Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States/Archive 1

Typo needs correcting by someone with access
I have an account and am logged in, but I'm not able to edit the page.

The following typo in the 'Liberal and conservative raters' section needs correcting (bold text added):

"Both groups agreed on the composition of nine of the top ten Presidents (and were split over the inclusion of either Lyndon B. Johnson or Dwight Eisenhower), and nine of the worst seven (split over Jimmy Carter or Calvin Coolidge)."

It should read "six of the worst seven."

Removed non scientific poll
"A 2008 History News Network poll among professional historians (with self-selected responders) found that 98 percent believed that the George W. Bush presidency was a failure, and that 61 percent believed it to be the worst in history. "

First of all, anyone who ohiostate anything about statistics would understand that a "self selecte respond" poll is one of the most inaccurate polls an organization could run and it literally means nothing other than showing the responces people who are motivated strongly to one side. --Firebird (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

JFK
Why is he ranked so low compared to what the average American thinks of him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.139 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The average American does not realize that the popularity of JFK's presidency is defined not so much by the competency of his administration and its policies (both of which are questionable in retrospect), but by a) his then-appeal to the rising liberalism of the 60s and 70s, b) his personality and charisma, and c) his tragic death which still resonates emotionally with a lot of people, especially after they see Oliver Stone's 'JFK'. The only major milestone that JFK is probably responsible for is in setting the precedent for supporting the civil rights movement. People tend to identify him with the Space Race, but actually the Space Race began with Eisenhower, JFK just gave a very inspiring speech about it and continued support for the Space Program. JFK is commonly thought to have withstood the pressures of hawks in the Pentagon and kept the U.S. from further involvement in Vietnam, yet this is at odds with statements he made on his policy toward Vietnam, which indicated that the U.S. would become more involved if certain criteria in South Vietnam were not met. Moreover, JFK was clearly a Cold Warrior, as was evident during the Cuban Missile crisis and in his sponsorship, with RFK, of the covert actions against Castro in Cuba, against leftist forces in the Congo, and against Guevara's forces in S. America. In these respects, he was somewhat successful in bearing the torch passed on to him by Eisenhower, but did not live long enough to demonstrate where his leadership would have taken the U.S.'s relationship with Russia and other enemies.
 * JFK's administration was largely young and brought a new approach to the business, but were responsible for a number of serious tactical and strategic blunders (e.g., Bay of Pigs - people tend to minimize JFK's responsibility in this, but the fact is that Kennedy's involvement made an operation that was likely to fail become certain to fail). RFK, for instance, while often considered a man of strong ideals, was also something of a hothead and potentially volatile as attorney general. One of the potential worst mistakes he probably made at the beginning of his job was to threaten to try U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers for treason upon his return from the Soviet Union. Powers was cleared of any wrong-doing and praised in a Congressional hearing for his behavior while in Soviet captivity. LBJ inherited much of this administration and many of the problems in Vietnam stemmed directly from poor policies of this administration.
 * Most of us Americans are generally ignorant of these things. But JFK's iconic status and mythos as a revolutionary man and a president of the people are what stand out to Americans today. 70.191.196.187 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, Eisenhower wasn't all that big on the Space Race. He wanted the US to have satellites up to know what the Ruskies were doing, but he really didn't see any practical need for the US to spend billions of dollars on space exploration. If it were up to him, the Russians would have been the first to land a man on the moon. (BTW, I like both Ike and JFK).68.164.3.7 (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Protect page
I think we should have some sort of protection of this page from vandalism. My opinion is that it should be full-page protection, but any kind of protection would do as long as it stops people from making false listings and vandalising the page.--EclipseSSD (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush "foiled numerous potential terrorist attacks?"
There is a statement in the rationale for the historical rankings that Bush "foiled numerous potential terrorist attacks." This statement would appear to lack a neutral point of view. First, the article that is cited does not support use of the term "numerous," since it only appears to refer to one isolated incident. Second, this statement is clearly something that can easily be applied to any of the recent presidents -- for example, see Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke for some accounts of potential terrorist attacks that were foiled under Clinton. (I'm sure someone else could find accounts of plots foiled under George H.W. Bush and Reagan as well.) 132.204.220.220 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just to follow up on my comment -- what is the criteria for items to be included in the "notable achievements and failures informing rank" column of the historical rankings chart? Are these items that have been explicitly cited by the scholars performing the rankings? Or is it just wikipedians speculating on what the scholars' reasons might be? 132.204.220.220 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that myself and after reading the article I can't see any reason for that to be considered fact. After all, with President Bush's foreign policy disaster in the middle east, many believe he is doing less to prevent terrorism and more to provoke it, whether he knows he is or not. Snake 89 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop Republican Censorship of True Facts That Happen to be Anti-Bush
Can somebody stop Cjpuffin from editing/vandalising this page? There are citable, verifiable sources of encyclopaedic quality indicating that many people, including Noblel Prize laureate George A. Akerlof, do in fact consider G. W. Bush the worst U.S. president in history. This fact is directly relevant to this article, entitled Historical *Rankings* of U.S. Presidents. "Worst" is a ranking and G. W. Bush is a U.S. president. The censorship of this fact denies readers access to the truth, and undermines the general principles upon which Wikipedia is based. Let the people know the truth!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.210.88 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC).


 * First off, I despise what GWB has done to this country (and I'm not a democrat!). However, the only sources that should be used here are the polls listed. If we start including every Tom, Dick, and Harry's opinion on who's the best and worst Presidents, this article will go on forever. So what if somebody has a Nobel Prize (hell, if some of Nobel Prize winners had their way, the USSR would still be going strong)? Does this mean that that person must be infallible and right in all things and in all fields of human endeavor? Besides, if George A. Akerlof had any real knowledge of American History, he'd realize that though Bush was awful, there have been worse (Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson come to mind).68.164.3.7 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your addition arguably does not belong in this article at all, and if it does, it belongs in the section relating directly to GWB for reasons stated in the article; to wit, he cannot be "historically" ranked at least until his term is over. In addition, your language is inflammatory, grammatically incorrect, and lacking a NPOV. I urge you to get an account and discuss such edits on the talk page before making them, rather than complaining when they are removed. CjPuffin  06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanna go on record supporting 67.188.210.88 on this one. Fifty7 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your logic is flawed, Cjpuffin. This article contains rankings of Presidents up to and including G.W. Bush. Therefore, information regarding a ranking of Mr. Bush is relevant. Furthermore, if you wish to criticize a person's grammar, please be advised that when one places a single word in quotes, such as 'historically', one should enclose it in single quote marks, not double. radmod 68.230.194.224 03:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The opinion of a Nobel Prize laureate is still an opinion. If President Bush goes completely against another persons point of view they will generally call him the worst president in history as he is the current one.HAVOK14 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Bush is the worst president. Wait...didn't Ronald Reagan used to be called that in his term too? -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.25.139 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether Bush or Reagan is the worst: in this special case, couldn't we have a tie for the two worst?  But wait, that would leave out Nixon.  A three-way tie is the solution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.227.98 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Get an education. There have been much worse presidents than Bush 2 and even Nixon (who, if it wasn't for Watergate, would have gone down in history as one of the better ones). And, while I didn't agree with everything Reagan did, he was clearly above average.68.164.1.142 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. This is a "historical" ranking. There is no way to fairly rank the current president until his term is history. To speculate on how history will judge him seems more a question of current politics. It would seem the three paragraphs starting with the 2006 Sienna College poll should be more clearly labled as speculation as to where the current president might appear on the list. Kanaugle (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Big trouble in little Wiki
We've got a problem with the blue "re-order" arrows to the right of the titles of the ranking categories. If you re-order by Average, the number 2 appears below number 20. This should be corrected somehow, and quickly if possible. 207.199.249.153 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops!
Sorry about the mass delete earlier today. That was a mistake on my part. 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Harrison and Garfield

 * Why do we need to have "7 rankings" and "12 Rankings" numbers for these two presidents? Their lack of time in office is obviously taken into account in the 7 polls they were in, and there's no reason to reduce their perceived greatness even further by giving them credit for the lowest ranking in every poll they were omitted from.  A mathematical mean is a mathematical mean, independent of whether there are 5 samples or 50.  It should also be noted that most of the modern presidents aren't included on all that many polls either, but they do not have a "42" tacked on each time.

