Talk:List of Presidents of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official Seal of the President of the United States of America.
 This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Presidents, a project to improve the quality of the biographies of U.S. Presidents and related articles to meet the criteria for Featured Article status. You are invited to view our progress.
Featured list FL This article has been rated as FL-Class on the assessment scale.
Featured list star List of Presidents of the United States is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
June 15, 2005 Featured list candidate Promoted

Contents

[edit] WTF? FA Class? LoL

Why is Ron Paul on the list of US presidents? And why hasn't Wikipedia caught it yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K4rm4k4z3 (talk • contribs) 19:07, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Democratic Party is improperly labelled "Democrat".

Renaming the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" is a subtle slur used by right-wing politicians and pundits. Please update the party column to read "Democratic" for Presidents who were members of the Democratic Party.

While right-wingers often use "Democrat Party" in this way, I don't think that's what's going on here. "Democrat" is often used as a noun to identify a member of the Democratic party., i.e. "Bill Clinton was a Democrat", not "Bill Clinton was a Democratic". The other parties happent to have noun forms that are identical to their adjective forms, i.e., "George Bush is a Republican". I honestly think it would look kind of weird to change the text in the Party column to read "Democratic" -- it would be an unattached adjective. I think the sense is that we're saying "This president was a Democrat (or Republican or Whig or whatever). --Jfruh (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We're using "Democratic-Republican", which can only properly be the adjective; we should use "Democratic", if only to avoid the appearance the anon perceives. Septentrionalis 00:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's true. "Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican." What noun form would you use? --Jfruh (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Jefferson was a Democratic Republican". For the rule involved, see Fowler: Modern English Usage. (BE, I know; but eighteenth-century typography was much the same in both countries.) For the evidence, see Dictionary of American English. Septentrionalis 04:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, whatever, then change the D-R names to D R so that everything is a noun form. Adjectives floating out there by themselves will look odd. Plus there are fewer of them to change :). --Jfruh (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Then you don't think the anon's complaint above worth responding to? That's what I reacted to; I wouldn't have bothered for consistency.
"Worth responding to?" Not sure what you mean by that. You'll note that I was the one who did respond to it on this page in the first place. I don't mean to be dismissive of it, and I certainly understand that "Democrat" is used in a deliberately dismissive way in some contexts; I resonded to it by saying that I don't get that vibe at all from its use in this list, and I'm actually the kind of guy whom that sort of thing annoys, if you follow me. It just strikes me as something of an overcompensation for a perceived slight. I guess the honest truth is that I don't really care, for all the energy I'm putting into this conversation; if you really want to change "Democrat" to "Democratic", be my guest; I have no plans to fight over it.--Jfruh (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to fight over it either; I continued the conversation to find what you feel strongly about. I meant "responding to" by adapting the article, as opposed to "replying to"; sorry for the ambiguity. Septentrionalis 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
(The page is now consistently by adjectives, btw; or, to put it another way, by the name of the Party rather than the name of its members.) Septentrionalis 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that "Republican," "Whig," and "Federalist" can be adjectives or nouns. Seeing "Democrat" (which can only be a noun) in the list just made me assume the others were being used as nouns too. (I'm not 100 percent convinced on the Fowler's citaion being relevant to "Democratic-Republican", either, as the word "Democratic" doesn't really modify the word "Republican". I'm not familiar with the historiography of the period, but I'd be curious to see how they punctuate the phrase used as a noun phrase.) Then there' "National Union" for Jackson, about which, just, ugh. But that's another story :) --Jfruh (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The column says "Party". There is no "Democrat" party, there is a "Democratic" party. To label otherwise would be incorrect and unencyclopedic. Skyemoor 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As a minor point: I don't think it looks odd; it's what I would expect, like a primary election exchange or a questionnaire: "Party? Democratic." Septentrionalis 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, to a point. Jefferson predated "Democratic Republican" and was strictly a "republican" or "Republican". "Democrat Party" is certainly misused today, and should not be reinforced as a form of informed speech. Skyemoor 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This exaggerates. His party had several names, of which "republican" was the most common; it became progressively less common after 1800. To use it here, however, is to be pedantic at the cost of producing inevitable misunderstanding; in fact, asserting that Jefferson and Lincoln belonged to the same Party. Septentrionalis 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As long as we are going for accuracy with "Democratic", we should also go for accuracy with all party titles. "republican" would be correct for Jefferson and Madison (his first presidential election at a minimum). There would be no confusion due to the small 'r'. Indeed, along with being correct, it would likely stimulate interest in learning more about this period. Skyemoor 14:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the comments below at #Color Legend.
I'm sure you are: you went and chased down that admin to act as your proxy. 66.225.251.176 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the idea that the purpose of WP is to force information down our readers' throats; and misinforming some of them for the sake of piquing the curiosity of others about why we say something so outlandish is not a good bargain. Septentrionalis 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
So false information is to be desired over what really happened? Isn't there a name for that? Is this the Disney version of American History? Jefferson and Madison called themselves and their party "republican" or sometimes "Republican", and this has been recognized by a long list of contemporary historians. Granted, there are non-historians, especially writers of childrens books, who still use DR in an all-encompassing manner, but why should we use a roller instead of a paintbrush on this mural of our country's history? 66.225.251.176 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the comments below at #Color Legend.
I'm sure you are: you went and chased down that admin to act as your proxy. 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Skyemoor
I oppose the idea that the purpose of WP is to force information down our readers' throats; and misinforming some of them for the sake of piquing the curiosity of others about why we say something so outlandish is not a good bargain. Septentrionalis 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
So false information is to be desired over what really happened? Isn't there a name for that? Is this the Disney version of American History? Jefferson and Madison called themselves and their party "republican" or sometimes "Republican", and this has been recognized by a long list of contemporary historians. Granted, there are non-historians, especially writers of childrens books, who still use DR in an all-encompassing manner, but why should we use a roller instead of a paintbrush on this mural of our country's history? Skyemoor 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[User:66.225.251.176|66.225.251.176]] 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We havn't got a 44th president yet, so somebody please take Hilary Clinton down. Also, George Bush's term does not expire in 2017, it expires in 2008.

Please take Barrack. H. Obama. out. We havent got a 44th President and he has'nt even won the Democratic nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.138.201 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Uncle Henry the Great?

[edit] Richard Nixon Photograph

there seems to be a breakdown in the photographs at the time we reach Richard Nixon, as in his pic is not there and everyone afterwards is wrong. Edit: looks like it was being edited in the background and all is fine now

[edit] Vertical width of bars

Maybe we should make the vertical width of bars proportional to years in office

Difficult to do with a President who served 31 days in office and one who served 12 years. -- 12.116.162.162 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle names/initials

I believe this list should omit middle names/initials except when necessary to distinguish Adamses, Bushes, (or VP Stevenson- who might be confused with his great-grandson, the presidential candidate). Any thoughts on this? --Mark Adler 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep All, it is never bad to know their full names - TopAce 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with TopAce. "John Kennedy"? Come on. What is the point of listing that instead of John F. Kennedy? And what rule says middle names need to be omitted? I have added them for JFK and FDR. Bssc81 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a very simple answer for this. On each individual biography page (e.g., Lyndon B. Johnson), the issue of how that person is to be primarily represented on Wikipedia has presumably already been discussed (or will be discussed), if there is any controversy. I would guess that in most cases editors would agree to go with the most common way that particular president is called (e.g., "John F. Kennedy," not "John Kennedy" or "John Fitzgerald Kennedy"). Why not follow the precedent set on each individual biography page? We have to link to it anyway, and there's no reason to create a piped link. It does not make sense to introduce an inconsistency in the way Wikipedia refers to these people. I am removing the comment at the head of the article until such time as a consensus is reached. -Exucmember 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you didn't really give a reason why middle initials should be removed, and since everyone else (myself included) seem to want them in, I'm adding them back in for now.
--Zarel 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the former piping VP Stevenson to Adlai E. Stevenson is now obsolete: Adlai E. Stevenson, the producer of many errors when intended as Adlai E. Stevenson II, now Rdrs to Adlai Stevenson (disambiguation). The VP is now at Adlai E. Stevenson I, and the pres. cand, Illinois gov, and UN ambassador is still at Adlai Stevenson.
And BTW, AES II is grandson, not great-grandson, to AES I.
--Jerzy•t 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Johnson

I changed it once, but got reverted: shouldn't his bar be a different color since he was a Unionist president? -Litefantastic 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Although Johnson often sided with Democrats, he was elected along with Lincoln under the Republican ticket (known as the Unionist Party at the time). The article lists John Tyler as a Whig, because that's the party he was elected with, even though he often sided with Democrats. If Tyler is listed as a Whig, Johnson should be listed as a Republican.24.118.91.125 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
His cabinet throughout largely consisted of Republicans (even though many of them, at the end, would soon switch over to the Democrats, others certainly did not - William Evarts, e.g., became Hayes' Secretary of State, and I don't think Seward ever fully broke with the Republican party). Tyler's final cabinet, on the other hand, pretty much entirely consisted of avowed Democrats like John C. Calhoun and John Y. Mason. On the other hand, Johnson made a serious bid for the Democratic nomination in 1868, something Tyler was entirely unable to do in 1844. john k (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Truman

Don't forget, Harry Truman's middle name was simply the letter "S", so putting a period after the letter is erroneous. Good nerdy factoid.

