Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

Reverted ‘Racism Ranking’
Please achieve consensus before re-adding material.

Section quoted a single book published in the early 2020s ranking presidents’ “racism”.

In addition to the…usual…nature of the section, it suffered from recentism.

It marked Lincoln as a “white supremacist”. It is…a highly unusual position, and one especially associated with a particular ideology that was most popular in 2020-2021. It is definitely something that will remain to be seen, whether there is still a serious historian ranking presidents by “racism” number in 30 years. Oxenfording (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to concur, the “racist rankings” should be deleted, it’s quite obscene. Nate Rybner 02:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * adding my $0.02 here, this list is silly especially as it lists certain presidents in multiple categories. Nixon is both "anti-racist" and "white supremacist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.26.248.228 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * For the record; we achieve consensus before removing material. Saying "I deleted X, you must achieve consensus to question me" is a no. We don't do that here. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Late comment - for the record, we do actually do that here. See WP:BURDEN. That is policy. The burden for including that material (i.e. achieving consensus) has not been met. There isn't a comparable burden required to justify removing it, especially if the cited source is questionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Defense of President Harding Movement
Yet another presidential ranking year is here, and yet again Donald Trump ranks below Warren G. Harding. In fact EVERY time historians have been asked they rank Trump beneath Harding. When will it be okay to stop slander Warren and put Trump in the image of the three worst presidents? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that's more relevant than Harding's rankings in the 20th century - maybe start with a photo of Trump in the 2018-present subsection until there's consensus? Superb Owl (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, if we can get consensus on that I would agree it's appropriate at this time to have a picture and caption of Trump in that section -- Sleyece (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, Warren Harding was a very good and decent man and President. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * All he ever did was make sweet love to his mistress while his Cabinet raided the Treasury; then he had a stroke. #JusticeforHarding -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * His cabinet did not do that. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Teapot Dome scandal Bkatcher (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One cabinet member…hardly representative of his cabinet. The most ginned up scandal in American history and a total disgrace that it still affects the reputation of a good and decent man like Warren Harding. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - just one member is very different than the whole cabinet Superb Owl (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Fall guy went to prison, and the rest of them kept all the money. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing Harding and adding Trump. Harding, much like Nixon, were embroiled in a scandal but were effective executives nonetheless. Buchanan and Johnson are where they are due to their disastrous handling of the country in the prelude to the Civil War and aftermath, respectively. Trump's handling of COVID and his loss in 2020 is just as egregious and damaging to the Union as Johnson and Buchanans ineffectualness. PaulRKil (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of Buchanan's poor reputation is not based on being ineffectual. He was a Doughface and promoted pro-Southern Democratic policies throughout his term. Other Northern Democrats disliked him, the Southerners considered him a useful ally but "without any firm moral commitment to their cause", and you can guess what other Northerners thought of him. The Doughfaces aimed to achieve "sectional compromise", but both failed to achieve this goal and uninentionally added fuel to the fire of sectional violence. Some historians view Buchanan himself as a traitor. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Further Reading sources removed
In a recent edit, some references were removed because they were more than 20 years old. But in the Further Reading article, it does not prohibit older reference material. Since we (appropriately) include older polls in the main article....I don't think it should be omitted here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rja13ww33, you are right that WP:Further reading emphasizes notability as the main factor and also that generally these should be short sections. While it doesn't prohibit older material, the thinking in removing these older sources is that newer materials often reference older studies/works, making those older works seem somewhat redundant and less notable/relevant Superb Owl (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but is that indeed what is happening? (I.e. are the "newer materials often referenc[ing] older studies/works"?) I ask because some of the sources removed look pretty solid....and I am not seeing where they are referenced elsewhere. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rja13ww33, you mean in the article or in the works themselves? I am talking about the works themselves that tend to reference older studies and polls and give context that they build upon with more recent events and information Superb Owl (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in either. I haven't back checked every source in the article.....but spot checking a few, I don't see it. If we aren't sure these references are mentioned in the article's current references....I would suggest restoring them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Open to that idea if others agree but will just suggest that if an old source is not mentioned in any of the citations in the article or in any Further Reading entries from the last two decades, maybe they aren't notable enough to include in Further Reading in the first place Superb Owl (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of the sources are individual polls. (Like Gallup or C-Span.) I wouldn't expect those to cite a book (like those deleted).Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case it sounds like the article relies too heavily on primary sources and maybe we should flag sections that need more reliable, recent secondary sources Superb Owl (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First, if you have rankings.....obviously you are going to have polls. And secondly, that would raise the issue of RECENTISM. But we are getting on a tangent here....the topic is Further Reading. Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are the removed sources, in reverse chronological order:
 * → For Federalist Society surveys.