Anyways, that's just my two cents. Davemcarlson 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackson
Can somebody who knows supply a clearer probable explanation for Jackson's high ranking than "Overall effectiveness, charisma, nationalism"? Bds yahoo 22:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC) '''OK, did this myself. Feel free to improve it.'''


 * Also took out "not married" as a probable reason for Buchanan's low presidential ranking [!]. Bds yahoo 00:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not so sure about that one. Presidents are a representation of American family values, and Buchanan's "bachelorship" could have made him seem (or act) out of step with society.  George W Bush probably wouldn't have been elected without the "family values" card heavily in his favor. Davemcarlson 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Buchanan was not, however, castigated for being unmarried during his administration. Judging past events or persons by present-day standards (and the standards of only part of the public at that) is bad history. --Michael K. Smith 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jackson is highly ranked because few Americans know anything about him beyond the heavily propagandized depictions we were presented with in school. Given that he was probably the most thoroughly evil man to ever hold the office, it's sad that he's treated as one of the greats. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Please look at the rankings that appear in the Pfiffner book. They are not the personal opinions of individuals. User:66.20.28.21


 * To make the page more NPOV, it needs to be said that the Pfiffner rankings are not the definitive list. The article mentions George W. Bush as "ineptitude supreme", and so it must be noted that Robert Byrd is a Democrat. This puts context to the quote. Also, you cannot say that one book has ranked all the Presidents in such a way that no one person can argue. It must be mentioned that these are published opinions, otherwise this is merely an editorial page, which Wikipedia is not. 22:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have expanded this page considerably, adding two other surveys, which will help to balance POV issues. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 22:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Byrd quotes and rankings chart
Honestly I see no reason to put the Byrd quotes in. They are from one man, not an organization, as are the others, nor are they intended to be neutral. Simply because he has worked with many Presidents does not make him worthy of being the only individual mentioned in this article.--Arcaynn 05:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've eliminated the essentially off-topic Byrd quotes, and made a chart with poll results from various years. --Kevin Myers 04:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal of the Byrd quotes. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 16:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added labels to the column headings of the chart. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 16:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * That may crowd the chart too much in the future, because at least 3 or 4 more polls could be added to the chart: there's a 1996 Schlesinger Jr. poll out there somewhere; the Siena link has results for three polls if we use them all, and we might want to add a column for the CSPAN viewer results as well. A short-hand version of your labels might be needed. --Kevin Myers 16:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm trying to go with short names; so far everything still fits, even in an 800x600 resolution. I've added all the Siena polls; can you see about adding the 1948 Schlesinger poll results? We should try to include as many poll results as we can. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 17:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the 1948 Schlesinger Sr. poll results anywhere, but I'll keep an eye out for them, as should anyone else reading this. I just know about it because it's frequently mentioned as the first such poll. Schlesinger Jr. (the more famous of the two) also did a poll about 1996, which hopefully someone can track down. --Kevin Myers 02:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Source for 1948 data?
Thanks to anonymous user User:138.88.221.146 for adding the 1948 poll results. If the user is monitoring this page, then a small request: could the user also please give a citation for the book or paper in which the results are found? That would be nice to have. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 15:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Chart averaging
Does it not make more sense to take an average of the polls we're using and list the President's that way? Marskell 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Several problems with this:
 * First, polls are constantly being added, which would require updating the averages each time, which the people adding the polls might not be prepared to do and would require someone else monitoring the page to calculate averages of the numbers.
 * Second, the polls each have different numbers of Presidents (some Presidents appear in some polls but not others), which would make the calculating averages in this way a bit statistically sketchy.
 * Third, the weights for the averages could be off. Notice that, as of this writing, George Washington is ranked 4th four times &mdash; but only in the Siena polls, with all other polls placing Washington in the top 3. Doing a straight average would perhaps inappropriately or unfairly weight repeated polls (for example, Siena polls appear four times, but most other polls only appear once) with a specific methodology against other polls.
 * There may also be a couple other problems with averaging that I haven't thought of off the top of my head. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 18:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

-

It absolutely makes no sense at all to "average" these numbers. This is similar to measuring your son's height each year and then taking an average of it after 12 years or so... proves NOTHING, and mean NOTHING.

I think whoever thought it was logical to average those numbers should take a look at the methodology of how these polls are conducted just to get a slight idea of how averaging doesn't make sense.

On an unrelated note... Both Schlesinger (Dad & Son), CSPAN, and the Wall Street Journal has the best and most accurate methodology. Schlesinger Son didn't have creditability (as a statistician) but since he used (in 1996) almost the same model as his father, his poll is considered to have a strong methodology. Arthur M. Schlesinger - Dad and Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s - Son. [Stan]17:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Another objection to the averaging of the polls is that it creates a new set of data original to Wikipedia, and is thus, in a sense, original research. However, it seems to me that the "no original research" policy is widely ignored, so I no longer make a fuss about it. --Kevin

I know that the avererage of those number isn't valid, but it gives people a (very) rough idea of what the consensus of all scholars would be; it still can have some use for some people, so I say keep it. -arctic gnome 01:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Other polls
For you presidential trivia buffs, there are still other, well-known polls out there not yet added to the chart:

uhhhh huh! sure. And these books provide others rankings:
 * The 1996 Schlesinger poll, available on the 'net.
 * The C-SPAN viewer poll.
 * Bailey, Thomas. Presidential Greatness: The Image and the Man, From George Washington to the Present. New York: Irvington, 1978.
 * Murray, Robert K. and Tim H. Blessing. Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, Washington Through Carter. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980.

In addition, any number of popular "top 10 surveys" of the general public (usually conducted by newspapers) could be collected on a second chart.

I'm short on time right now, so I can't do it, but I hope others will keep at it. Have fun! --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 15:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There was recently an internet poll based on which president had the greatest effect on the world from the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University, with Franklin Roosevelt ultimately beating out George Washington in the final.  I'd like to include this as an example of another poll but wasn't sure where to put it, so if anyone would like to add it that would be great. -- Fearfulsymmetry 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Caption to Lincoln pic
1) I can't think of any assasination that I would likely describe as "timely" 2) How does having been assasinated contribute to his supposed greatness? Anyway, I'm removing the statement. --Easter Monkey 08:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Timely is probably a politically incorrect term - there must be a good word meaning "if he hadn't have died when he did there would be no myth surrounding him". "Didn't overstay his welcome" - kind of wordy. 2) A serious scholar can give you information about LIncoln that shows you the "real" man and a good glimpse of his motives. It is not a pretty picture.

Caption to Lincoln pic possible answer, and other poll not listed or mentioned.
Abraham Lincoln while he was alive was one of the most hated men of his day, both in the north and in the south. a lot like George W. Bush only the hate for him held by the ten anti war crowd during the Civil war was even greater in the north, and almost absolute in the south.