I agree. I was just coming onto this page to post something to that effect. However, it doesn't seem to have been changed. Wikipedia's biography page of Harry S Truman is the same way. I think it may be one of those "common usage makes incorrect usage okay" cases. 70.121.141.231 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impeached footnote

I fail to understand why removing the impeached footnote is an improvement to the list. When browsing the list, I think that information is helpful, since it is a specific constitutional process that has rarely been used, is important, and applies to the presidency. It highlights the fact that impeachement is not the same as removal from office, alerts modern readers to the fact that Clinton was the second president impeached, and is especially useful for people who remember that but can't remember exactly which one was the first president impeached. I'm re-adding it. If anyone wants to remove it, please give a justification for removing useful information here first. --Tox 12:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment is a very interesting feature and it is an important part of that President's term. I do agree with you, if that's your position. However, I think impeachment is not important in this article.
This article lists five categories: Name, Took office, Left office, Party, and Vice President(s). The footnotes (other than [I] Impeached) explain a deviation from the norm of one of these categories. Did his term end early? Yes... footnotes [A], [D], or [R]. Did he run on a party ticket that wasn't his party's? Yes… footnotes [U] or [W].
I think the standard is (and ought to be) whether the subject had a deviation from the norm of one of the categories by which the subject is listed. By this standard, someone (maybe me, but not right now) ought to add footnotes for those Presidents who entry into office was also unusual.
If we were to include impeachment, then under what standard are we to include footnotes? What other categories? If there was a war? If he was married? If he was a Quaker? There are other very useful lists that include these categories.
--Mark Adler 18:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Is not the fact that Johnson and Clinton were impeached rather more important to understanding their presidencies than knowing that William R. King was Franklin Pierce's Vice president (for a whole 44 days!) is to understanding his? If we're going to go with only the most basic information, I don't see why vice president should be included. It implies an importance to the office which it has historically never had. john k (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There should be an impeachment footnote for Clinton and Johnson.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree for the reasons Mark Adler stated above. His statement was the consensus of this page for the past three years. I do not think either poster has come close to changing that consensus yet. Where do we draw the line if you start including impeachment in footnotes on this list? Wars? They're pretty important to understanding the presidencies of several. If you want more than basic information, there are plenty of places on wikipedia to find it. Keep this just what its title suggests: a List of the Presidents of the United States. JasonCNJ (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Its only two presidents.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The POTUS Table

That is a very nice, and elaborate table. It adds much elegance and beauty to the article. Whomever crafted this article needs a thumbs (2) up! Эрон Кинней 23:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clicking on GW Bush takes you to his edit page

I'm not sure why, but when I click on the link to GWB, it takes me to his edit page, and not to his article page. Is this a bug?

[edit] Consistency Regarding Nicknames

I notice that Clinton is referred to as Bill and Carter is referred to as Jimmy, but Theodore Roosevelt is not referred to as Teddy. It seems like it might be good to use real names, or at least be consistent.

Clinton and Carter are ALWAYS (cue someone saying that they sometimes are not, but that is extremely rare) called Bill and Jimmy, respectively. Roosevelt is frequently called Theodore, so it's correct. --Rory096 06:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Beyond that, Roosevelt HATED being called "Teddy".JamesBenjamin 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color Photographs

Images for presidents 1-7 and 34-43 are color but 8-33 are not. I realize the first 7 are paintings and the last 10 are photos, but would it be possible to get color pictures or paintings for the others?

I would say pictures are preferable to paintings, even if they're black and white. We won't be able to get color pictures, since they didn't have them back then. --Rory096 06:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
All paintings except last one. It looks like a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.183.112 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Middle Initials

I think, simply in terms of consistency and improving the list, that middle initials should be included. I mean, who calls Taft "William Taft"? At least the H should be included. I would like to know if it is allright for me to fix this.

It's fine. Remember to be WP:BOLD in editing Wikipedia, especially if you don't think anyone will disagree. --Rory096 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Harry Truman did not have a middle name, he added the initial 'S' later, and therefore there should be no period after the letter.

[edit] Seems damaged

I just want to mention, that the "Bottle of wine" and "Linux" does not seem right for Washington, the first president.

[edit] The MIS-numbering of the Presidents

Just as we have 50 states (NOT 51), we have only had 42 (NOT 43) presidents. They should be numbered 1-42; not 1-43 as they conventionally/traditionally are. Just because someone made a mistake 109 years ago when he (some now-dead historian?) foolishly decided that Grover Cleveland, our 22nd president, should also be counted as our 24th president upon his unusual re-election to a second (though non-consecutive) term. Other presidents had previously been re-elected to second (consecutive) terms, but none of them were ever accorded two "numbers". There was no good reason for this then; and it has caused every succeeding president to be MIS-numbered ever since. When William McKinley was elected after Cleveland's 2nd term, he should have been counted as our 24th president---as he was the 24th different man/person to hold that office. But since Mr. "X" had assigned #24 to Cleveland for his 2nd term already, McKinley was wrongly listed as 25th. Thus my favorite president, Teddy Roosevelt, was given the incorrect number of 26 (and unfortunately 26 concrete steps were poured, upon his death, leading up to his gravesite in his Oyster Bay cemetery)---even though he was, in actuality, only president #25. Though Grover Cleveleand was in fact a big man, a large man weighing about 260 pounds, he was only one single person (not two)-- and he was only one of our 42 presidents. Unfortunately, virtually every list or "portrait gallery" of our presidents contains 43 lines or pictures, because Cleveland is named or shown twice. Why not count Franklin Delano Roosevelt as if he had been 4 different presidents then---since he was elected 4 times an served 3+ terms ? As a result of this bad numbering decision made sometime between 1884 and 1889, we no have our 42nd president, George W. Bush, constantly referred to as "43". Most adults, if asked how many different presidents the country has had, probably think there have been 43 men/persons to hold this office.---Richard Siegelman I have more "arguments", but for now I rest my case. Please THINK about it. Thank you.-----------Richard Siegelman

It is not our place to change convention or tradition. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Another way to think about this is the numbering is counting presidencies, of which there were 43, Cleveland having two. Paul August ☎ 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Over on the List of Prime Ministers of Canada we just put a dash in the number spot of Prime Ministers who served a second non-consecutive term. If your current numbering is "official" there isn't much you can do about it, but if it's just convention, don't let that stop you from changing it. Just because other encyclopedias are silly doesn't mean that the Wikipedia has to be. Cleveland only had one presidency, the only abnormality in his case is that the two terms of his one presidency were not consecutive. -arctic gnome 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Whichever decision is right, the text should be self-consistent. Right now, the text says Cleveland is counted as 22 and 24, when in the list he is 22 and - : 24 is McKinley. FWIW, I think he's the 22nd President.
When is counting not counting, but orginal research? When you are talking about the list of the U.S. Presidents apparently...I agree with Paul August, in my history class in Junior High, Cleveland was both 22 and 24. I vote to go with the text and count him as 22 and 24 both there and in the table. In fact, I just looked it up: www.whitehouse.gov → Cleveland's bio says he was 22 and 24. McKinley was 25, TR was 26, etc. That's as official as I need it to be. --Easter Monkey 10:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The US State Dept. has settled Cleveland's numbering. According to my copy of the World Almanac, the US State Dept. ruled that Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th Prez. I'm unsure when this took place; however the World Almanac has had this statement over Cleveland's bio for at least the last 15 years or so. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tradition and Conventions Are Not Always right; Errors Should Always Be Corrected