 * → A collection of essays by presidential scholars.
 * → Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys.
 * Greenstein, Fred I. et al. Evolution of the modern presidency : a bibliographical survey (1977) bibliography and annotation of 2500 scholarly books and articles. online
 * → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
 * Superb Owl (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added these back and methodically removed those that were not wholly about the topic, had fewer than 50 citations (a better metric for notability than age?) or were already mentioned/discussed/cited in the article. None of these are hard/fast rules for how to do WP:Further reading but are generally in-line with WP:Further reading and hopefully address the objections to the previous method (which I agree was too crude) Superb Owl (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The one I'm struggling with whether or not to add back in had 40 citations but the journal and author don't have their own wikipedia pages...leaning against it but wouldn't object if someone else wants to put it back:
 * Superb Owl (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is RfC level changes that have been hyped up by two people, so I reverted to citation bot. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sleyece, can you undo your revert and I will re-add all the further reading resources back to the article and flag them with my concerns one-by-one so we can continue this discussion? Superb Owl (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like you already undid the revision and added back some data for further discussion, which is fine. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Sleyece - there were some intermediate edits that took a lot of work and was anxious not to lose them. All the resources should be there now - just adding flags with the potential issues they face one-by-one Superb Owl (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a false assumption that more recent articles in this field summarize the best of the older articles. Just the opposite: journals have space limitations and every page discussing old articles is one page less available to cover your new findings. I think the current articles assume that people interested in the Roosevelts Bushes, Harrisons and Adams etc have access to these older articles, and they should be included. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've come around on this point and we are now debating which of the 20 we should keep. I flagged them one-by-one and there are three main objections to some of those sources (regardless of era):
 * 1) Low citation count (as rough estimate of notability)
 * 2) Not the same scope as this article (per WP:Further reading)
 * 3) The work is already discussed in the article itself Superb Owl (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are the four works I feel most confident about including:
 * → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
 * Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Superb Owl (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is RfC level changes that have been hyped up by two people, so I reverted to citation bot. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sleyece, can you undo your revert and I will re-add all the further reading resources back to the article and flag them with my concerns one-by-one so we can continue this discussion? Superb Owl (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like you already undid the revision and added back some data for further discussion, which is fine. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Sleyece - there were some intermediate edits that took a lot of work and was anxious not to lose them. All the resources should be there now - just adding flags with the potential issues they face one-by-one Superb Owl (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a false assumption that more recent articles in this field summarize the best of the older articles. Just the opposite: journals have space limitations and every page discussing old articles is one page less available to cover your new findings. I think the current articles assume that people interested in the Roosevelts Bushes, Harrisons and Adams etc have access to these older articles, and they should be included. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've come around on this point and we are now debating which of the 20 we should keep. I flagged them one-by-one and there are three main objections to some of those sources (regardless of era):
 * 1) Low citation count (as rough estimate of notability)
 * 2) Not the same scope as this article (per WP:Further reading)
 * 3) The work is already discussed in the article itself Superb Owl (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are the four works I feel most confident about including:
 * → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
 * Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
 * Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I recommend we keep: (A) Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. --the most in-depth analysis of how reputations can be evaluated over very different time periods (B) Murphy, Arthur B. (1984). "Evaluating the Presidents of the United States". Presidential Studies Quarterly. --important on how academic criteria change (C) Greenstein, Fred I. et al. Evolution of the modern presidency : a bibliographical survey (1977) bibliography and annotation of 2500 scholarly books and articles. --anyone who wants to evaluate one (or more) presidents needs access to this literature. (D) Skidmore, Max J. (2001). "Ranking and Evaluating Presidents: The Case of Theodore Roosevelt". White House Studies. --the most in-depth study of a single president; (E) Holli, Melvin  (1999). The American Mayor: The Best & the Worst Big-City Leaders. --this article is about two things: a) US presidents and b) historical ranking--this covers b) &  is the best book on that topic  Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Initial thoughts on those suggestions:
 * a) Schlesinger 1997 is already discussed and cited in the article - seems excessive to list again
 * b) Murphy has 29 citations in 40 years - maybe could be added to the article if he has some unique perspective to add? Doesn't seem notable as a standalone resource.