It was not until after he had died, that people started to look back on what he actual did and what he actual was trying to stand for. That is when he became one of the greatest presidents in American history if not the greatest.

Poll:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll020221_president.html
 * The poll is not a measure of love and hate--it's a measure of performance. Lincoln was hated because he saved the Union and freed the slaves. On the other hand, Harding was loved & nobody seemed to dislike him much. Rjensen 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Stupidity of including 1948, 1961 polls in averages
Considering there were numerous fewer presidents back then, older presidents will receive a bias in the average ranking category. For example, Adams was originally a top-10 president back when only 29 were ranked. Now he is four points lower because so many new presidents are ranked. However, why should he get a lower cumulative score just because he gets to include the 48 and 61 polls, as well as maybe the 82 polls? These polls are too old to be used to cumulate a president's average ranking. We should stick to polls within the last 10-15 years to remove such a bias. Bsd987 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * there's no "bias" here, because the "top 10" criterion is artificial. Rjensen 03:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't understand what Bsd is saying. Harding was ranked DEAD LAST in the 1948 Poll, yet this score actually INCREASES his ranking in the Wikipedia "poll averages" because in 1948 only 29 presidents were ranked.  The same thing goes for Pierce, Buchanan, and any other president--to varying degrees--that is ranked in the earlier polls. Numerous methods could correct for this, the easiest being to only include the more recent polls in the averages. Kronius 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution would be to use a Condorcet method instead of the arithmetical mean. Grover cleveland 01:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

drop "likely reason" section as unencyclopedic
I suggest we simply drop the "likely reasons" scholars supposedly have --it is based based on no evidence whatever about the beliefs of scholars and has become a pin-tail-on-donkey/elephant game. It's become more than silly, it can seriously mislead our users. Rjensen 01:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object, though I resent the donkey/elephant characterization. I've made a great deal of these contributions and although they may be flawed based on research errors, I have meticulously avoided making partisan judgments since these rankings are based on the judgments of scholars of all political persuasions (though some may -- perhaps rightly -- dispute my inclination to see A. Johnson's "impeding" Reconstruction as non-NPOV).


 * For example, I cited "presiding over end of Cold War" and "Great Communicator" as likely resons for Reagan's high ranking, though personally I think he is a very overrated president and doesn't deserve such a high ranking. Likewise I listed "Great Society" and "Civil Rights" as reasons for LBJ's high ranking and left out Vietnam b/c we are talking about reasons for high (not low) opinion of him by scholars.


 * I admit this tends to lead toward whitewashing the VERY checkered careers of high-ranking presidents like Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, and overlooking the noteworthy achievements of low-ranking presidents like, say, Hoover. Bds yahoo 03:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * if you ask "why wasn't he ranked higher" then you need to add the negatives too. But parts are getting 8th grade in quality (Buchanan, B Harrison, Van Buren, Madison, Reagan, Wilson) Rjensen 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Great--I would love to see your additions, then! US History isn't my primary field of specialization. I'm just contributing what I can, and striving for accuracy. Bds yahoo 03:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * p.s. 8th grade or not, surely Reagan's high ranking is based exactly on the perception that he brought about the end of the Cold War, and his rhetorical "optimism." I can't think of any more substantive reasons for his high ranking, but would love to know what they are. Bds yahoo 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Reagan "often" rounds out top ten?
"The remaining "top 10" ranks are often rounded out by Andrew Jackson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan."

According to data supplied in the article itself, Reagan only rounds out top ten in only two surveys, so I am going to restore James Polk's name, and ask that the Anonymous Editor who plugged Reagan in here please explain his ro her reason for editing in the Edit Summary next time. I would also like to note that I think Reagan was the best preident in a long time, just that not in history. Bds yahoo 13:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ALL PRESIDENTS ARE BAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.43.183 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Bush and Clinton
...and restored category heading that says "Reason for very high or very low ranking." (Used to say "extreme" but somebody mistook that for POV and foolishly removed it.) Presidents ranked toward the middle are more likely to be leaders about whom no clear scholarly consensus has emerged (which is probably why most recent presidents are ranked in the middle) and so it's a mugs game to try to summarize it. Besides, even if a consensus already existed about recent presidents as Clinton and Bush, we will end up with edit wars if we presume to declare the scholarly assessment of presidents whose legacies remain unclear (esp. George W. Bush, who is still in office). Bds yahoo 16:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The "likely contributing factors for very high or very low ranking" column is really just opinion, and thus not suitable. Better would be something like "significant events". Derex 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. I don't oppose it on principle, but in practice, you are now going to have edit wars over Clinton and the Bushes.George Kaplan 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What one may do could be to divide the "significant events" column into a "positive factors" column and a "negative factors" column (a sort of pros & cons approach.) Sophia 81 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * George Bush cant be on this it says Historical rankings of United States Presidents George W. Bush is still president its not a valid ranking his term isnt even done.

Add new polls
we need to add the Blessing & Murray poll -- what's the best way to squeeze them in or reconfigure the main list?? It has a poll of 846 historians in 1982. Rjensen 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, do you have a link to this data on-line? UPDATE Ah, I found it here. I can add this data but I'll leave it to somebody else to adjust the averages. George Kaplan 03:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the book (page 16); the ratings are (in order):

Rjensen 03:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1-2-3-4 Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, Washington, Jefferson
 * 5-6-7-8 T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Jackson, Truman
 * 9-to 17: J. Adams, L. Johnson, Eisenhower, Polk, Kennedy, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Cleveland
 * 18-26 McKinley, Taft, Van Buren, Hoover, Hayes, Arthur, Ford, Carter, B. Harrison
 * 27-31: Taylor, Tyler, Fillmore, Coolidge, Pierce
 * 32-36: A. Johnson, Buchanan, Nixon, Grant, Harding


 * Great--I have entered the data and will double check now. I don't know who does the averages for these things--too bad you can't automate a la Excel (or can you?). I know you don't care for averages anyway, though. George Kaplan 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * very nice job! I will add some of the Murray-Blessing analysis (for example, how different were liberal and conservative historians?) Rjensen 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very valuable addition, Rjensen. I decided to compute the new averages myself and will input them now. George Kaplan 12:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed error calculations in descriptions of polls
Errors shown in 'press releases' of polls should be taken as dodgy by default unless methodology used is shown to peer review.

article has two components: 1) Presidential greatness 2) how we rank leaders
In regards to the Holli reference. I reviewed the publication from Melvin G. Holli, "The American Mayor: The Best and the Worst Big-City Leaders. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999". It is essentially a review of American Mayors but makes no reference to Presidents. I can agree with keeping the historian, but the extension you keep putting in ---which have been extended to cover the greatest mayors as well---offers nothing to the article. /anon/
 * what the Holli book offers is a discussion of the "Ranking" problem, which is half the title after all. In other words this is an article about two different things, 1) presidential greatness and 2) ranking leaders. Holli is very useful because it breaks away from the presidents and strongly held political opinions. Rjensen 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Average column
There is a HUGE logic error in the 'Average' column... which is going to get worse and worse over time. The growing number of Presidents gives early poorly-ranked Presidents an unintended "boost" of their average.

To use a grossly exagerrated example for maximum effect:

Imagine an average of Harding's ratings in the 1948 survey, and two fictional surveys from the year 2400... 1948: 29 (worst) 2300 A: 118 (worst) 2300 B: 118 (worst) Average: 88. Suddenly he's out of the worst 1/4, even though he's been consistently ranked the worst president ever?

