Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Small Inaccuracy

The article states that Barack Obama is the first president of "African American descent". This is not stated correctly, since his father was born in Africa. It would be more accurate to say either that he is the first African-American president, or that he is the . Capmango (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Obama has no African-American ancestry. He himself is African-American, but his ancestors weren't. 146.53.3.4 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Should definitely be changed to either "first president of African descent" or "first black president" rather than African-American. 99.155.223.211 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Barack Hussein Obama is not black. He is biracial or "mulatto". In addition (again, correct me if I am wrong), the first president of "African American descent" is Bill Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.214.168 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Even Smaller Inaccuracy

The name Harry S Truman should be written without a period after the "S." That letter was his entire middle name.

Quoting from his page on Wikipedia, "His parents chose "S" as his "middle name" in an attempt to please both of Harry's grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young. The initial did not actually stand for anything..." Dick Kimball (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Who was elected Pres. by defeating two former Presidents in the same General election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.97.178 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is Woodrow Wilson. To win his first term at POTUS, he defeated both Theodore Roosevelt (the 26th POTUS and at that time, a member of the Progressive party) and the incumbent Republican, William Howard Taft (the 27th POTUS who later became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court) in 1912 and became President March 4, 1913. --71.191.242.222 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Taft was the sitting President, so Wilson only defeated one "former President". If the teacher posed that question and said the answer was Wilson, they got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through United States presidential election's list of electoral college results, in fact the premise posed by the OP has never happened, although the Wilson election was the closest to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Request, please unprotect this page

According to the note above, this page is protected for the inauguration. That's quite some time ago and continued protection has no justification. TMLutas (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's currently semi-protected, which cuts down on the number of editors trying to make false claims about who the "first President" was (see below) or to take away the period from Harry Truman's middle initial (see above a ways). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the protection logs for the page you will see that the list was unprotected on 20 January 2009 after the inaugaration. Since that date it has been protected 7 more times for vandalism. The current semi-protection was placed 7 Dec 2009 for 6 months and will expire 7 June 2010. Hopefully the people who want to vandalize the list will have gone away. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be permanently semi-protected. There is not likely to be any new information needed for this page for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, nothing should change on this list until 20 January 2013 at the earliest. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Barring a catastrophe of some kind, which established users can add just as easily. The previous problem was edit-warring between 11/4/08 and 1/20/09 about how to list Obama. That bounced around like a ping-pong ball. I don't recall if it was ever fully settled, although I think they created a temporary "President-elect" section, so that on the 20th all they had to do was take that away and they were done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"othing should change on this list until 20 January 2013" unless, of course, you want to fix the incorrect information in the first paragraph. There's more detail on that down below under "Suggested Edit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.136.90 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

President of America / United States

Unbeknownst to some, these are two seperate offices, which were merged when Washington came to power. Peyton Randolph was the first President of America, yet not the first President of the USA. Most people refute this fact as untrue however, and since it is little known it may not be suitable for wikipedia. Up to the admins and mods, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.137.161 (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Peyton Randolph was not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the Continental Congress. This was a largely ceremonial position. The holder of the position was a member ot the Continental Congress not outside like the President of the United States. The office was unrelated to the office of President of the United States. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a position more like Speaker of the House. The lack of an executive power is part of what drove the scrapping of the Articles of Confederation in favor of a Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

JOHN HANSON was the first US President, technically ---- Once the signing of The Articles of Confederation took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). See http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html for a good article (with a lot more information).

You are completely wrong. Give it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jimmy Carter Portrait appears distorted

Why is that? Can it be fixed? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

nicknames

it seems odd that several of the more recent figures are referred to by shortened names (Clinton: bill instead of william, Biden: Joe instead of joseph, Cheney: dick instead of richard). Yes those nicknames are how they are coomonly referred to in current popular media but that shouldn't be how they are referenced in an encyclopedia entry. Nixon went by "dick" but he is referenced as "Richard". Harrison was probably called something short by his friends but here he is referred to by his full first and middle names. I think we should use only full names here and should find some consistency with middle names.