Did you change my re-numbering back to the conventional numbering, Paul August ? (I'm new, and trying to understand how this works-- Thanks, Richard Siegelman)

yes I did. Paul August ☎ 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enumeration of the Chief Executive

First, thanks for correctly numbering the list as per the official count (as of this moment anyway). I must say though that I don't see the usefulness of an additional column for the "Terms" as this is not a statistic that I've ever seen before, nor, now that I think about it, does it actually mean anything nor would it be anything that anybody would actually recognize as being significant, anybody that I know anyway. But whatever, if it makes you happy. I promise that I won't be the one to get rid of it. --Easter Monkey 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one likes it, I’ll get rid of it. But I see the terms row as allowing easy comparison of which presidents were elected for more than one term, and which ones were unelected and just took over after a death. I think that could be useful to many people, but I won’t complain if a consensus disagrees. -arctic gnome 18:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the terms column adds to the informational content of the table. Paul August ☎ 20:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess my comments were a knee-jerk reaction. I agree, it does make it easy to compare which presidents finished their own terms, which ones succeeded as a Vice President, etc. Got it, sorry for the initial "useless" comments. Good job. --Easter Monkey 06:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
We could make the terms calumn a bit more useful by linking them to the articles about each election. Arctic Gnome 05:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some sylistic changes

I've made a few stylistic changes, in particular:

  1. Decapitalized and use smaller font for comments (e.g. "vacant")
  2. Added a new row for each term.
  3. Removed the endings from the term numbers and centered.

I think this all looks better. Hope everyone agrees ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I also thought it would look better to center align all cells. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The first three items look good, but I'm not sure about centring all cells. That's just a personal preference thing, though. -arctic gnome 04:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Photo

I realize that somebody here might not like Bush-43. That's no excuse for porn on a list considered one of the best in the community. Please fix this post-haste. 70.16.1.227 18:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color Legend

Color Legend
(no party affiliation)
Federalist
Democratic-Republican
Democrat
Whig
Republican

What about having a legend showing which party is represented by each of the row colors used in the list? We already have a column indicating party affiliation, so this would be redundant, but I see such a legend being helpful and unobtrusive. When I started looking at the page, my attention was immediately drawn to the list itself, so I missed the lone sentence stating "The colors indicate the political party affiliation of each President". It wasn't until I got into the late 1800's (with the familiar reds and blues) before it finally clicked for me.

I've taken the liberty of creating a color key here, and recommend that the community consider the possibility of placing such an item in the article. Right now, the colors are listed in order of chronological appearance; some might perceive this as being biased against Republicans, in which case alphabetical order might better. What are your thoughts?

Nevistar 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the legend. I think chronological is the best order. In fact I think I will be bold and add it to the page myself Eluchil404 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Should the vice presidents be colored to reflect their party affiliation when it differs from their present (J. Adams, T. Jefferson, A. Johnson)? Rljenk 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Doesn't this coloring scheme give the false impression that the Democratic party of today is the same as the Democratic party of the 1850's (and the same for the Republican party)? Historically, the position of the Democrats of the 1850's reflects more closely today's Republican party than today's Democratic party--therefore the coloring scheme which has all Democrats and all Republicans as the same color regardless of the time period gives an incorrect impression. I'm not saying that the 19th century Democrats should be the same color as today's Republicans; it would be most accurate to have four different colors, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.126.109 (talk • contribs)

I strongly disagree. Of course it's true that the parties' philosophies have in many ways changed over the last hundred and fifty years or so, but its oversimplistic to say that they've just changed places. While Democratic and Republican views on civil rights made 180-degree shifts between 1860 and 1968, for instance, the Republicans have always been a party that looks to business interests for support, while the Democrats have somewhat more loosely always counted working-class people (albeit exclusively white, especially in the south, until the later 20th century) as an important component in their base.
More importantly, though, is the fact that there has been institutional continuity. The Democratic Party has changed over the decades, but there has never been a sharp break when suddenly it went from being the old reactionary post-Reconstruction Democratic Party and instantly became the new progressive Democratic Party of the New Deal and the Great Society. FDR took the party in new directions and so did LBJ, but most of the people in the party in 1928 were still in the party in 1936, and most of the people in the party in 1960 were still in the party in 1972. Ditto for the Republicans. Where would you draw the line where you would change from one color to the other? --Jfruh (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Color Legend
(no party affiliation)
Federalist
republican
Democratic-Republican
Democrat
Whig
Republican

Calling Jefferson and Madison "Democratic-Republican" is misleading; a few local parties used the term starting in 1802, though Monroe was the first to enter the Presidency under that title; even then it was not encompassing, as even Madison, Jefferson, and other party leaders were still primarily using "Republican" or "republican". I've supplied an enhanced color chart for consideration for the new color scheme. Skyemoor 15:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the party of Jefferson and Madison was separate and distinct from what is commonly known as the "Democratic-Republican" party? If so, I think you'll get a lot of disagreement. As has been argued at length elsewhere, the party name used by Jefferson and Madison was somewhat in flux. No one denies that they referred to themselves as "republicans". But their party had direct lineage to what has become commonly today known as the "Democratic-Republican" party (except perhaps among snobbish historians and pedants). I don't see why it is necessary to manufacture a new party color, when the existing schema illustrates the party continuity (if not the exact name in all circumstances). older ≠ wiser 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that Septentrionalis|Pmanderson felt he had to bring you in to this discussion. From your user:talk page;

Skyemoor has now pushed his "Jefferson founded the Republican Party" phase to the point of giving Jefferson and Lincoln the same entry on the List of United States Presidents. (diff). He also declares that Lincoln was a radical abolitionist. (diff.) After squabbling with him on DRP, I don't think he'll listen to me; would you have a word with him? Septentrionalis 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I admire your tenacity in dealing with him, though I don't think he holds me in any higher regard -- I've just tried to avoid getting caught up in aggravating disputes. I noticed that edit to List of United States Presidents and was about to revert it when I saw that you already had done so. I'll try to drop a line if I see things getting out of hand. older ≠ wiser 04:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To state that Jefferson and Madison 'belonged' to a "Democratic-Republican" party is ill-founded revisionism; contemporary historians are drawing away from labeling them as such, preferring "republicans", "Jeffersonian Republicans", or "Republicans" (see sources below). And it is likely that most of us were taught that Hamilton held his fire in his duel with Burr; that's "commonly known" to some, though we certainly know better now. A recent review of history textbooks labels Jefferson and Madison with the now preferred names above, so they are certainly not "commonly known" to be DR. And denigrating other editors by "snobbish historians and pedants" is a rhetorical tool propagandists call poisoning the well; it certainly begins to cross the line drawn by WP:Civility. If you insist on lineage with a later party of a different name, then why aren't they simply assigned to the Democratic Party?


Secondary Sources:

Dr. Rjensen checked 8 current college US history textbooks that have online tables of contents 1 uses Dem-Rep (see #3) 6 use Republican 1 uses Jeffersonians (#6)

Longman: http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/discipline/0,,72158,00.html

  • 2 Mark C. Carnes, and John A. Garraty,

ch 5 has section Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties.

  • 3 Jones: Created Equal

ch 9. Revolutionary Legacies, 1789—1803. Competing Political Visions in the New Nation. Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism in Action.

  • 4 Gary Nash American People

ch 8 student guide Controversy between Federalist supporters of the national government and the emerging Jeffersonian Republican opposition first erupted over domestic policies designed to stabilize the nation's finances and promote its economic development. Those policies revealed deep-seated conflicts between economic interests and raised urgent questions of how the new constitution should be interpreted

  • 5 Divine, Am Past & Present

ch 8 = Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision.