Obviously this effect is relatively small right now, but it's going to get much bigger... Tmorrisey 09:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * the solution is to use percentiles. but let's wait 20 years. Rjensen 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We should add a rating that uses percentiles now. Anyone got the time? Grover cleveland 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Convert each ranking to 0-1 scale (0 best, 1 worst), then average and sort:

0.0149683053004619 Abraham Lincoln 0.0289672769935928 Franklin D. Roosevelt 0.0486904756079981 George Washington 0.0938368443102076 Thomas Jefferson 0.108257293197922 Theodore Roosevelt 0.149038800699584 Woodrow Wilson 0.165970827331546 Harry S. Truman 0.212729215465095 Andrew Jackson 0.266515033556112 Dwight D. Eisenhower 0.272696385886373 James K. Polk 0.298260420205221 John F. Kennedy 0.300215580711409 John Adams 0.320718857849795 James Madison 0.325393325868294 Lyndon B. Johnson 0.359570371500731 James Monroe 0.370183461703038 Ronald Reagan 0.373530412209809 Grover Cleveland 0.41895439263058 William McKinley 0.427791442184895 John Quincy Adams 0.497226473782956 Bill Clinton 0.49906191369606 George W. Bush 0.504113464703965 William Howard Taft 0.533889837163265 George H. W. Bush 0.552614656898996 Martin Van Buren 0.56022733188972 Rutherford B. Hayes 0.653372208028819 Gerald R. Ford 0.656291640884067 Jimmy Carter 0.658460735330119 Chester A. Arthur 0.67540324589426 Herbert Hoover 0.707596613156626 Benjamin Harrison 0.727931622957297 James Garfield 0.733239312151379 Richard Nixon 0.743304340696831 Calvin Coolidge 0.77243807510977 Zachary Taylor 0.825865325520332 John Tyler 0.829764020746049 William Henry Harrison 0.845487145671677 Millard Fillmore 0.878608397928038 Ulysses S. Grant 0.897242944940313 Andrew Johnson 0.914143465186469 Franklin Pierce 0.956926521857523 James Buchanan 0.974659990048308 Warren G. Harding

Not only that, but the use of averages is Original Research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. The averages are not cited by any source, much less reliable source. It's just someone's opinion. They decided which poll to use and which to exclude. I think the average column should be taken out because it is Original Research. Congolese (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I agree that the "Average" column constitutes original research and should be omitted. Perhaps there is some sort of unbiased poll index out there which can be included?  I'm beginning to think that this article will ultimitely need to drop listings of rankings because, as Congolese brought up, how do you "(decide) which poll to use and which to exclude" -- this will cause an ongoing POV problem because we can't list all polls here.  The article may need to just be ABOUT presidential rankings while including none.  Perhaps that format would stand a much greater chance at being NPOV and free of original research.  Mdeaton (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We have another person at the Help Desk agreeing about OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_much_original_research_is_tolerated.3F Congolese (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of more than half the article
Wandering Star deleted more than half the article for reasons not clear to me anyway (and not documented here), leaving only one table. Perhaps this was an error? Shall we put the discussion, other tables and images back in? Crust 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this was totally unwarranted. In fact, I brought a book in to work today to add to the article. It's Reassessing the Presidency, put out by the Mises Institute in 2001. It has an excellent article on libertarian presidential rankings that turns the conservative-liberal consensus on its head. More than that, it's totally objective -- based on government size and growth, and inflation of the money supply. If someone reverts the article back to its prior glory, I'll add in this libertarian perspective. --Gilguillory 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reverted it. Crust, do you want to put your edits in again? --Gilguillory 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Crust 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian ranking
Gilguillory, it looks like you got the libertarian rating inverted compared to the convention in the rest of the article. Either that or these are some highly contrarian folks who think that Lincoln was the worst president and Harding the best. ;) Crust 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that the ranking is correct -- Lincoln is considered to be the worst president by many libertarian historians. --Gilguillory 12:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That surprises me. I don't pretend to know either way, but it really seems a strange idea to me that "many libertarian historians" would think that the president most associated with the end of slavery in the US (Lincoln) was the worst.  The methodology also seems curious to me in many ways.  For one thing, the measure given doesn't distinguish between Congress and the President (who both have a hand in determining spending).  It doesn't even seem like that great of a measure of the federal government to me; the policies set by Congress and the President are far from the only determinant of inflation during their terms.  Also, there is a peculiar bias against recent politicians (peculiar a priori, not unexpected given methodology):  of the last 10 presidents, the highest ranked (Clinton) is still listed as the thirteenth worst of all time.  Crust 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the liberatrians are a funny bunch. They do NOT use an indicator like greatest increase in GDP, because that would make FDR tops. They do not ask about freeing 4 million slaves because that would make Lincoln top. Rjensen 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are so many things that are strange (to me anyway) about this methodology I didn't bother to get into them all. I agree with you, real GDP growth would be much more natural than CPI (inflation); as you say that would boost FDR's rank.  Among other issues, economists usually look at inflation as something that can be too low as well as too high, so it doesn't make sense to rank a president higher the lower inflation was on his watch.  Crust 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I demoted the discussion of this in the article from a lenghty section of its own to one or two sentences in the conservative/liberal section. Rjensen, has a gone a step further and deleted it altogether.   I'm fine with that (I initially reverted his/her edit because I thought it wasn't deliberate).  I'm obviously also fine with just one or two sentences as I left it.  Just thought I'd clarify my view here in case there is any confusion. Crust 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Vedder piece. It does not actually try to rank all the presidents--he just says, look this quickie hypthetical model gives a totally different result. To my knowledge no group of libertarians has made a real ranking. So we can leave the biblio entry for people who might be interested. Rjensen 18:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense to me.  Crust 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * why is lincoln assosated with the end of slavery why osn't the britich king that abolished it in great breatin in 1812 or johnson who was presidant during the end of slavory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michak (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Rjensen, people have argued that slavery would have been abolished without Lincoln, and that he actually wasn't very motivated to do it, so there is no need for you to attribute only that to him, instead of attributing it to all the people who actually invested their sweat and blood into abolishing it, while you choose to ignore Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus and other things that happened which WERE his direct motives, which libertarians might have a problem with.mmortal03 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RJensen, Crust, it is clear that Vedder and Gallaway are indeed ranking the presidents. Though they admit that it is a rough model, there is discussion about why they chose the various models they did. Further, this ranking was of interest to a major libertarian think tank that included it in an already overfull collections of articles on the presidency. It is indeed reflective of the libertarian viewpoint. You may not agree with that viewpoint, but it is a ranking, it is published by a major libertarian think tank, and it adds new information content to this encyclopedia topic in a way that a mere 1 or 2 sentences cannot. And the reader will not notice a bibliographic entry that is not referred to unless he's doing a research paper. The casual reader of wikipedia looks for richness. I've added this section back.--Gilguillory 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, but the method and worth of the poll is disputed, and the General consensus is that it does not belong on the page. I will not remove it, but things like that should be discussed on the talk page before anything is done. There is a process that is followed on WP, please respect it. Cptjeff 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Libertarian" section, the liberal and conservative rating immediately preceeding it are based on polls, whereas this is merely a ranking based on a rough numerical system devised by merely two people (Vedder and Gallaway) who do not necessarily represent consesus views of libertarian historians or citizens. Furthermore libertarianism is more than just an economic theory, it deals with individual rights and non-interventionism abroad, neither of which are represented. Most other figures are aggregates of opinion polls of some group or another, there are many factors an individual references when forming an opinion of a president, beyond political positions or policy, there are the events they faced as president as well as perceptions of the president as a person. I found the Libertarian section to be inflammatory which was my main reason for removing it. Cianalas (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Memory
"He who controls the past, controls the future" -Jozef Stalin.