I know this is old, but since no one answered, the relevent Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Use common names. --Jayron32 04:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured List

It should be renominated as featured list. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The issues raised and the previous failed nomination have not been addressed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "political ideology" column

I have reverted the addition of the "political ideology" column. I understand where the person who added it is going, and I am sure they did it with the best of intentions, but the column had serious problems. First of all, the assignment of a President to the binary categories of "Liberal" or "Conservative" is far too simplistic a view of political ideology, a president's ideology is likely to be far more nuanced than can be handled with a single word. Secondly, its subjective. Liberal or conservative according to whom? Party membership is an obvious thing, personal ideology is not. Thirdly, the use of late 20th century ideological labels is anachronistic when applied to earlier presidents. There may be general agreement on terms what terms like "liberal" or "conservative" mean when discussing politics of the last 20-40 years. But deciding whether Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or Andrew Jackson or Millard Filmore is a "liberal" or "conservative" is beyond meaningless. By what standard? By today's standard? By contemporary standard? There are just way too many problems with the concept of such a column, and it likely shouldn't be in the table in any form. --Jayron32 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My idea was to judge them by today's standards. It's a far too common mistake to think that Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt was an epitome of modern American Republican Party thought. Although party names have changed over the years, they have always been split along a familiar line (state vs federal power, loose vs broad construction, etc.). Our modern conceptions of liberal and conservative are therefore still applicable to early presidents and deserve mention. There are recent studies into the trends of party ideology that may be cited to make such changes, but I agree that personal ideological deviations are harder to include. However, any solecisms arising due to such deviations are no greater than those that occur by associating presidential policies only with political parties as is the case at present. Any other terms that have a consistent definition over time and better or more specifically describe presidential ideology would be welcomed and should be included. It is necessary to add a column to clarify ideological changes in political parties over time, and I suggest that developing a list of descriptive terms to use in it should be the purpose of this section. Millertime12 (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What are your sources for assigning an ideology? Also, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were both liberals in their own times, even though they're still championed by the GOP. Jefferson was certainly a liberal by standards of his day. It's not fair to judge them by modern yardsticks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

While it might seem that this sort of shorthand label would help readers gain a greater understanding of a president, I think using a word or two in a table would be a misleading oversimplification. You can't really assign a spot to an individual president on a modern left-right or liberal-conservative spectrum as to all issues, or do so without understanding the historical context in which that president operated, and it seems unlikely that a truly reliable source would attempt to do so. To the extent that there are good sources that provide this sort of characterization of an individual president, the information regarding that characterization (which probably would also involve some discussion as to how it is justified according to the source) would better belong in that president's article. Steveozone (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding "Home State"

What do you think about adding a column for each presidents home state? A president's home state is often considered important and I think it would make the list a bit more interesting.

sbrianhicks (talk) Sbrianhicks (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Historically, this has been considered contentious (see previous discussions). Think it is to do with this list not being about presidents' personal lives, and that some have a ballot state (that which they are elected from) which differs from "home" in the traditional sense. I'm no expert on this, just trying to surmise what I can recall of previous discussions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It gets messy deciding on a "home state". Is Obama's home state Hawaii (where he was born and grew up) or Illinois? Is Reagan's Illinois or California? Is Lincoln's Kentucky or Illinois? Is Calvin Coolidge's Vermont or Massachusetts? People often spend large parts of their lives in multiple states. Take the current Secretary of State, as an example. She was born and spent most of her early life in Illinois; was married to a governor of Arkansas, and for a while represented New York in the Senate. So what is HER home state? Birthplace is certainly easier to nail down definatively, but then we get to the point of relevence; we can't put EVERYTHING on this page, it is probably best to keep it to info relevent to the presidency itself, stuff like the dates and political party. --Jayron32 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A person's home state is WHERE THEIR HOME IS dur hur hur! Sorry, I had to do that. But seriously, home state is where a person's home is. Obama is from Illinois, Lincoln Illinois, Bush from Texas, Jackson Tennessee, Rohdam Clinton New York, McCain Arizona, etc. Sbrianhicks (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but when they are President, their home is Washington, DC. Dur hur hur. We can split these hairs all day. --Jayron32 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, . . . but that's their official residence, their private home is where ever (i.e. currently Illinois). Sbrianhicks (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The President't home state is IMPORTANT. There is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that states that the President and the Vice-President must come from two different states.

See Article Two, Clause 3, of the Consitution, and the 12th Amendment.

The home states of the Vice-Presidents are included in the list of the Vice-Presidents.

It is true that the Federal Courts have refused to get involved in this issue of home states, for yeah or for nay. (An "issue" really does have at least two points-of-view, always. An "issue" is not a "problem".)