  • 6 Martin, Concise History.. "Jeffersonians"

from Bedford St Martin http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html

  • 7 Henretta America’ History (Bedford) ch 7/

Jefferson's Agrarian Vision Hamilton's financial programs divided the Federalists into two irreconcilable political parties and led to the emergence of the Republicans, a group headed by Madison and Jefferson.

  • 8 Roark American Promise (Bedford)

Republicans in Power 1800-1824 http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/roark/pages/bcs-main.asp?v=&s=09000&n=00010&i=09010.00&o=

Hence, the textbooks vote is 7-1 against D-R and 6-2 in favor of Republicans.


Primary Sources: (There are many more references than these, but they will provide an example)

There are certainly times when correspondence to some local republican chapters used the term Democratic Republican; my point is the term used at the national level is overwhelmingly "Republican" or "republican" until well after 1810. If it's good enough for history textbooks, it should be good enough for us. Skyemoor 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler/Johnson coloring

Johnson and Tyler were both Democrats, despite being elected as running mates to candidates of the opposite party. They should be treated similiarly -- either Tyler should get the Dem coloring or Johnson the Republican. Personally, I think it should be made clear that Tyler wasn't a Whig. --Jfruh (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the John Tyler article, I see now that the situation is a bit more complicated. Tyler was part of the Democratic Party in the 1820s but broke with Jackson and joined the new Whig party, who nominated him as veep ... but then as President clashed with Congressional Whigs and was expelled from the party within months of his inauguration. He didn't rejoin the Democrats -- apparently he became known as "the man without a party". Not sure what his coloring should be -- grey like Washington's? Or leave it as is? I have expanded the footnote about him a bit though. --Jfruh (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eight Missing Presidents

Hey, someone was sleeping when they wrote this article...THEY LEFT OUT EIGHT PRESIDENTS
John Hanson (1781-82)
Elias Boudinot (1782-83)
Thomas Mifflin (1783-84)
Richard Henry Lee (1784-85)
John Hancock (1785-86)
Nathan Gorman (1786-87)
Arthur St. Clair (1787-88)
Cyrus Griffin (1788-89)

Please make sure they get added to the list.

63.17.72.10 03:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To whoever deleted the above as nonsense: these guys were the head of state of the US under the Articles of Confederation. Whether or not they should be here is debatable, as the office was much different than the current presidency. I would say they should be left out, as we already link to them under President of the Continental Congress. But the suggestion isn't "nonsense" worthy of deletion from the talk page. --Jfruh (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Since they were not titled President of th United States (they were prsidents of Congress IIRC) they are (almost?) never counted in such lists. Eluchil404 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the article linked to above:

The formal title of “President of the United States, in Congress Assembled” was often shortened to simply “President of the United States”.

--Jfruh (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, those guys were not "head of state," they were head of government (like a prime minister). Political scientists tell us there is a difference.
Well, so who was the head of state then? Such an question is usually answered by determining who accredits ambassadors, which I assume the US did exchange during the Confederation period... --Jfruh (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A quick Google search turned up one claim that the President of Congress did accredit and receive ambassadors and ministers, although I haven't verified this against the records at the National Archives, but I still don't think that means these Presidents should be included in this list.
At least one of the Presidents' names in the list at the beginning of the page is spelled incorrectly, that being Nathaniel Gorham, who also had the important post of Chairman of the Committee of the Whole of the Constitutional Convention. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be interesting to list the (pre-Presidential) occupations of each of the Presidents. takethemud 17:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)takethemud

[edit] David Rice Atchison

(Jay) One president was left out. David Rice Atchison was president for one day after the death of James K. Polk. The vice-president, Zachary Taylor, was not sworn in because it was a Sunday. This made D. Atchison the president automatically because he was president of the Senate. Sure, he didn't realize that he had been president until several months later, but shouldn't he be added?

No, for a number of reasons: 1) Polk did not die in office, Taylor did. 2) The President of the Senate is the Vice President, and so would "automatically" be President. 3) Atchison was the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. 4) Even if Fillmore, who was Vice President during the Taylor administration, was not sworn in until the next day, the most Atchison would have been is acting President. As acting President, he is not an actual President, and so does not belong on the list. 5) Zachary Taylor died on July 9, 1850, which was a Tuesday. 6) James K. Polk died on June 15, 1849, which is a Friday. 7) James K. Polk "left office" on March 4, 1849, which was a Sunday. 8) Zachary Taylor was not Vice President during the Polk administration. 9) Even given that Zachary Taylor was not sworn in, the general consensus among scholars is that his term started on March 4.
Additionally, there is no evidence that Atchison took the Oath of Office either. To the extent that he had to become President because Taylor did not take the oath, then his failure to take the oath would also disqualify him from being "President" (although perhaps not as Acting President). Lastly, Atchison's tenure as President pro tempore expired at the same time as the terms of office for Polk and his VP Dallas and he was not sworn into his new term as President pro tempore until minutes before Taylor was sworn in as President. Turns out, while it's a funny folklore story, no serious scholar considers David Rice Atchison a President of the United States and thus Atchison should be excluded from this list. JasonCNJ 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupations

[edit] Term expiration (March 3 vs. March 4)

I have modified the table to reflect that the terms of Presidents before adoption of the 20th Amendment expired at noon on March 4, rather than on March 3. I believe this has been slightly controversial in the past but I have verified the March 4 date with evidence including the fact that numerous presidents exercised the powers of their office (including signing legislation) on the morning of March 4 before the inauguration. If anyone wants me to post more specific evidence I'd be glad to do so. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Whoa! Not so fast. If you're going to do this here, don't go changing every Congressman's dates, too. (see Frederick H. Gillett). There are many sources which indicate that Congressmen's terms ending March 3. Please don't change more until this is resolved!!! —Markles 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to change no more dates or until there is a consensus. I'm particularly glad to discuss with you as, having taken a look at your talk page and contribs while posting this answer, you obviously have a substantial investment in the congressional and presidential articles, so I'm glad to discuss in as much detail as you like.

There is pretty clear documentary evidence that until the Twentieth Amendment was passed in the 1930's, presidential and congressional terms expired at noon on March 4th. Nor was this just a theoretical issue; the outgoing Congress and President routinely exercised their powers on the morning of March 4th in odd-numbered years.

The lame-duck congressional session that began in December of each even-numbered year frequently went down to the wire and saw Congress meeting on the morning of March 4. I have here in my office the Congressional Record that includes March 4, 1917 (I am doing an article on some legislation that passed in the 64th Congress, 2d session and found an ex-library set of the Record for that session cheap on Amazon). The Senate was in session on the morning of March 4, 1917 -- even though it was a Sunday -- continuing in session from the previous day (there was a filibuster in progress concerning arming of U.S. merchant ships traveling to Europe). The Senate continued in session right until 12:00 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. The hour of 12 o'clock noon having arrived, under the Constitution of the United States I now declare the Senate of the United States adjourned sine die." (54 Cong. Rec. 5020)

The House was also in session on March 4, 1917, until 12 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The SPEAKER. The hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, under the Constitution I declare the House in the Sixty-fourth Congress adjourned sine die. God bless you all. [Applause.]" (54 Cong. Rec. 5033)

Meanwhile, the President was signing bills into law, also on the morning of March 4 (see 54 Cong. Rec. 5032). This is not unique to 1917; a Google search for "Act of March 4" (use the quotes) will turn up numerous statutes that became law on March 4 of a given odd-numbered year (e.g., Act of March 4, 1923), and certainly were signed on the last day of the outgoing congress rather than the first day of the incoming one.

I was in a library the other day and verified that the same thing happened in many other Congresses. See also the additional example with a 19th-century link that another user I've been discussing this posted at User_talk:DLJessup. The evidence I posted persuaded this user who was previously as committed to the March 3rd date as anyone.

By way of additional detail, there is a room in the Capitol building off the Senate chamber called the President's Room, which was formerly used for presidential bill signings, particularly in the last days of the session through the morning of March 4. See for example here. This custom continued right through the 1930's as is reflected in this interesting article from Time from 1933.