How are we to remember the past Presidents? The answers you choose depend largely on your political views today. Was Reagan responmsible for winning the Cold War? Or shall we remember him for the Iran-Contra fiasco, the AIDS crisis, and his steady loss of mental acuity? I guess that all depends on who you ask. A Republican will more likely talk in terms of the former, a Democrat the latter. Thus, I wonder if articles like this can ever truly be NPOV. One editor with a particualr viewpoint may choose to delete the edit by another editor which points out something unflattering about his favourite President. Or, another editor may choose to include material that glorifies his faves, while villainizing those he despises.

Probably the only Presidents safe from this sort of thing are those who nobody really remembers much any more, like Polk or Van Buren. Chester Arthur probably doesn't inspire very much hate or sympathy in anyone, so we can rest assured his description will be NPOV.

As for the others? Notice how the most recent Presidents and the most controversial ones have the item they are remembered for change from one day to the next. Note the long lists on theirs, compared to the relatively empty ones for people like Warren Harding.

Can this article ever really be NPOV so long as such a description remains? Maybe we'd be better off if we'd just delete it all together, and leave the descriptions of what they are remembered for for the pages on each individual President. After all, what's a Republican to do when some Democrat posts soemthing unflattering about George W Bush, but to erase it and post something even more unflattering about Bill J. Clinton? Everyone's got a Point Of View (POV) about those two. And let's not even get into Carter or Bush Sr. Wandering Star 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy
A vanadalism joke in the rankings section appears under Kennedy's name, which does notappear in the editing section, although does appear in the actual article. The vandalism in question deals with "philandering" being listed as one of the scholarly reasons he was ranked, where he was on the survey of presidents. This is clearly vandalism, as it obviously had no academic impact on where he was placed in the rankings for this particular survey.

Why it does not show up in the editing window, I am unsure of. If it cannot be fixed, the whole listshould be removed and redone.

Why Is LBJ ranked so high
Most of the stuff this guy accomplished was harmful to the US. Sure he deserves some recognition for the good things he did, but how can he be ranked anywhere near Reagan?


 * Because the people who did these rankings use things other then political opinions to determine these things. Reagan sold weapons to Iran and funneled the money illegally to the contras. He lied to the American people about that, and in terms of long term interest it has proved to be incredibly harmful to the US. So why is he ranked that high?


 * LBJ has to be considered in two parts. In foreign policy, he ranks in the bottom half-dozen presidents (mostly because of Viet Nam), but in domestic matters he probably belongs in the top half-dozen (the Great Society, etc, and because he was consistently the least racist president we've had, Southern origins notwithstanding). Nixon is the opposite situation: Useful foreign policy (China trip, withdrawal from Viet Nam, etc), disastrous domestically (Watergate, suppression of contrary opinions generally). It's always annoyed me, too, that Reagan is so often given credit for the collapse of European communism, as if he brought it about singlehandedly. I am of the strong opinion that it doesn't much matter who was president during that period -- the Soviet Union was ready to buckle because of an accumulation of socioeconomic factors. --Michael K. Smith 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of factors, and even though you and I may have doubts about the ranks of some, We do not have PhDs in the subject.Cptjeff 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The table is screwed up
Ridings- McIver 1996 poll rank has 3 ratings of 38, and then a 40... I think something's wrong (and there's no 41!) Bak 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson
I think this is not quite fair that's poor ranking of Andrew Johnson. Of course his policy on Reconstruction is very controversial (but, in fact, Radical policy of Radical Republicans was very diffrend than Lincoln's plans on this), but we must remember he was President who bought Alaska - a very inmportant region for America. Why this great event wasn't noted? 83.24.193.13 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Secretary of State William Seward was responsible for the Alaska purchase. I doubt if Andrew Johnson even knew where Alaska was. Johnson was prolix, egregiously self-centered, a reverse snob (bragging about his plebian origins), a self-righteous prude (though not a drunk, as is often claimed), and completely indifferent to the problems of the newly-freed slaves. Like Ford, he could only have become president via the back door; he probably could never have been nominated on his own, much less been elected. --Michael K. Smith 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

adjustment for liberal or conservative orientation
Hi, this is my first wikipedia post. I have a concern about this page. The way the data is presented mixes together two very different kinds of polls: true surveys of scholarly opinions and surveys which attempt to sample away perceived political biases in the academic community. While I can certainly understand the motivation for addressing these biases, these oversampled polls dont belong on the same page as the more representative surveys. If a Texas newspaper next decides that they wish to do a survey in which Texan historians are better represented, would these results also be presented side by side with the real surveys? What if the "Texas unbiased" sample showed LBJ and Eisenhower were the greatest presidents? There is already a section discussing liberal vs. conservative bias. The results from the oversampled surveys belong in that section, but should be removed from the main table. Since I'm a newbie, I would love some feedback on this concern. --Entropiconomicus 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reagan and Ketchup
The whole Reagan made ketchup a vegetable for school lunches thing has nothing to do with how we view him as a president. Please stop adding it in. It's ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrborchik (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

W
The part about George W Bush being ranked low in recent polls has no source. All the polls shown on this page have him listed as being in the middle of the pack. This website is about information and facts, not partisan hackery.Jrborchik 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that "all the polls" refers to only two polls. Furthermore, the WSJ poll's validity seems to be questionable. I, for one, would like a link to the actual 'scholars' who ranked in the WSJ poll. If this is the same as a book that I ran across that also ranked presidents, I find the information incredulous since of the authors of the articles I noted several conservatives, yet only one possible liberal (which, of course, does not imply there were not an equal number of each, just that the conservatives more well known). radmod 68.230.194.224 04:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the data shown here does not suppor the idea that George W. Bush is consistently ranked at the bottom. The polls covering the entire presidency seem to rank him in the middle, while only two recent polls specifically asking about the worst, and in one case including mostly 'prestige' Presidents, rank him at the bottom.  I personally consider him the worst in my lifetime, but that's my opinion.  The polls quoted are mixed.  Paulc206 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

W CITED
W being ranked low in recent PUBLIC opinion polls is cited within the article with several sources. Two polls show W ranked low and another poll shows him ranked much lower than his father. One specifically rates W the worst president since WWII, in contrast to Ronald Reagan who is rated #1. Where is the liberal bias? Reagan takes the prize and W takes the rear.

For clarity, all three polls have been consolidated under the President Bush Polls section. It is clearly cited though a clearly listed section. By the way, this Bush section would be huge if you included all the negative approval ratings, which is different than presidential rankings.


 * The Quinnipiac University poll is the only one to put him at the bottom. It only included the past 61 years, and asking the general public about anything like this always reveals a bias, for good or bad, towards the recent.  While I have high hopes that W goes down in history as the worst ever, I think given that half the polls quoted here put him in the middle means that calling him out as a regular bottom dweller smacks of editorializing, and not reporting the data as shown.  I'm a liberal, too, but objectivity > bias.  Paulc206 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Head to head ranking
I agree with all the problems with using the average that peole have mentioned above. Because of them, I'd like to propose an additional ranking. Here are the rules:
 * We rank each pair of presidents relative to each other by comparing their results in each survey.
 * For example, 10 surveys rank Lincoln ahead of Washington. 2 surveys ranks Washington ahead of Lincoln.  Therefore Lincoln wins the head-to-head against Washington


 * We then give each president a score consisting of the number of head-to-heads he won minus the number of head-to-heads he lost.
 * For example, Washington lost head-to-heads against two presidents: Lincoln (10/2) and Franklin Roosevelt (8/4) but won against all other 39 other presidents. Therefore Washington has a score of 39 - 2 = 37.