Usually, the two different states are obvious, such as Washington being from Virginia & Adams being from Massachusetts; J.F.K. being from Massachusetts & L.B.J. being from Texas; and Reagan being from California & G.H.W. Bush being from Maine/Texas.

However, it can be argued very well that G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney were both from Texas.

Then, Cheney was allowed to list his home state as Wyoming, and the Supreme Court refused to get involved.

In detail, the Consitution actually states that electors from Texas could not vote for two Texans, and likewise the electors from any other state are not able to vote for two residents of their same state.

98.81.19.206 (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from bobb4503, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Barack Oama is of mixed racial background, he identifies himself as african american, but he is not pure african american. his mother and father are of different racial backgrounds. please correct the reference to his ethnic background in the subject " About The List".Bobb4503 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bobb4503 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This should be discussed on Talk:Barack Obama. If you get a consensus in favor of your proposed edits on that page, then come back here and make the request again. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

George Washington's political party

It seems like Washington's political party should be listed as "independent", as his Farewell Address makes it clear he was against the concept of political parties in the US in general. "Pro-Administration" is a stub, and doesn't reflect that he was outside the partisan movements. JLM (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "no party". The citation provided explicitly states "George Washington did not belong to a political party."[1] Since the column is labeled "Party", writing "independent" might imply that "independent" was his party. The page for the replaced Pro-Administration Party (United States) shows this is also inappropriate as it is an anachronistic term of questionable notability which does not actually refer to a political party. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's completely preposterous that Washington isn't listed as a Federalist, it doesn't matter that he felt about the party fray, he was quite obviously a Federalist, John Adams also felt political parties were bad, yet he's counted as a Federalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.233.198 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) George Washington was a member of the Federalist Party. He supported a stronger Central government.Cjlittle95 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington is typically lumped in with the Federalists because his political philosophy was closer to the Federalist than it was to the Democratic-Republican or whatever you want to call it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions

Has anyone thought of adding a descriptive element to this list, in the style of its German counterpart? Personally, I think that the German list works rather well. BartBassist (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The German article looks like it is done very well (although I cannot read German so I cannot say for sure). The format itself is well done. The only thing, in my opinion, is that the portraits of the Vice Presidents seems excessive. It is also necessary that whatever descriptions be as non-biased as possible. Anyone else have any thoughts? Andy120290 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I can read some German, and the descriptions look fairly non-biased to me (though the some of the language could be toned down a bit). As an example, here's a rough translation of the JFK entry:

"His 1036-day term is now remembered for matters of foreign affairs: the failure of the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, the beginning of military engagement in the Vietnam War, the Cuban crisis concerning the stationing of atomic missiles, the announcement of the moon-landing and the construction of the Berlin Wall. In internal politics, Kennedy committed himself to reforms and supported the civil rights movement, which pushed for an end to racial segregation. On 22 November 1963, John F. Kennedy was shot in Dallas, probably by Lee Harvey Oswald. BartBassist (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently working on an English translation of the German page, for comment & discussion, but the translation will take a while. BartBassist (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Table alterations

Explaining this change to the table:

1. I'm fixing issues from a failed featured list candidacy. Most noticably, compliance with WP:COLOUR
2. Replacing portrait (painting) images where the author has not died. Although these are tagged as PD this is not necessarily true (discussions: commons, en.wiki)
3. Removal of unnecessary information (e.g. dates of VP terms). This is not List of Vice Presidents of the United States
4. Sortability added.

I've done a side-by-side comparison of before and after versions. Although the diff seems like lots has changed, much is just padding it cannot deal with. I recieved no feedback when I asked previously so I've gone for it.

A few citations link to the old url roots but still end up in the right place. As they are not broken I see no immediate concern here and will fix them gradually. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a good idea

1. Removing the colors lose information as to when the VP and Pres were from different parties (Lincoln / Johnson)
2. The dates on the VP tell when into the presidency the VP's were changed/replaced.