I hope this is responsive and would be glad to have the benefit of your thoughts or any counter-evidence. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. March 4th, it is. Carry on, then! —Markles 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to nail this down:

  • From the Senate Report on Presidential terms: From 1789 through 1937, presidential and vice presidential terms ended on March 4 of every year following a presidential election, a date set by the Second Congress.
  • From Hind's House Precedents §6694-8. §6725 ftnote: On the 3d of March, 1851, Mr. Stephens offered a resolution to test this question, and on the ruling of Speaker Cobb it was decided that the Congress expired at noon on the 4th of March; which ruling has been in effect ever since. (6697)
  • Congress also adjourned just before noon, March 4, 1921; see Talk: Woodrow Wilson for an extended quote.
  • Herbert Hoover was consulted about the bank closures in New York and Illinois on the morning of March 4, 1933, and decided not to act. Septentrionalis 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, "March 3" is the correct day for the expiration of terms of Congressmen and Senators. The office of the clerk of the House has stated that the March 3 date is correct for the Congresses. In an email from them:
"As earlier stated, the legislative day of March 3rd as defined by Hinds does not end until 12 noon on March 4th. The calendar day of March 3rd or 4th does not impact the legislative day. A legislative day may extend over multiple calendar days. Therefore, the Biographical Directory is correct.
Office of History and Preservation
Office of the Clerk
U.S. House of Representatives"
--tomf688 (talk - email) 01:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


  • This is a proposal to go by (artificial) legislative day, rather than actual calendar day. I oppose it as misleading and leading to error. The Congressional Record may count March 3 as ending at noon, March 4 (as this e-mail says); but that is no reason we should. Septentrionalis 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Septentrionalis (and I will look for some additional evidence). The "legislative day" probably means little to the average user. As important, the noon deadline is real -- at 12:00 noon, the Presiding Officer said "this Congress is over" and everyone went home -- if they were just playing games with legislative days they could have continued past noon -- so 12:00 noon was recognized as the real, constitutional deadline.
N.B.: I sense the beginning of an "edit war" here. No issue is worth feuding over and certainly not this one. I'll see if I can bring more evidence to bear. People attentive enough to such subtleties as this one should be friends. :) Regards to all, Newyorkbrad 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would not go so far; but whatever issues may be worth feuding over, this is not one of them. Septentrionalis 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The historical records of Congress (at least the records for the early Congresses available online at the LOC) pretty consistently describe the last session of the previous Congress as being the day before the next Congress began. I don't see any basis for saying otherwise based on speculative deductions. older ≠ wiser 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As indicated above, I've seen issues of the Congressional Record indicating that the House and Senate from the lame-duck Congress actually met on the morning of March 4th. I've got one sitting next to me right now, which I've quoted above. So it's not a matter of speculation. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
And the years concerned were 1917 and 1921 (see the report on Talk:Woodrow Wilson), which are likely to have had busier short terms than, say, 1825. It is plausible that the custom of ending the short term at noon March 4 developed quite late; the ruling on the subject was in 1851. Before that, the question is likely to have been in doubt. Septentrionalis 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But is it an issue "in doubt" if no-one seems to really be thinking about it? There's some discussion of this at Talk:Herbert Hoover#March 4, 1933 but in summary it's wrong to automatically assume that present day concerns about precision and ensuring that the office is always exercised even for a couple of hours whilst the President is undergoing surgery were concerns that existed in previous years. On the bills issue:
Signing bills at the last minute sounds to me like avoiding the messy constitutional question of the status of bills that remain unsigned within the ten day period when a new President takes office.
Perhaps by the 1920s and 1930s a habit had developed that power passed from one President to the next with the taking of the oath but that doesn't necessarily mean it was set in constitutional and legal stone. In the small hours of March 4th 1933 Hoover appears to be the first outgoing President to actually exercise powers between bedtime on March 3rd and the inauguration. (Well in his case it was a decision not to exercise them to close banks in a crisis on the grounds that state governors had taken action and so a national closing was not needed, not that FDR was now President.) Remember a lot of other matters were never really clarified in the original Constitution - for instance what were the rules for detemining contentious electoral votes, if the President died/resigned/was incapacitated did the Vice President become President or just act as President, how was a replacement Vice President to be selected, how was a President to be declared incapacicated... One that is relevant here is the question of whether a person only became President when they'd taken the oath - see David Rice Atchison. Timrollpickering 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually it was more than Hoover; both Coolidge and Wilson spent the morning of March 4th signing bills. See my discussion on their talk pages; I haven't gone back further. The biographies cited do not say which bills, but it would be unusual to leave anything controversial for the last day; pocket vetoes would be so easy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me that this is an "original research" issue, in that surely the creators of all the Congressional documentation knew well enough the facts mentioned above, and yet persist in saying terms ended on March 3rd. Clearly they consider the "legislative day" concept, mentioned above, as the governing fact. When we say otherwise we are violating WP policy by performing original research and/or reaching original conclusions. May I suggest a good solution may be to show the March 3rd date in accordance with the Congressional documentation, and then if we know (and think it noteworthy) that the "legislative day" actually extended into March 4th, that we footnote it, citing the source for this information. stilltim 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the issue, but the fact that the congressional terms extended until noon on March 4th is not original research; it's an undisputed fact, confirmed by the documentary evidence I cited, including a number of old Congressional Records as well as statutes passed and signed on that date. Simply put, if one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11:00 a.m. on (say) March 4, 1917 and looked at who was participating in the session, it was the members of the outgoing Congress, not the incoming one.
I've figured out, by the way, why there was never a session of Congress with a legislative day of March 4th. In those years, the usual time for the Senate and House to convene was 12:00 noon. (Committees met in the mornings.) Since the terms ended at noon, any session on March 4th was generally a carryover from the night before. That doesn't mean that the outgoing Members weren't still in office that morning. They were, as was the President.
In any event, legislative days are a purely artificial convention. In the Senate, in particular, a legislative day can consist of several calendar days, sometimes extending to weeks, depending on the parliamentary technicality of whether the Majority Leader or his designee moves to "adjourn" or "recess" at the conclusion of the day's proceedings. I think most of our readers would want to know who was in office as of a given day according to the actual real-world calendar, rather than an artificial convention.
And a further problem with the "legislative day" answer is how this ties in to years in which Congress adjourned sine die before March 3rd. Suppose the Congress finished for the year on February 28th. Would that mean that the Members for that term should be shown as being in office only until February 28? Clearly not, they would still hold the office until the expiration of the term. By parallel reasoning, the Members remained in office until the constitutional expiration of their term whether Congress happened to meet on March 4 that year or not and however the House and Senate Calendars captioned the dates. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your diligence in trying to get this exactly right, but I'm afraid you may be missing my point. Let me try again. I'm willing to accept that your information is correct, and am not disputing it in any way. The fact remains, however, that all the Congressional documention says the term ends on March 3rd, and regardless of what our readers, or you or I prefer, we as writers and editors, are not empowered to so blatently contradict our sources. That's original research. Presumably, they understand the issue, and all its implications, better than we do, if they are a quality source, as the US Congress surely is. What we can do is footnote our additional information, to add other information to that gathered from our primary source. From a simple reading of the articles you have modified, it appears that you have arbitrarily changed the ending date, contradicting the cited references, and without having provided any other citation to support the change. This additional citation needs to be on every article that enlarges upon the term ending date, and the reference to the talk page of another article is really not sufficient. An additional question also needs to be asked. Is this an issue worthy of note? Evidently the US Congress thinks not, or they would make more of a point about it. Again, I think I understand what you are trying to accomplish, and am simply trying to find an appropriate way to achieve your ends consistent with WP policy. Please give these points some real consideration. stilltim 03:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I will think upon your points. I do think I've cited some powerful sources above; the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate saying, in open session and recorded in the Congressional Record, that the session ended at noon on March 4th pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. That seems like a reasonable source to me. I'm open to any suggestion for achieving consensus on this issue, and am not as obsessed by it as my argumentation here might suggest. :) But I ask you to consider this: Who was the President of the United States, and who was (say) the U.S. Representative from Delaware, on (say) March 4, 1921, at 10:00 a.m.? Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another datapoint on this: On the last day of the First Congress's term—March 4, 1791—President Washington called the Senate back into session (the Fourth Session of the First Congress), according to the documentary history of that Congress. This of course means that the Senators of the expiring class were still in office as of that morning, and thus that their terms had not expired the night before. (Note that because the Senate appears to have convened in executive session only, to consider nominations, the session is not reported in the Annals of Congress.) Newyorkbrad 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive references

I installed linking references, from WP:FOOT. If anybody really dislikes them, feel free to revert. Septentrionalis 19:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism? Bush #41, 43

Columns "Took Office" and "Left Office", respectively

[edit] Color key?