I think this is a good system because it doesn't give an advantage or disadvantage to presidents who are in the smaller surveys. Here are a couple of examples:
 * 1) Suppose there was a survey in 1780 consisting solely of Washington. where he ranks 1.  This would boost Washington's  numerical average, but the poll is obviously meaningless.  On the head-to-head system it wouldn't change Washington's rank at all, since he wasn't compared against anybody.
 * 2) Suppose there was a survey today consisting only of the worst-ranked presidents -- say Harding, Johnson and Buchanan.  Whoever ranked 1 this survey would get a major boost to his average, perhaps going above several much higher-ranked presidents.  But intuitively such a survey should only affect the candidates' ranking relative to each other.

1. Abraham Lincoln 41 2. Franklin D. Roosevelt 39 3. George Washington 37 4. Thomas Jefferson 35 5. Theodore Roosevelt 33 6. Woodrow Wilson 31 7. Harry S. Truman 29 8. Andrew Jackson 27 9. Dwight D. Eisenhower 25 10. James K. Polk 23 11. John Adams 21 12. John F. Kennedy 18 13. James Madison 17 14. Lyndon B. Johnson 15 15. James Monroe 13 16. Ronald Reagan 11 17. Grover Cleveland 10 18. John Quincy Adams 6 19. William McKinley 5 20. William Howard Taft 1 21. George W. Bush 1 22. George H. W. Bush 0 23. Bill Clinton -1 24. Martin Van Buren -5 25. Rutherford B. Hayes -7 26. Gerald R. Ford -10 27. Jimmy Carter -12 28. Chester A. Arthur -13 29. Herbert Hoover -14 30. Richard Nixon -18 31 (tie). James Garfield -19 31 (tie). Benjamin Harrison -19 33. Calvin Coolidge -23 34. Zachary Taylor -25 35. John Tyler -27 36. William Henry Harrison -29 37. Millard Fillmore -31 38. Franklin Pierce -33 39. Ulysses S. Grant -35 40. Andrew Johnson -37 41. James Buchanan -39 42. Warren G. Harding -41

The sortable table would look like this (but I can't figure out how to make the last column sortable):

Comments, suggestions welcome. Grover cleveland 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea with the head-to-head rankings! Great job. --Ben T/C 09:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really excellent work. Congratulations and thank you for your considerable effort in calculating this data.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.227.98 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

lincoln
Give me 3 reasons why lincoln is rated so high other than "freeing the slaves" which he did not do he declared that in territory that the U.S. does not control a slave can escape and come to the U.S. so why isn't canada on this list and the civil war he wasn't the a great genral that planned how to defeat the south he just said ya go do that weather it was good or bad also good speaches does not make you a bad presidant then jfk should be number 1. i'm not showing my name because my user page will be vandalized for this clame. he still should be in the top ten but 1 or 2 and don't get me started about FDR. 69.29.192.101

rankings
rankings within 5 years of presidentcy scores should be ommited because of lack of knolige of long term effect. look at this
 * 34 || Dwight D. Eisenhower || &mdash; || 22 || 11 || 09 || 11 || 12 || 08 || 09 || 09 || 09 || 10 || 08 || 10.73

and compare to some one with a simmilar avrage


 * 11 || James K. Polk || 10 || 08 || 12 || 11 || 12 || 13 || 14 || 11 || 12 || 10 || 11 || 09 || 11.08 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michak (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Michak

LINCOLN
Your comments about Lincoln are wrong. I assume you have been fed tons of fake information and believed it. Go read a top Lincoln biography. For a good intro that's easy to read for people without an advanced education, read Stephen B. Oates "With Malice Towards None: A Life of Abraham Lincoln." Briefly, Lincoln was possibly the most skillful American president and a great orator. I will briefly explain why Lincoln was a great - the greatest - president. He was brilliant at ultimately settling several difficult issues, including the slavery issue which the founding fathers and other notable people could never resolve - until Lincoln.

Before Lincoln became president, he pulled himself up from his log cabin upbringing to became a very skillful and much-sought lawyer. He was very smart and shrewd in legal matters, and yet was greatly respected for his character.

As president he used these skills to brilliantly lead the North to a difficult victory, preserve the Union, and abolish slavery. He made the right moves in the biggest chess game in American history up until that point, and the war could very easily have been lost had he taken different strategies taken by men of lesser skills, such as the political leaders of the South.

After Lincoln was elected President, Southern states, without any provocation, announced that they had seceded from the Union. Lincoln was very careful to try and woo the South back, saying that he would never abolish slavery in the South - only stop it from expanding westward. When the South refused his peace offering, history records that the South started the war and then lost not only their bid to be a seperate nation but also slavery.

How a war starts in very important, and Lincoln got everything he wanted on this issue. Look at the problems that Bush has because of the way he went to war in Iraq.

At first Lincoln said that he had no intention of abolishing slavery in the South and proclaimed that he was just trying to keep the Union together. He knew that many people would not fight a war to end slavery, so at first he said he was only waging war to keep the Union together. He especially needed to keep Kentucky and Maryland from joining the South. It would have been a disaster had those states joined the South, especially Maryland which bordered Washington D.C. Lincoln was brilliant at keeping them neutral.

By the way, the big issue that caused the war was the issue of expansion of slavery westward. The US acquired territory all the way to California and Oregon in the Spanish-American war. Would these territories be slave or free states. Lincoln said that he would accept slavery in the South and leave it alone there, but he would not tolerate more slavery westward. Many agreed with Lincoln, hence the movement for "free soil, free labor, free men" and the birth of the Republican Party. In contrast, the South wanted a great slave nation all the way to the Pacific Ocean, which in time would have become like the racist and evil Third Reigh under Adolph Hitler. It was the explosive issue of slavery expansion to Kansas other western territories that really caused the war. Lincoln said that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The USA was at a turning point. Slavery finally had to be settled. Either America would be all slavery or none. This was truly a huge issue. The great founding fathers had basically punted on this issue for a later generation to solve.

Lincoln did not have good generals during most of the war and had to keep the country together during these difficult years of incompetent generals. It was only until he found Grant and Sherman that he could finally execute the style of war that he wanted, which was to smash the South. He brilliantly saw that total war was the only way to win the war - as opposed to his incompetent general George McClellen who favored conservative defense. A prolonged conflict and stalemate would mean a win for the south. This was the first total war in history and Lincoln recognized the way that had to be taken to win. He said, "One man hold a leg and another do the skinning."

Lincoln visited the front more than any other president in history. When McClellen, popular with his troops, became Lincoln's opponent in the next election, Lincoln still won 80% of the soldier vote.

Once Lincoln saw victory near, he then cleverly shifted to the goal of abolishing slavery. He juggled this issue masterfully.