Victor Victoria (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I should add that although I applaud Rambo for trying to make the table sortable, unfortunately the sortability feature of the software does not work well for a complex table like this one in which there are multiple VP for a single presidency. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to continue this discussion on how I could possibly incorporate these features. As it stands the "lose information as to when the VP and Pres were from different parties" is mute as it contradidcts MOS:COLOUR in that the VPs differing party is only denoted by colour (and this is not allowed). For the VP dates, are they really needed? If so are they needed in the table or would a footnote do (like those that illustrate assasinated etc.)? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"not allowed" is way too strong of a characterization. Per MOS:COLOUR: "Do not use color alone to convey information .... It is certainly desirable to use color as an aid for those who can see it". Since there is already a column for the party, this is certainly in conformance. I suppose in cases where the VP has a different party than the president you may add a footnote.

Speaking of footnote, in my opinion we should keep the VP partial term dates in the table. The VP runs with the president on a single ticket, so a change in the VP is a change in the presidency. 192.45.72.27 (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Another question

Which president started the custom of flying the American flag from all public buildings? Southwood Paul (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.158.1.166, 20 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Remove "Billionth User" trash content from article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_presidents

128.158.1.166 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That was reverted a while ago. You may need to do a hard refresh to see the current version of the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

footnotes/citations gone mad

Why on earth does the fact that a particular person held the office of president need 4 footnotes for verification? This is utterly ridiculous. For the list in doubt any history book on the US given as general reference in the end (even without notes) would be good enough.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As my high school teacher always said, the more sources, the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.234.3 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alexis2hip31, 7 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} look up john handson and you will find out how wrong you are about the

Alexis2hip31 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated table format

Explaining this change to the table. I'm trying to update the table to FL standards, most notably compliance with WP:COLOUR

It's the same format that the 19 FL governor lists use including the recently promoted FL lists of Utah and Florida. I have not added or deleted any information in the table.

I ran the new table format by Rambo's Revenge. His only comment was the VP color bar didn't meet WP:COLOUR. This is true as the color bar is the only source for which party a VP belongs to. Would possible solutions include???

Adding a note when the VP doesn't belong to the same party as a President.

Use the note and make mention of the fact in the article.

Add (D) and (R) notations after each VP's name.

Bgwhite (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the FL table format, but I hope we can at least keep the images and presidential terms (no 1/2 term and whatnot). And it's only happened once or twice early on where the VP was of a different party (Jefferson with Adams and Adams with Washington). This is a list of Presidents, so we shouldn't focus too much on the VPs. Maybe leave a note next to VP Jefferson that says something like "Under Article Two of the United States Constitution, Jefferson was elected Vice President after being Adams' opponent in the 1796 Presidential Election. He was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, not Adams' Federalist Party." Maybe a note next to Washington's "no party" noting his sometime-Federalist status and confusing party affiliation, if necessary. Otherwise "Political party" applies to both President and Vice President equally over the next 209 years+.--Tim Thomason 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing changing formats of any columns or adding/deleting columns. In my opinion, the images and presidential terms should be kept. (FYI: For governor articles, not all images of governors are freely available. Therefore due to MOS guidelines, a column of photos couldn't be added. Also, the 1/2 term stuff comes from a high turnover rate of governors due to alot of states who used to have 2-year terms, governors dying and governors resigning for higher offices... it can get messy)

According to the table and the accompanying note, the Lincoln/Johnson presidential term was also a case where the VP was from a different party than the President. Bgwhite (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Lincoln/Johnson "National Union" ticket already has the note, so I assume that WP:COLOUR is satisfied there.--Tim Thomason 23:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested edit

Regarding the first paragraph, the part that talks about term limits is incorrect and should be changed. Instead of "...no person may be elected to the office of the president more than twice or serve more than a total of 10 years" it should read "...no person may be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected may be elected to the office of the president more than once."

I realize that what I am suggesting is slightly unwieldy. But the "10 years" shorthand that appears there now is incorrect. As the constitution is written, a person can be elected vice president, succeed to the presidency upon death of the president and serve three years as president, then get elected vice president again, succeed again to the presidency upon death of the president and serve another three years as president, and then repeat the pattern again and again. It's unlikely, but it's allowed. There simply is no fixed limit to the amount of time that a person can be president.