Shouldn't there be a color key in this list? Chick Bowen 06:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, it would be helpful. Feel free to create one. Wahkeenah 06:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    I just realized that this was suggested above at #Color Legend and led to quite a debate. Chick Bowen 06:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can Someone change our Forefather's nickname from "muthaf*ing Washington"

Is there a better way to report vandalism, I'm a noob and don't want to mess anything up by changing it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.48.126.154 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

[edit] Presidential $1 Coins

My addition of the Presidential $1 Coin Program coins was removed by User:Libs23 saying they don't belong. What criteria says they do not? Cburnett 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with Lib23 that the Presidential $1 Coin Program isn't historically significant enough to belong here.--Pharos 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that "historical significance" was some kind of notability test. I'm also fuzzy on exactly what that means. Cburnett 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do you want to ad them? They are not that important. They are nice, nothing more. And most of the coins don't even exist yet. John 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The program is intended to honor the presidents. Would someone reading about the presidents as a list not be interested in the coins? I think they would be. As to "most of the coins don't even exist". Well, life changes and so does wikipedia. You can't expect anything here to be static so why is such an expectation placed here? Cburnett 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It means we could equally put in all sorts of trivia relating to individual presidents, such as their signatures, their first ladies and their boyhood homes, but the coins, while numismatically interesting, are not a significant presidential topic.--Pharos 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
So the heart of your argument is a slippery slope? Cburnett 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The heart of my argument is this is totally trivial information. The first ladies, for example, are by any objective standard a million times more significant.--Pharos 21:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you on pretty much everything you just said. All the trivia you have mentioned is personal and doesn't pertain to the office of president. The coins do as they are created specifically to honor the people whom have held that office. Cburnett 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Or information about birth and death. Much more important info. John 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That's personal information while this article is about the people who have held the office of president. A person's birthday or deathday have nothing to do with them holding the office (except the obvious requirement to hold it). The coins are specifically created to honor the people whom have held the office. Cburnett 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
So are the presidential libraries. And the presidential portraits. We don't ad that information. John 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
At least I have your head in the right line of thinking. I don't think the libraries are pertinent because it archives the substance of an administration and I see that as different. I'm not sure what you mean by "presidential portraits" since there is an image of each president here. The coin images themselves act as another image to boot. Cburnett 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, the coins have their own article and are already mentioned in the See also and in the template. It's not like the information is hiding ;) — MrDolomite • Talk 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't contending that the information is hidden. :) The coin article contains much more information than I've ever contended putting here. Cburnett 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are they so important for you? The coins are honors to the presidents. Why is that a reason to ad them? And with the presidential portraits, I mean the paintings in the White House. John 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said they were "so important." That's you putting words in my mouth. I think they merit inclusion because they are unique, AFAIK, in their honoring of all presidents by the fed government. Are there any other programs similar in nature but in a different medium? Secondarily, they also are a secondary visual source of the president. I didn't think this was a big deal until you made it one by reverting my changes with a 6 word explanation for why. From my perspective, you're acting as if you own the article. Cburnett 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, you're putting words in my mouth. I just don't think they belong on the page, others back me in this opinion. You do, that is your point of view. And they are not a secondary visual source. Most of the coins don't exist, you don't have a picture of them. And it could take years before the lasts coins are created. John 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, where did I say that you think they belong on the page?!?!?! Cburnett 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? John 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "what do you mean?" You accused me of putting words in your mouth and I did no such thing. Again: where did I say that you think they belong on the page? You're contending I said such. Where? Cburnett 22:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant this: From my perspective, you're acting as if you own the article. That is is what I meant by putting words in my mouth. I don't own the article and I don't feel I act like I own the page. I just removed your edit. It's not the end of the world, right? John 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess explaining my perspective of how you're approaching this is putting words in your mouth? Umm, ok. Anyway, you going to address my points that you avoided since I "put words in your mouth"? (Reread my prior post if you have to.) Cburnett 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Your points? That they should be added because they were created specifically to honor the people whom have held that office. That is your only point. And like I said, and others with me, the information is not that important. There is other info that also could be added. You say that that info has nothing to do with the presidency itself. That may be right, but this is also true with the coins. They are just an honor from the government. Nothing more, nothing less. John 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we avoid personal attack and stay on the topic? I am a numismatist myself, and would like everyone else to know about the presidential coins. But there is an article for that. There are a number of things that pertains the presidency and the presidency only. The coins is one of them. The number of votes is one of them, and inauguration speech. If we included all of them, the table would be infinitely wide. I was the one who put a link in the "see also" section. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official White House Portraits

I feel that it would better represent the presidents if instead of the pictures that are used here we use the real white house portraits--Uga Man 18:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced all the pictures with the official White House portraits except for: Monroe, Van Buren, W.H. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, Lincoln, A. Johnson, Grant, Arthur, McKinley, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Clinton because I could not find their white house portraits on wikipedia. Would somebody help me?--Uga Man 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's picture isn't his official White House portrait either. John 10:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added all the pictures that have been asked for to Commons. They are now available to be put on the list. I don't have access to do this so somebody should do it.--William Henry Harrison 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. This article is now more encyclopedic.--Uga Man 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes a portrait "official"?

According to the white house Q&A: "Portraits of the presidents are usually painted after they leave office. Sometimes the president knows an artist, sometimes he picks from among artists who send examples of their works to us. Arrangements are then made for him to sit for the artist and approve the finished product. Unless the president has friends who would like to donate the painting, it is paid for by the White House Historical Association which gives it to the White House... In some cases, we have more than one portrait of some presidents."

So according to this, there is no one "official portrait".
Also, if a president is assassinated, then who approves the portrait?

If you insist on only having portraits and no other pictures, then I think you should change the title of the article to reflect this. ( By the way, I can see that you've made some exceptions to this rule, because there are some photos.) It is strange to have an article called "list of presidents..." and not be able to see the face on some of the portraits, because the face is too small, or it is turned away, such as on Aaron Shikler 1970 painting of JFK, that Uga Man has put in the article and claims is "official".
I appreciate that you want consistency in the article, but artistic value is not the only criteria for an encyclopedia image. The ability to see the face is at least as important, if not more so, in my opinion. Another issue is that the artistic style is not at all consistent with the other portraits. So in terms of artistic value, a more appropriate image would be more consistent with the style chosen for the article, even if it's a photo.
More wiki photos here
I ask the community for their thoughts and opinions, and to consider using this "official" white house photo instead.

This image might need to be cropped a bit, because the image size used in the article is only 100px, which is rather small.

Mikiemike (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)--

All the official portraits can be found here. Using photos would be inconsistent since not all presidents have an official photo. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not have the portraits. Mikiemike (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)--

Your personal opinion on the official portrait is irrelevant. Your failure to recognize the official portraits I have provided for you to see in the links is your own problem and not mine nor wikipedia's. I do not understand your insistence on replacing the official portrait, but what I do understand and what you should understand is that if you continued on in this manner this list will no longer be Featured. I suggest you read about Aaron Shikler, I suggest you inform yourself about the official presidential portrait, and I suggest you try to gain a consensus for your constant reverts, which have become disruptive. I have a consensus of almost a year. On an unrelated matter; there is no need to place "page breaks" or "line breaks" when you post a comment, wikipedia is formatted to where that is unnecessary. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Uga Man,

If my opinion is irrelevant, then so is yours. Posting the home page for the White House is not a sufficient reference, nor does it provide any justification at all for your insistence on using all portraits except for GWB. Having this list "featured", seems like less of a priority than resolving conflicts and being consistent with Wikipedia policy.

A portrait is defined thusly:

portrait (plural portraits)

  1. A painting or other picture of a person, especially the head and shoulders.
  2. (figuratively) An accurate depiction of a mood.