And Lincoln did free the slaves. You do not know what you are talking about. Lincoln abolished slavery and involuntary servitute through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. At first his Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel states and not border states, which brilliantly staddled the issue of making the war a crusade against slavery while keeping the border states away from the Confederacy. But once the war was nearly won, Lincoln and Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing ALL slavery and involitary servitude in ALL states. After the House of Representatives passed the 13th Amendment, Lincoln quipped, "If the people over the river had behaved themselves I could not have done what I have," which was to free the slaves. And he did this without any compensation to the Southerners for their lost "property." HA! The 13th Amendment was fully ratified after Lincoln died, but it was his Amendment and it passed the House with of Representatives with his leadership while he was still alive.

Lincoln's Gettysburg address is also one of the greatest expressions of America in history, and it is read and learned by millions of school children every year. Now that is enduring greatness. "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the principal that ALL men are created equal. This nation, under God, shall have A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM..." WOW!

Finally, Lincoln's most under-rated achievement was the way he successfully handed the end of the war. In many ways, the way a war ends is just as important as if it is won. Many scholars have said that the South still could have won the war by shifting to a guerrilla was. The South did not need to smash the North to win. The South simply needed a stalemate and for the North to grow weary of war, which is what happened to USA in Vietnam. Lincoln recognized this and met with Grant in person to tell him to treat Lee with the utmost respect and graciousness at Lee's surrender. Lincoln said he also did not want vindictive killings, such as those which followed the French Revolution. And believe me, some Northerners would have liked that. Lee was showered with god-like respect and he came away from his surrender without any bitterness or motivation to fight further. Some other Southern generals were enraged at Lee because they wanted to continue the war in the hills. Remember that Lee only surrendered his army and not the whole Confederacy. Lincoln gave an eloquest second inaugural address calling for "malice towards none and charity for all." He wooed the South into throwing in the towel. VICTORY!

The way a war ends is so important. Just look at the horrible mess in Iraq today because Bush had no plan for the end of the war. He declared the war over in a pilot suit on an aircraft carrier. Several books detail the lack of a post-war plan for a long time. "State of Denial" is one book. "Fiasco" is another. "Hubris" is another. Bush is a moron compared to Lincoln. Also look at how badly the first World War ended. The punitive Versailles treaty created resentment in Germany that led to WWII. Woodrow Wilson has come under critcism for his aggreeing to these brutal peace terms, be he actually was a visionary who tried to achieve noble peace but simply failed.

As for Lincoln's faults, he bordered on being a tyrant for a just cause and brilliantly achieved it.

And don't get me stated about FDR. You obviously have been fed a pack of lies and can never understand his true greatness because of your core beliefs around falsehoods. I suggest you Read "Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom" which was written by a conservative and received rave reviews from conservatives like Buckley, Will, O'Rourke and Kissinger. Read it!

FDR created pragmatic reforms to improve capitalism, making it more stable and more prosperous (and more fairly). He pulled USA from isolationism, destroyed Hitler, and forged a lasting USA foreign policy of active engagement by a superpower with a strong president for a just cause.

- 65.112.121.29 19:43, February 3, 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln revisited
I guess if you read books only by Lincoln adulators, you are going to do nothing but adore Lincoln. Try reading some opposing viewpoints for once, to get a more rounded and reasonable view. Here are some: "The Real Lincoln" by by Thomas DiLorenzo; "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams; "One Nation, Indivisible?" by Robert Hawes

In the meantime it makes little sense to damn Buchanan in this article for "Failure to avert Civil War" when it was Lincoln who provoked the war; Buchanan did the opposite - war would have been averted if he had remained president because he would have let the South go, as the Constitution demanded. At worst you can damn him for failure to avert secession, although even that is a huge stretch since the secession was triggered by the election of Lincoln and his program of high tariffs. So I will make a change there.

On second thought I will leave it alone. The whole column "Noted for:" is hopelessly biased and mere opinion. For example, much of the commentary during Lincoln's time said that the Emancipation Proclamation was pure bunk, since he only emancipated slaves in territory that the South controlled. Northerners, including Grant himself, held their slaves till the end of the war.

This article is a mess. It needs to be deep-sixed.

Paul Bonneau 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so the rational among us can be reassured, the above paragraph consists of atrocious history that any good scholar would blush at. I've read "The Real Lincoln"; I'm assuming the other two books you cite are as bad about getting basic historical facts straight. 151.196.139.118 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Presidents by average scholar rank - Notable achievements and failures
There is obviously political bias in the column labeled "Notable achievements and failures informing rank" in the "Presidents by average scholar rank." For obvious reasons, the current term president would be the largest target for such things.

For example (George W Bush):
 * Libs23: removed George W Bush's low unemployment
 * Libs32: use of the word "affair" (it insinuates likeness to Bill Clinton's extramarital affair) (should be something like "event", or better yet, not mentioned, as it was not a significant presidential event ) could be misleading to those who are unfamiliar with this event. In addition, Jeb Bush, Governer of Florida, is noted for being the one in the spot light for this event)
 * Libs32: "large federal budget deficits" was changed to "largest ever federal budget deficits" but fails to take into account how expensive it is to pay for things such as for wars the protect the United States and providing easy lives for illegal aliens who use government mandated tax payer funded aid. Pacifist don't like to enforce the protection of the United States and therefor don't have the expenses of wars.  However, these wars are necessary, as they most often have been throughout time, and are taken care of by the next administration that understands that.  Additionally, the wars become larger as the pacifist administrations allow time for the enemy to gain power and resources.  As history has shown U.N. resolutions have not worked with evil men like Saddam Hussein.
 * Libs32: "Neo-conservative foreign policy of pre-emption" is considered an opinion and does not belong on Wikipedia. President Bush's decision was based upon intelligence he was given and his obligation to his country.
 * Libs32: "Iraq War" was renamed to "Invasion and occupation of Iraq" which is contrary to the facts. I can understand that many people believe this to be true as the political agenda of almost all news organizations is of that of a liberal pacifist.
 * Libs32: "large tax cuts which stimulated the economy resulting in a huge surplus during the Clinton Administration" was changed to "large tax cuts which caused large federal budget deficits" with the original being" which is incorrect.
 * Libs32: added "large federal budget deficits
 * Libs32: added "mishandling of Hurricane Katrina response" which is an opinion. Also, sufficient warning was given to the residents and it is not the government's job to make people do things, such as leave there home even in the event of impending danger.
 * Libs32: added "opposition to the Kyoto Protocol". Why is it necessary for him to do so?
 * Libs32: added Plame affair, yet is still a current event and it has not been proven that it was one of the President's "Notable achievements and failures" and as such, should not be listed.

(Ronald Reagan):
 * Libs32: *Libs32: "large tax cuts which stimulated the economy resulting in a huge surplus during the Clinton Administration" was changed to "large tax cuts which caused large federal budget deficits" with the original being correct.

(Bill Clinton):
 * Libs32: Removed "Monica Lewinsky". Based upon his other changes it can be safely assumed that he did not want this to blemish a president that he admires.

This is only going back two weeks. As I constructed this NPOV dispute, it is very clear (and to my surprise) that we have a single person making these erroneous edits, namely Libs32. I move that Libs32 have his editing rights removed as he has continually shown clear political bias in editing, which provides information contrary to fact, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules and regulations as found here at WP:NPOV. If you disagree with my reasoning, please cite a reputable source indicating otherwise.

--- Tuxd00d 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all a lot of bull. First, I'm not not the only one who added or deleted some information. So blaming me is just stupid. Second, everbody has the right to ad or delete information. If you want to ad something, you can do that. I don't deny you that right. Third, of course it is POV. It's just an opinion of people. And fourth, you have your opinion, I have mine. Removing my editing rights is a violence of the right of free speech. I never denied anybody that right. I just used mine.

