Talk:Imperial presidency
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imperial presidency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | The contents of the Imperiled Presidency page were merged into Imperial presidency on 12 September 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Imperial presidency be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled
editThis article confused me, because a section called "Criticisms" should be criticisms of the theory of the Imperial Presidency, not the arguements of the theory itself. So I changed the main section title to "Arguements" and added a section for the criticisms of the theory, called "Criticisms." Erikmartin 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article a) hasn't been updated to include something about Bush and b) doesn't reference Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s "Imperial Presidency" (ISBN: 0735100470), which seems to be the classic treatise ont the subject. Unfortunately I'm not competent to do either. Mike Linksvayer 22:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Added Schlesinger book ref following example elsewhere. Mike Linksvayer 23:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't really understand any of this article at all. It doesn't explain "Imperial Presidency" in a clear manner whatsoever. GravyFish 03:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Weaseling
editThis article seems to talk a lot about allegations about an Imperial Presidency. A rewording of the many of the examples will probably make this a more factual entry. --Janus657 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
i agree. the opening paragraph makes no sense and jumps about. it is not made clear at any point what the imperial presidency is 143.167.174.66 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Tom Sellick
Ambiguous Page
editThis article starts with the phrase "Imperial Presidency" and then acknowledges the book and then goes back to the phrase. This page should be split into one page for the phrase and another for the book. Id447 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
merge?
editshouldn't this article be merged with the similar article of Imperialed presidency?--Levineps (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Dubious article
editThis whole article is confusing, and dubious and frankly should be deleted as OR. It sites only a few sources, some of which are likely editorial in nature and not really reliable sources and wanders around quite a bit. I dont think Wikipedia really needs an article on what is, in essence, a political opinion. Bonewah (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree but I notice this comment was made nine months ago and this article is still here. The whole definition for the term "Imperial Presidency" is completely subjective and seems to be merely intended as a pejorative term for what the modern US presidency has become. There is no way one can define such a term in objective terms, therefore it is a nonsense and this is a pointless article. I think the article on the book by Mr. Schlesinger, from which the term comes, is more than sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.1.238 (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this article should be removed. The entry on the book goes into much more detail, and what's left here is a superficial discussion of the balance of powers.
MarkinBoston (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This article should not be removed. The term is not just the book. It's a term that came into use because of the book, but it describes the current role of the office of president. I actually came to this article after coming upon the term somewhere else and wanting to read more about it. So I think we should be able to find plenty of sources that used this term, expand on it, and make a better article. Removing the article and leaving just the article on the book removes the possibility of covering the general idea, roles, and later research into this. As a subject it's definitely notable, and as I said if you don't have this article you could only include stuff directly germane to the book. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Judicial Report
editThe section appears to be heavily weighting against a given administration, while not including past/historical, and more recent congressional oversights of the actions of the executive branch; therefore I have tagged the section as violating WP:POV. Furthermore, it appears that the initial list can be seen as a coatrack of criticisms towards a given administration.
Perhaps this section should be checked against WP:NEU, and editted accorindly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ie.hist.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)