Also, as the paragraph is written, the reader may infer that a person who served three years of someone else's term can still be elected twice, but must step down after three years of the second term to which he/she was elected (i.e., when he/she has served ten years in total. Such an inference would be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.136.90 (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I think it would be interesting to add a column with their religious beliefs. Their own definition of their faith would be good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-b (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's easy: Christian. We have yet to elect anyone that was any other religion, although Lincoln was not a member of any church. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither Lincoln nor Jefferson were Christian. Jefferson was an ardent Deist and Lincoln was an agnostic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.246.138.16 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Machine readability

Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, spoke recently, in an article called Wikipedia to Add Meaning to Its Pages, about "making some of the data on Wikipedia's 15 million (and counting) articles understandable to computers as well as humans". The article referred, in particular, to "allow[ing] software to know, for example, that the numbers shown in one of the columns in this table listing U.S. presidents are dates". I've recently done this for one row of the table; which is thus "understandable to computers", because it now emits an hCalendar, or event, microformat for the presidency, with an hCard, or person, microformat for the president. Note that this is rough-and-ready mark up for illustrative purposes; a better solution would be to make each president's entry a table-row template in the manner of {{Episode list}} - I intend to work on that soon, if anyone would care to join me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

I think adding machine-readable structure is a great idea. But given the diversity of data types (categories) on wikipedia, I question whether microformats are the way to go. Microformats are only defined for a small handful of data types. You were fortunate enough to choose a a data type (a presidency) that maps reasonably well onto an existing microformat (events). But what about all the categories that don't have microformats---cars, bridges, astronomical bodies, chemicals? So i wonder if RDFa would be a better choice. It's a syntax similar to microformats that lets you specify properties and values in machine readable form on any type of information you like. It's generally messier to write than a microformat, and uglier to read, but if it goes in a template then editors general won't need to see it. Drkarger (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph has a mistake in it.

The first paragraph states that, per the 22nd amendment, "...no person may be elected to the office of the president more than twice or serve more than a total of 10 years." Actually, the 22nd amendment says that no person may be elected president more than twice, and anyone who served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected may be elected president more than once. There are two specific problems with the paragraph as worded:

1) The reader may erroneously infer that if a person is elected vice president, becomes president (upon the death of the president) one year into the term and then serves the remaining three years, then that person could still be elected twice as long as he steps down upon the tenth anniversary of his first becoming president. Such an inference would be incorrect.

2) There is nothing to stop a person from serving more than ten years as long as it doesn't involve getting elected too many times. For example, Bill Clinton or George W Bush could, in theory, get elected to Congress and become Speaker of the House. Then if the President and Vice President die, he (Clinton or Bush as the case may be) would become President. Or, take the following hypothetical:

a)John gets elected vice president

b)The president dies one year into the term, so John serves as president for three years

c)John chooses not to run for president, but runs for vice president, and gets elected.

d)Again, one years into the term the president dies so John becomes president and serves another three years (for a total of six years)

e)Yet again, John does not run for president, but runs for vice president and gets elected.

f)Again, one years into the term the president dies so John becomes president and serves another three years (for a total of nine years)

g)Now John runs for president and gets elected.

h)John serves his full term, for a total of 13 years as president

I realize the above scenario is unlikely, but there's nothing constitutional (or otherwise legal) to prevent this.

It would be good to change the first paragraph to read "...no person may be elected to the office of the president more than twice. Also, no person who served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected may be elected more than once." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.136.90 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. That's the wording in the amendment, and that's what we should stick with. The "10 year" bit is inferred, but as noted above, various loopholes could arise. There's nothing in the amendment about "10 years". It might be worthwhile to elaborate on all the loopholes somewhere in the body of the article, but in the inro it's too much detail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions II

My adaptation of the list to include a descriptive element, loosely based on the the German list, is now nearly complete. The descriptions are broadly loose translations from the German, but I have made some additions and alterations, and done my best to keep it NPOV. I would be grateful for comments on it. This is a continuation of the conversation here. BartBassist (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No objections? I shall make the change. BartBassist (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you use the presidential portraits? Aquitania (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I used photographs simply because it's what the German list did. I also thought that they were generally clearer (more focused on the face, generally, so they give a better impression of what a particular President looked like). If people prefer the portraits, I can use portraits, though I would recommend the portrait of Washington that I have used rather than the full-length one, for height reasons, and I am strongly against the use of a portrait with an oval surround for Buchanan, because this looks terrible. I would also be perfectly happy to lose the images of Vice Presidents, although this is a useful way to regulate the height of the top half of the box – as with the row for President Fillmore, which has no Vice President, the top half of the box gets a bit narrow without a portrait, although this can easily be fixed. BartBassist (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer using photos for any president that was photographed, since a portrait is an artist's rendition of a person, so it's more encyclopedic to include a photo instead. Jmj713 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The photographs which I've used are all fairly obviously posed portrait photographs. From LBJ onwards they all have the flag in the background, which suggests that they are official photographs. BartBassist (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

New table format?