[1]

The JFK painting is a questionable portrait, since it is not of the head and shoulders, and more importantly, it is not an accurate depiction of the president's mood, nor character. Rather, it is a projection of someone else's mood after JFK was killed. The time frame is wrong. Isn't the emphasis of the article supposed to be about presidents during the time that the presidents were in office? If we were to paint all the presidents at their funerals, that wouldn't be right, would it? But that's the mood this painting is conveying. For any president that was assassinated, should we morn their death for an eternity by immortalizing them in a morbid painting, and then selecting some committee to stamp it as "official"? You know, a lot of presidents were assassinated. They aren't all painted in such somber light. I'd like to discuss that inconsistency!

Reading about the artist is a good suggestion and I will try to do that. Unfortunately the wiki article that you referred me to is the stubbiest stub I've ever seen. The worst part is, it's completely unreferenced. Fortunately at least there's a link to the White House painting, (which no one here has provided in the article or in the discussion), and the JFK painted image itself is unreferenced, and by proxy so is this article. The image at that link is displayed in a much larger size, and it looks better, for what it's worth. It is more aesthetic too, and appears to have a lighter contrast, but that could be an illusion, but maybe not. Still the portrait has terrible artistic "composition". Also, the colors are so drab and depressing. This is in stark contrast to JFK's personality and character, as evidenced by the majority of his photos which are colorful, bright, and he is smiling and looking up, and not sullen and looking down. All of this is suspiciously suggestive that some artificial message is trying to be sent about him or his assassination, either by that artist or by somebody else. When you push the use of this painting, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you also push this message about JFK which is out-of-character.

Nevertheless, you arbitrarily and unilaterally instituted your policy of "portraits only", with little or no justification, and unless you can point to a specific Wikipedia policy, then I think the burden of proof is on you or the community to explain why this should be so. You have not done this. You have not established a consensus either, but rather your suggested policy has been both unsupported and unopposed until now. If you called for a vote, either explicitly or implicitly on this discussion page, apparently everyone has abstained, so your policy was uncontested. Do you understand the difference between "uncontested" and "consensus"?

Normally on Wikipedia when there's an unresolved controversy, both sides of the argument are reflected in the article. For instance in most articles, more than one image would be used, and this may be more appropriate and I would be willing compromise on this, albeit somewhat reluctantly. However, I get the feeling that you would throw this suggestion back in my face, because it doesn't meet your personal formatting standards which are unreasonably strict. I do appreciate the work you've done on this page, and I'm sure the community does too, and it's good that you have some pride in your work. However I'm suspicious that you think you're the "owner" of this page, or of this discussion for that matter, because you seem to act like it. Perhaps I act like it too. Nevertheless I'm sure that such an attitude is objectionable in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The community owns it, not you or me, even though you and I are part of the community.

On the other topic, why do you care if I use line breaks on this discussion page? I find it helps make it much more readable. Anyway, the formatting is not automatic, as you suggest. The colons have to be typed in and indented manually and much care is needed to get the format right for them to make sense. Also, I've found that on most discussion pages, people don't type the colons, so there's no formatting whatsoever, and the discussions become horribly unreadable.

I see that you reformatted my message above. What gives? As far as I know, that is against Wikipedia policy. DO NOT change other people messages!!! I was about to go along with the colon-based format, but now I see that every single paragraph needs colons, so actually my line break system works better! Besides I'm angry with your stubbornness, so I'm going to be stubborn too!

Anyway, who do you think you are, God's gift to formatting? Why are you so stubborn about formatting "Uga Man"? Are you one of those people that thinks there's only one right way to do something? Because obviously there's not. Are you a perfectionist? You seem like it. Are you the type of person that always stays between the lines and always follows tradition, and convention, and ignores as much as possible the fact that there are appropriate exceptions to every rule? The world is not nearly so perfect, linear, logical and plain as you apparently want it to be. All the imposed conformity in the world will never change this reality.

Most people reach for the encyclopedia when they want concise knowledge and information, not pretty formatting. Consistent formatting at the expense of misinformation makes for a poor quality article, which is far from the "featured list" that you apparently want this to be.

The portrait does not show JFK as he was, it shows him as the artist (or the artist's commissioner), or the selection committee wants him to be. Although this POV is relevant and important, it is also incomplete at best, because it is not a NPOV, nor are other POV's adequately represented. At worst, the painting is misleading or just plain wrong. This painting was made after JFK's death, so it is obviously not a live painting, and it is obviously a subjective artistic fabrication. Was it painted from a photo? What is the context? We have absolutely no information, because everything about this is completely unreferenced and lacks verifiable info. We're looking for articles to be serious, informative, accurate and most of all verifiable. The painting that you're insisting upon is apparently not any of these things. If you added unreferenced material, it is your responsibility to also add references or else allow it to be deleted or changed.

It is an insult to both Wikipedia, JFK and all citizens of the United States to insist on using an image with no references, of a painting by an artist neither of which we know anything about, with a artistic rendering that is so obviously out of character, and a misrepresentation of who that person really was. For you to even consider using such an image, let alone insist upon it, is one of the most un-encyclopedic things I've ever heard of. This is more like fantasy baseball than a decent portrayal of presidents. It's the responsibility of an encyclopedia editor to be impartial, because that's what readers want and expect.

I figure that you've made this into your pet project, and you have so much pride and obsession over this fantasy list, that you can't deviate the slightest amount from your hyper-strict ideals, even just to consider a slight change that might possibly be an improvement. Apparently, if you had your way, you would probably change all the photos on Wikipedia to art, because if so much as one person was born before the invention of the camera, then according to you we should never ever use cameras again to capture images of people, because it's so essential that everything be exactly the same, and never changing, and always perfectly consistent. We should even make sure that all the painters use the same type of paint, right? That is where you're going with this isn't it? A perfectly consistent world even if we must make it artificial for the sake of consistency? And according to you, no museum should ever have a photo next to a painting, right? You're saying that for consistency it's better to use a poor painting than a good photo?

I disagree. Nothing about any of the images is consistent, except that they're all US presidents, which really is all that matters. So stop trying to use the article to paint your idea of a perfect world, and instead make the article reflect the way the world really is. Nothing against artists. I like painters. But when I want art, I'll open an art book. Vetoing a photo is censorship. At least cameras are unbiased.

Mikiemike (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)--

Move your cursor over the line break icon at the top of the editing page, it states "use sparingly" because it causes server overload. I don't know what you want me to do about the images. I can't go back in time and change a president's official portrait. If you feel that official portraits should not be used I will prove to you that I have consensus and that official portraits are the best images to use; Since December 2007 this page has been viewed 1,057,060 times and you are the only individual out of those 1,057,060 to have expressed a problem with the images as they are now. Now to explain why official portraits are the best to use; you can't get more NPOV than an official portrait because it puts all the presidents on a level plain. Photos can't be compared for bias. A mix of photos and portraits would be adverse to the "consistency" which is a "large part of Wikipedia" according to the posting by veteran editor Happyme22 below. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How would a single line cause a server overload? The mouse-over comment to use line breaks sparingly, may be a stylistic issue.

We're clearly both strongly opinionated and we both strongly disagree. So let's start with what is Wikipedia policy. WP requires that the content is "verifiable", and this means a reference is needed. I wouldn't be nearly so objectionable if the article info was referenced. Unreferenced content can be deleted.

The word "official" is vague and uninformative. The phrase "White House approved" is much more accurate and informative. Anyway who defines "official", and how do they define it? That answer needs a reference too.
I think we need an intro paragraph or captions that explain what the images are. References are the minimum. Is there any reference anywhere that states that the painting is "official", according to the preceding definition?
Is there any reference anywhere that defines what criteria are used by the white house committee to select paintings?
The reference should have a dates too.

The number of page views has absolutely nothing to do with a consensus, it just suggests that only 1 in a million people even cares. I see no formal count. I see two people in support and two people opposed. Happyme22 is in favor of photos according to his comment. I don't care if the page got a billion hits, it doesn't change the vote at all.

At least camera film can only capture light reflecting off the real image. The worst a photographer could do would be to capture a rare moment, or something awkward or unflattering. The worst a painter can do is paint something completely fake. So the painting is potentially far more problematic than the photo. Consider how each would be viewed in a court of law, then consider which is more biased.

