.41.93 ( talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a flat-out lie to call him the first "non-white president" when he is in fact half white.
The sentence " Barack Obama, is the only president of African descent.[10]" is conjecture at best. Change the word "only" to "first". The way "only" is being used implies there will not be another. The revised sentence will read " Barack Obama, is the first president of African descent.[10]" It is noted that George Washington is counted as the "first" president. Tyler is the "first" vice president to assume the presidency. Warren Harding was the "first" elected after women gained voting rights. Dwight Eisenhower is the "first" president to have been legally prohibited from seeking a third term. The election of the first president of African descent is a place-mark in the history of the presidency and deserves to be noted accordingly as "first". JohnnyClubs ( talk) 13:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
African descent?? SMH. Trying to influence history using clever wording. He is the first African-American President or the first Black President! FYI: all the people claiming he is Half 1/2 white would be calling him Black "or something worse in private" if he wasn't the president #FACT. What are they trying to do with using "African descent" is Take away from the fact that he is the First Black/African American president, and I'm pretty sure the editors push it are a little racist "yes I pull that card". FYI: Obama referred to himself numerous time as a African American/Black.
FYI: I'm republican and I hate Obama, but the truth is the truth. And we can't let people with an Agenda push their Point of view as Fact I'm recommending the word be changed back, the wording African Descent is disingenuous!
First time I have looked at this article and I thought it had been vandalised, did adding the color-fest File:PartyVotes-Presidents.png actually have any relevance to the list and did it have a consensus or is it some sort of attack on the visual arts or some sort of protest against WP:ACCESS. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC
I agree whole-heartedly with Hoof Hearted and MilborneOne. If you must keep the Blue stars on the Red Presidents, then you must add Red stars to the Blue Presidents elected without a majority of the vote. This would include almost half of the Democratic Presidents: Polk, Buchanan, Johnson (not elected at all), Cleveland, Wilson, Truman, and Clinton. Olsonjs444 ( talk) 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=n>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}}
template (see the
help page).