Really? I think the way the table looks now isn't as good as before. -Mike R.

Never mind. -Mike R.

Could explain why? I'd be really grateful- my proposal is still on the drawing board, and can still be modified, if you have any specific comments or recommendations. BartBassist (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A proposal with a descriptive element, in the style of the German list, matches other lists of this type such as the lists of Presidents of France, and Prime Ministers of the UK, Australia, Canada and India. In general, I am fairly certain that my proposal is an improvement. Unless I receive any specific recommendations on improvements to my proposal, I shall reintroduce it in a week. BartBassist (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it a multi-coloured horror show (WP:COLOUR is overused). Looking at other lists, is the the French monstrosity something we want to immitate?! Furthermore, the tiny text has WP:Accessibilty issues. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The multi-coloured horror show doesn't actually have any more colour than the current list: a colour bar for the President, and a colour bar for the Vice President. The only addition is the Vice Presidential portraits, which I would be happy to remove. The small text isn't particularly small, but it can easily be expanded. BartBassist (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I REALLY like the table re-design proposed by BartBassist. To me, it seems more professional, informative, and even cleaner than the current version. It seems to make better use of space than the current format which seems to have a lot of negative space, seeming less professional and reliable. Lyly _ Neuc (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

First President?

Wasn't the first President Mayor McCheese

His title being "President of the United States ..in Congress Assembled".

This would make George Washington the first Constitutional President about ten years later.

Which President was funding General George Washington during the wars of Independance against the British?AT Kunene (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, and the answer is, "No." Although the title "President" was used, it was not the same role as Washington and his successors. It was more closely akin to Speaker of the House. As to the funding of the American Revolution, I recommend that you read that and related articles to find out the answer (which I would tell you myself if I precisely knew the answer). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Funding was done by issuing money and notes by the Continental Congress (well over $200 million - which became almost worthless) [2] , and by issuance of notes and taxes by the independent states. No "President" involved in this. Collect (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hence the expression (not used so much nowadays), "Not worth a Continental." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Truman's middle initial

Harry Truman did not have a conventional middle name, it was one single letter, and so a period after it is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.228.125.22 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

=Read the FAQ on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_S._Truman 71.180.171.44 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Citation

There is no Citation for the sentence that states Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I think it would be a good idea to have one because it has been an issue in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.221.97.68 (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This falls under the information known as "common knowledge" and does not require a direct citation. There are literally millions of possible citations for this information, so it should be quite easy for you to find one even without a footnote. --Jayron32 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

and millions of citations that he was born in Nairobi. "common knowledge" is in the eye of the beholder. 216.50.220.41 (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the previous comments, Hawaii has released the "long form", so this has become a non-issue. (It never was much of an issue in the first place.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

i will agree that the hawn evidence has the "edge", but it is far from a "non-issue". in fact, the whole shebang is heading to court anew as we speak.

definitely needs a citation. unless you wish to add "alledgedly", which seems a tad worse, IMHO. 216.50.220.6 (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's not even mentioned in the current version of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation

A user has created List of United States Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation. I believe this is properly redirected to President of the Continental Congress, though that article could be renamed, or split to cover the Articles of Confederation separately. I'm probly going to take the article to AFD, unless an early consesnus on the talk page from expreinced users is for keeping the article. Any help sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Presidents of US under the Articles of Confederation

who were the presidents under the Articles of Confederation. In school they only teach us about the US Constitution and I would like to know if there's ever been a president before then.

Images

Is it really necessary to only arbitrarily use the painted government portraits of presidents, for the sake of consistency from Washington onwards? I notice this hasn't been applied to George W. Bush, and is awkward when Obama only has a high resolution photograph. Though some portraits are artistically striking (especially JFK's in my view), it is a shame when there are pictures far more illustrative especially since the advent of photography, such as those featured of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan. I am willing to be bold in this respect, unless the meaning is to prevent edit wars. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I will leave this for a short while longer until acting boldly if there is no objection. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the use of presidential portraits is there for the sake of consistency. If the possibilities for photos were opened up, the photos would constantly be change (edit war as you put it). I would like to question why George W. Bush has his photo instead of a presidential portrait though, when the portrait is available. If there is no objection I would change George W. Bush back to the portrait. David copperson (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Should David Rice Atchison be included in this list?