References don't take up a lot of space, and they are established policy, so let's put them in. I'm looking in WP for "consistency", and I found that it's a "style" "guideline", which is highly subjective. [2]

Mikiemike (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)--

[edit] Harry Truman's middle initial is usually not given an abbreviation period

Although historians believe that Harry Truman's middle initial, S, stands for the name Shipp (from his mother's family), there has, rather famously, never been confirmation of this. As to this, his middle initail is simply written as "S", with no period to denote an abbreviation.

The Truman Library uses a period, but the Whitehouse website does not. The Truman Library suggests a period should be used -- since their focus is primarily on his life and presidency, they are probably more authoritative on the subject. I think the period should stay. LostCause 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Info Footnote Revision

I suggest that the footnotes adding information on the presidents who died/were assassinated/resigned during office be revised. Many people today know that Nixon resigned and that FDR died in office, but few people know William Henry Harrison died only 30 days into his presidency...even after reading this list.

Right now the list serves three major purposes well: it shows the chronological order of the presidents, their party affiliation, and the serving vice presidents. The dates have a much lower impact. It is hard to visualize the length of the time periods they represent and the meaning behind their uneven intervals. Only after finishing the article did I even notice there were footnotes.

I suggest the "left office" column be amended with the words "assassinated," "died in office," "resigned," etc. below the dates for those whom it applies. It is true these things can be found in each president's article, but where else can a person find a quick run down of all presidents assassinated in office. I can't name them off the top of my head, it would take forever to look through every president's article.

It is inconvenient to have to search for the inconspicuous footnotes in this article and cross reference the numbers with their associated meaning. It is equally inconvenient to have to infer the assassinations by the uneven term lengths and lack of VP's. I don't know how to add the information and keep the aesthetics of the article so I'll leave the changes to be made by someone capable of the task...if no one is, the system now is more than adequate (just imperfect).

Just an idea...LostCause 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe we could code in little graph bars (kind of like List of popes (graphical) but not in a timeline) to represent partial terms served etc.? By the way, we do have a List of United States Presidential assassination attempts that I'm sure you'd be interested in.--Pharos 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President Bush - His Name

For the future, please make note that the correct name is 'George W. Bush'. It is NOT 'Miserable Failure'. I realize that some people may not like him, or what he has done. But lets keep this clean and accurate. 131.6.4.13 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Anonymouse


[edit] Ron Paul - A president?

Okay dudes, I know you RP supporters are over enthusiastic, But he is not the president yet. I'm surprised to see the wiki official list containing his name as the president of United States. Remove his name and stay neutral and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.41.5 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The second Bush

There appears to be a problem with George W. Bush's picture. There doesn't seem to be a resemblance. Notorious4life 06:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington's political party

I thought George Washington was a federalist. • EvanS :: talk § email § photos • 19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And you learn something new every day. Note how "No party" in the table links to Pro-Administration Party (United States), which sort of clarifies the historical situation.--Pharos (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Term numbers and veeps.

Is there a reason why term numbers are correct for veep becoming POTUS George H. W. Bush; but wrong for Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ford? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-09t06:59z

The term numbers are all correct. George H. W. Bush was elected under his own name to a new term (after Reagan's 2nd term was over), but the other veeps you mention only served out the remainder of the term of the previous POTUS (who had died in office before completing it).--Pharos (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Names vs. Nicknames

Why are William Clinton, Albert Gore, James Quayle, and Richard Cheney listed with their nicknames? It seems inconsistent to me. I think they should be listed with their proper, legal names. 24.254.121.2 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor query

Are you sure that things like 35th and 32nd need superscript as they're not dates? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Former Presidents

Does anyone know what official protocol is reagrding the titles of former presidents? I cant find any reliable sources, information i can find differs from retaining Mr. President to Mr. Surname... Steak Sandwich with the Lot (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not, Mr. President. They're often called "President Surname," but supposedly this is technically wrong. Supposedly, the only titles that last for life are Ambassador, Governor, Senator, and Judge, plus military titles. So, in order, our ex-presidents should have been General Washington, Mr. Adams, Governor Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Governor Monroe [He, and several others, was both Senator and Governor, and I'm not sure which would have precedence, but Governor was generally seen as a higher title at the time, I think], Senator Adams, Senator Jackson, Governor Van Buren, Governor Tyler, Governor Polk, Mr. Fillmore, Senator Pierce, Senator Buchanan, Governor Johnson, General Grant, Governor Hayes, Mr. Arthur, Governor Cleveland, Senator Harrison, Governor Roosevelt, Judge Taft (until he became Chief Justice), Governor Wilson, Governor Coolidge, Mr. Hoover, Senator Truman, General Eisenhower, Senator Johnson, Senator Nixon, Mr. Ford, Governor Carter, Governor Reagan, Ambassador Bush, and Governor Clinton. So far as I know, this is never actually applied. john k (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add a Column for Home State

Can an authorized user please add a column for home state of each president? It would be a great addition to this table. Omathewonder (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)omathewonder

[edit] George W Bush hasn't left office yet

So why does it list January 2009 as the date that he did? Add (expected) next to the date or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.188.33 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


because thats when his term ends and he cant take office more then 2 terms in a row unless its because of special circumstances which is very unlikely to happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.148.39 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry "S" Truman

Harry S Truman's name is listed as "Harry S. Truman". This is inaccurate; His middle name is simply "S", it doesn't stand for anything. I'd change it myself, but the page is restricted from editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.158.29 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See Harry S. Truman#Truman's middle initial. It appears an argument could be made either for or against the period; but as long as it's consensus that his article is located at Harry S. Truman, we should certainly defer to that.--Pharos (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Why are the portraits of the presidents being used, rather than the official photos? Their wives, the First Ladies of the United States, all use photos of themselves. A large part of Wikipedia is consistency, and using official photos would allow every president to have one displayed (as GWB doesn't have one now, and the next president won't have one until he is out of office, etc.) and stay consistent with other articles, such as that of the First Ladies. Happyme22 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Official photos are not being used because photography was not invented until somewhere around the William Henry Harrison administration. Portraits are much more consistent and perhaps the other pages should be edited to match this one. On the White House website and in the White House itself, the portraits are prominently displayed. You are correct that "A large part of Wikipedia is consistency" and perhaps that is the reason that this page is featured and First Lady of the United States is it. It is inconsistent and if I had the time I would fix it. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a good point; I suppose I really have no business here, but great job with the Featured list. Happyme22 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should use the official photos whenever we can as long as they look better than the portraits, as the photography during the William Henry Harrison administration was not as good as it is now. - DiligentTerrier and friends 13:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
How can you judge if a photo is better than a portrait? How can you deal with the inconsistency this would cause on the list? --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems silly. The only "consistency" necessary is that we should have pictures showing what each president looks like. john k (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not silly, the portraits need to place the presidents on level ground. The official portrait is the only way to provide this consistency.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federalist

I'm not sure about that footnote about Adams not really being a Federalist. We claim he was somehow less a Federalist than Hamilton, or than Jefferson was a Republican. What's the basis for this? As far as I'm aware, none of the parties was formally organized in the way that parties would be organized from the Jacksonian period onwards, so this seems to create an artificial distinction. john k (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the distinction is artificial. Most important U.S. politicians active in the period before Jackson's presidency frequently changed the subject of their praise or scorn from the Federalist to the Republicans and back again. The presidents from that period are noted in the list as belonging to a particular party mostly becuase of the way historians have classified them, not actual strict party affiliations. Since a situation were every President from Adams Sr. to Adams Jr. is listed as belonging to "No Party" is undesirable, and both of the article's sources consider Adams to be a Federalist, the "No Party" footnote should probably be removed. --Ace ETP (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested improvement

Having looked at this. I think this list would be improved if a short summary was included of the notable things that the presidents actually did. Like the 'Notes and Key Events' section included at List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. G-Man ? 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Im redirecting some US presidents articles here

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should have content not just words. Thats why articles about some obscure presidents which not other countries but US care should be removed. --201.235.238.54 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Vandalism reverted, above IP blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)