 * c) Greenstein has only 26 citations in almost 50 years, so it does not seem to be an essential piece of literature
 * d) Skidmore has only 9 citations on his Roosevelt article
 * e) Melvin has citations to support notability but the book is not entirely within the scope of this article (Mayors are not within this scope). If there are chapters or sections that focus on historical rankings of US presidents, I would support those being listed. Superb Owl (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The readers we serve are interested in American political leadership, and how scholars deal with it. The "Mayors" book will be very useful to many readers who want to delve further into the theme, and that is the criteria we should be using for a bibliography of Further reading. The criteria is not "Notability"-- it is rather helping our users:  "a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject." Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * from WP:Further reading: "Topical A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article. Works that are not entirely about the subject of the article should have notes that identify the relevant part of the work (e.g., "Chapter 7"). Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly.  Reliable  Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation." I still disagree with inclusion because none of these works are seminal (the ones that are appear in the article itself) and are (in my opinion) outdated.   "Limited  The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works, which in the case of a historical topic like World War II would run into thousands of items. When the list needs to be trimmed, preference in retention should normally be given to notable works over non-notable works." According to Template:further reading cleanup "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications..."
 * While we wait for others to weigh-in on keep proposals (the 4 sources I proposed, plus the 5 by @Rjensen), do @Rja13ww33 or @Sleyece have any thoughts on whether we can go ahead and move/remove the other 11 sources out of Further reading to bring us down to 10? Are there others we should keep? Superb Owl (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If no one weighs in further, you may continue to assume consensus from here on unless someone else reverts you. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Kept the ones without consensus and removed around 7 to bring us down to 14. Still much higher than the 6 that is what most editors consider to be the max. I forgot Ridings was cited (more than once) in the article and change my earlier 'keep' suggestion to 'remove' Superb Owl (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me. I'll take a closer look tomorrow and comment further (if I notice anything else). Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't get why some have the labels they do. For example, one of the Further Reading sources (i.e. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. 112 (2): 179–190) has a label of "Relevance?" But not only is the relevance of this without question (a heavyweight historian's poll of other historians cited in a reputable journal), it is already cited in the article (proving its worth). So I don't mean to be hypercritical here.....but I don't follow some of the reasons for this. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Was trying to flag that they were already in the article - changed them to 'excessive' flags but open to suggestions Superb Owl (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "already in the article" is a poor reason for dropping it from "Further reading." We want it to list the main books that people should go to if they want to study the topics further. Rjensen (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried organizing this discussion with the outstanding decisions we have yet to make into a table with what has been said so far and what the flags mean. Please fill out (or edit in the case of @Rjensen - I took a stab at summarizing your stances) a row if you have opinions you want reflected there. Superb Owl (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it alright if I ask for a third opinion to maybe help us reach a consensus one way or another? Superb Owl (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Weird blockquote
There was a weird block quote that added most of the article in an indented format all under the notable survey umbrella. If there was supposed to be one there to make the survey in question differentiate from the title or something, you can add it back but make sure to add a closing tag. Eg224 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Walton and Smith
The Walton and Smith poll results should be presented in a different format. The "white supremacist" list should be placed in a separate table or box from the other four categories, not as part of the same table, since Walton and Smith are using "white supremacist" to refer to personal beliefs and the other categories to refer to policy. I realize that the footnotes try to explain such anomalous results as Lincoln and Nixon being characterized both as white supremacists and anti-racists, but combining the two axes into a single table may confuse more readers than it helps. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the whole list is too convoluted. The footnotes try, but I think this is worth keeping.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the recent edits on this. I have thought this aspect of the article is problematic. This has come up before (see Archive #5). Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)