see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_Atchison
John Oaks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.65.68 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 

No, since he wasn't President. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dick Cheney was the acting president on several occasions when Bush underwent medical procedures yet he is not counted as a president of the United States because he was never officially sworn in.David copperson (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

African vs. African American

This topic has been brought up before yet the flaw remains. The article states that Barack Obama is the first president of African American ancestry yet, while he himself is an African American, he is of African ancestry. Should not the article be changed to say that Obama is the first African American president or the first president of Arican (or black) ancestry? David copperson (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland Counted Twice

I know I'm not the only one to mention this as it's been a matter of dispute since President Cleveland was elected for a second term, but his two non-consecutive terms have made almost every official list of presidents inaccurate. They count him as the 22nd and 24th presidents, making the current president inaccurately represented as the 44th.

If you think about it, he may have served two terms, but he was only one president, and should only be counted once.

An analogy: If I were the third person to live in my house, and I moved out, someone else moved in, and I later moved back, there were still only four people leaving in my house even if I lived there twice. If Grover Clevelend was two presidents, then FDR was four. Just saying that he should be listed as the 22nd with two non-consecutive terms, McKinley should be the 24th, and every subsequent president should be listed as one number lower than they are. This would be a more accurate way to express it.

A final note, I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia discussion page, so if I'm doing this wrong, if someone could make sure it shows correctly, that would be appreciated. I hope, however, that I'm doing it right. Thanks. 71.207.225.66 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before -- see talk archives. The gist of it: if the reliable sources all list him as 22 and 24 (and they do) it's not for us to invent a new numbering. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not really about inventing a new numbering. It's about correcting the existing numbering system. It's numerically impossible for the same person to be two presidents, ergo to list him as such is incredible. "The reliable sources," as you state, is also factually incorrect because, by definition, a falsification is not reliable. Just pointing that out. 71.207.225.66 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Any source that lists the same person twice cannot possibly be reliable if reliability has anything to do with a system based on counting how many people have been president. Grover Cleveland was never more than one person, so he was only ever one president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.18.92 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions are unimportant. Find a reliable source. Ratemonth (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I expected as much from Wikinazis. You know, you guys are the only ones who think Wikipedia is a reliable source. If I have to find a source to prove one does not equal two, there's no hope left for you. No source exists because it's a mathematical given. 71.207.225.66 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for proving Godwin's law once again. And no one said Wikipedia is a reliable source -- that's the point: it isn't. If you want to add something that changes the prevailing interpretation, you need to provide a reliable source -- like the U.S. government's official numbering, which lists Cleveland as 22 & 24. What you've provided is your personal opinion, which carries no more weight than mine or anyone else's. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not understanding Godwin's Law. I think you should know what Wikinazi means. After all, you went through all the trouble of blocking articles about it which, in my opinion, is pretty ironic. Also, I currently hold the world record for most number of articles written about Godwin's Law. This is why I find it ironic and amusing when people accuse me of it. You want to talk about logical fallacies, here's a short list of the ones Wikipedia is using in its argument:

1. Appeal to emotion (Accusing someone of Godwin's Law when it clearly doesn't apply is not just an appeal to emotion, but one could argue that it is also trolling.)

2. Argumentum ad populum (Your articles tend to reflect majority opinion. It's probably not any one person's fault, but that's what happens when you have an article that anyone can edit.)

3. Appeal to authority (You have cited the United States government as your source simply because of its "authority," which is a known liar, yet have rejected the concept of basic mathematics, calling it my personal opinion.)

The U.S. government is one of the the least reliable sources I can think of. If they say something, it's probably a lie. What I've provided is not an opinion, but mathematical fact. Do you think that it's possible that one equals two? If you answer is no, you have admitted to your article being wrong. If you answer yes, you have exposed your lack of understanding of mathematics. 71.207.225.66 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's dynamite. Here's what matters, though: the information on this page can be verified by reliable sources (see, e.g., whitehouse.gov) and your proposed change can't. Case closed. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never needed to find a reliable source before to prove one doesn't equal two, because I've never met someone who didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that. However, I'll do my best to find such a thing and, afterwards, I expect an apology.

As promised, here is the source: http://www.mathwords.com/r/reflexive_property.htm

Special thanks to the poster below me for finding it for me. 71.207.225.66 (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One person not being two people is not my opinion. It's a fact, and it's self evident. If you need to see a source that says 1 != 2, then what are you doing out of kindergarten? 99.112.18.92 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, A=A. I meant a source that backs up the thing you want changed in this list; i.e., a source that says Cleveland is not counted as the 22nd and 24th president. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The source DOES back up the proposed change to the list. It states that A=A, meaning that 1=1 and 2=2. Ergo, 1 cannot equal 2. Grover Cleveland was one man. He cannot also be two men because one does not equal two. If he can't be two men, he can't be two presidents. This is not a George Bush or John Adams scenario where it's two men - two presidents - with the same first and last name. There was only ONE president named Grover Cleveland. I have provided adequate evidence in spite of the fact it's a mathematical postulate that is common knowledge and unnecessary to prove and, if you do not accept it, then that says an awful lot about you, and there's nothing I can do to reach you. You're a lost cause.

Oh, and here's one final source for you. It's not related to this article specifically, but to why Wikipedia as a whole will never be anything more than a novelty: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi (second definition)71.207.225.66 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's common knowledge, I'm sure you'll be able to find some reliable source that says the 24th President was someone other than Cleveland. Be sure to link to it here when you do. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Federalist Vice President? Not possible

The Federalist Party did not exist when Adams was elected Vice President. It barely existed when he was reelected VP, so labeling him a Federalist VP is at best anachronism, it misrepresents how the era saw party, and at worst it is an insult, considering Adams himself did not consider he was a party man. He certainly never considered he was in the same "party" as Hamilton. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Switch to Photos!

Those charicatures are an embarassment. You can't be serious that any of them are "official"?! Was the page hacked?

Dubya and JFK are particularly disturbing. Was the purpose of the cartoonist to mock them?

How about a respectful photo for all presidents where available? Uniformity is nice and all, but the current page borders on libel. 216.50.220.6 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that GW Bush is the only one depicted not wearing a tie and jacket? Was this just by chance? Was this at his personal request? Surely there are numerous photos of him wearing a tie and jacket. Once again, what was the purpose of choosing a casual photo of a president when all the rest are more formal?

Different presidents find favor with different people, I may have liked GW Bush's administration, or I may not. But whether or not a person favors a particular president, or their politics, they have ALL served as president. And they ALL should be afforded the same dignity. Keep in mind the Golden Rule--Treat others the way YOU want to be treated. Why is Wikipedia continually used as a tool for propaganda, some subtle, and some not so subtle? Should Wikipedia be an encyclopedia of "feelings", or facts?

--173.22.94.198 (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC) [User:Lance]

Let's get this list featured again

I want to get this list to featured list status again. I think that looking at some other FLs, like List of Prime Ministers of Canada and List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom can show us the general direction to take it. I'm starting work in my sandbox, but I'd be glad for other editors' suggestions along the way. -Coemgenus (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

File:REAGANWH.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:REAGANWH.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:REAGANWH.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

it is traditional that those presidents who have died in office have their photos presented on a black background. This would include: , Harrison, Lincoln, Kennedy, Taylor, Harding, McKinley and Garfield. 97.112.241.51 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That is a fine suggestion, but outside the scope of an edit request. If you would like to provide the photos, someone can replace them for you, unless there is a problem. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan Photos

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan no longer have photos, instead there's a message that says "100px". Does anyone have the old photos or know where they were located? Enzio64 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am showing all pictures accounted for in both articles. swinquest (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Template

I'm working on a per-row template for this table, which will also emit metadata. Work in progress is at {{US-president-row}}, if anyone would like to help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams

He is belong to National Republican party but why there is no icon for that party? I think it is missing! I suggest someone makes it and put it in the article!65.128.159.201 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC) I see now on the list John Quincy Adams is shown as a Democratic-Republican, he served from 1825 until 1829, according to the wikipedia page on the Democratic-Republican Party it dissolved in 1825 due to the eletion of 1824. Accordingly Adams belonged to the National Republican Party a succeeding party of the Democratic-Republicans. Thus, I am of the opinion that he should listed as a National Republican.

While he ran as a National Republican during his potential second term, during his time as president, he was in fact a Democratic-Republican, according to the wikipedia article on John Quincy Adams. In addition, most history books will list him as a Democratic-Republican, despite later becoming a National Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbles02 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)