--- John 12:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain what is “a lot of bull?” You mention that you are “not the only one who added or deleted some information” and that “blaming [you] is just stupid,” yet no one has accused you of such. However in the last two weeks, almost all, if not all, of the changes which introduced *your point of view* were edits you had made. You mention second that “[everybody] has the right to [add] or delete information” which is only true when you are adding factual information or removing false information or otherwise editing for style and minor corrections. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are taking into consideration the rules, regulations, and goals of this project, which include the absence of opinion, when you also mentioned as part of your second point that “if [one] [wanted] to [add] something, [one] [could] do [it]” and that “[you] don't deny [anyone] that right.” It appears from your third point that you openly and proudly admit that your additions to this article contain *your* point of view, which obviously do not fall under a “neutral point of view” as required by the rules, regulations and goals of this project. The operating body of this project feels that a “neutral point of view” is of such importance that it is one of their “Five Pillars that define [it's] character.” Your fourth point about each of us having a point of view is not relevant as the articles of this project are to remain void of such things and only contain “neutral points of view.”  Again, your point of view is not welcome in this project and obviously you can not “just [use] [your] [right to free speech].”

I'm not sure how to respond to you comment about “removing [your] editing rights [as an act of violence against] the right of free speech. It is tragic that very few educational establishments effectively teach the history of the United States of America nor the importance and spirit of the great documents which established this God given country. If you are indeed attempting to invoke your “free speech” rights, it sorrows me that I must even mention that the freedom of speech, as found in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution applies *only* to prevent the government from censoring you in regards to your comments about a governmental issue. It clearly does not grant you the right to not be censored by a private company, namely Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., which within it's own rights has created a “constitution,” if you will, of it's own. Additionally, this organization, and it's fruits, such as wikipedia.org, much remain void of all political bias in order to be subject to, and receive the benefits of, filing as a 501(c)(3) organization. Your “point of view” contributions to this project literally place the organization in jeopardy of loosing this designation which would thereby destroy its survivability. That being the case, please do you part and contribute only items with a “neutral point of view” or cease to contribute.

--- Tuxd00d 14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me react to your examples:

George W. Bush: And Bush has had a lot of Neo-Conservatives in is administration (Rumsfeld, Cheney to name two). His policies were created by these men. Iraq, for example, is a direct consequent.
 * 1. Low unemployement. The administration is not over, unemployement could rise again. Wait until his presidency is over. And his number aren't even that remarkable. They are higher than under Bill Clinton.
 * 2. I removed the Schiavo-affair. I agree, has nothing to do with Bush.
 * 3. and 4. are clearly your opinions. What ever created the budget-deficits, Bush is at least responsible (tax-cuts while fighting a war?).
 * 5. Everybody calls it the Iraq War. It's known as the War in Iraq. Iraq War looks like a good name.
 * 6. Your opinion. The huge surples could well have been created by the tax-rises under Bush sr. and Clinton. Maybe not the large tax cuts. It is a possible reason for it.
 * 7. There are large federal budget deficits. Just read the numbers.
 * 8. Did you even watch the TV during that time? It took days before Bush did something right. The federal government acted very slowly.
 * 9. Bush is (or at least was) against the Kyoto Protocol. In times of concernes about global warming it is a important fact.
 * 10. The source of the Plame leak came possible from inside the White House (Cheney and Rove are called possible sources). It's is important fact (the Lewinksy affair is not a "Notable achievements and failures" of Bill Clinton).

Ronald Reagan:
 * See point 6, above.

Bill Clinton:
 * First, I don't admire Clinton. And second, Lewinsky is covered by the Clinton Impeachment. If you say: Lewinksy affair resulted in the Clinton Impeachment, you have a point. There is in line between the two affairs.

But you are just as biased as I'm. But I dare to say it. Why don't you? Because you have a right-wing opinion and I have a liberal opion. And you can't accept that I have a different view. John 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just write "Large Tax Cuts" and refrain from commentary? Wouldn't that be encyclopedic? 151.196.139.118 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is possible. But you can't ignore the huge budget-deficits. They are an important economic factor. John 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Achievements and Failures Column
I would be interested in seeing the achievements and failures column split into two columns, one for achievements and the other for failures. It would be easier to see at a glance what made each presidency notable (for good and/or for bad). Erendwyn 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's not a bad idea to remove the column all together. It's biased, and it always will stay that way. No opinions may be better. John 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The diagram is necessary do not delete it because it shows how the presidents are ranked by historians stop putting your bias into the diagram, if you weren't biased then you would have an easier time apreciating the truth, stop your garbage your bias only hurts people that want to learn the facts, stop supressing the facts, and trying to acheive your liberal agenda, that does not belong on this page.--Uga Man 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My liberal agenda is equaled by your conservative agenda. The list was fine, you said that yourself, just 2 weeks ago. And now I'm biased? I wanted to keep the list the way is was, you changed it. So you added your opinion. I just changed it back to the way is was. John 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like how things were added that happened before presidencies and then I remembered some notable things about the Bush Presidency that weren't writen down. I want to compromise so I think we should bring the list back but make the necessary things to the Bush presidency and stop adding things that happened before the presidency.


 * I changed the page back. This was the one we both agreed on. Let's keep it this way. John 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And for your edits on Bush: Unemployement is not at a record low. During the Clinton-years they were lower. It's not an achievement. And for terrorist-attacks. Keeping your country safe from terrorism is nice, but it's their job. After Pearl Harbor Japan didn't attack the U.S. anymore within the country. Is that an FDR-achievement? John 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Teflon President", add the capture of Saddam Hussein and the foiling of potential terrorist attacks, keep the kyoto protocal remove low unemployment rates and add the fall of the berlin wall to Bush 41--Uga Man 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Teflon President" is a well known name for Reagan. Fot better of worse, it deserves a place here. Capture of Saddam, you can add that to the Iraq War. But also add the mess that war has become. Kyoto is important now, maybe not later. In a time of worries about Global Warming it's relevant for now. Maybe not in the future. And you can add the Fall of the Wall, although Bush 41 didn't had much to do with that. John 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am alright with the "quagmire" wording but there needs to be something that shows the stability that the Bush presidency has brought in regards to domestic terrorist attacks, the fact that there wasn't any attacks was what won Bush reelection in 2004 and is a notable part of the presidency. FDR faced a conventional enemy we are facing a threat from an enemy that we cannot even negotiate with and trying to stop our enemy when they are rooted in our society and hidden from our view and try to attack civilian targets instead of military targets is extremely notable especially at this time when the fight against the terrorist is most of what we have been hearing about for the past 5 and a half years. "Teflon President" is a nickname given by critics that feel that Reagan should be held accountable for things he had nothing to do with and therefore it does not comply with NPOV and therefore I feel it should not be there but I can negotiate on this if you negotiate with me on the above issue.--Uga Man 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Teflon President" is a deserved name. Scandals didn't hurt Reagan. Not even Iran-Contra. You may think that was not his fault, many feel different. The name may be a nickname given by critics, but there is a lot of possitive info about Reagan, you must accept that there are also negative sites on him. This is one. And about the terrorist attacks. We don't know how many attacks were stopped. Maybe the same happened during the Clinton-years. How many attacks were fouled during that time? We don't know. If you add it to Bush, you should also add that to Clinton. After 1993, no terrorist attack were made against the US within the country (except for Oklahoma, but that is different). And you should add that civil liberties were violated after 9/11 with the Patriot Act. And failures during the War on Terrorism. After all, Osama bin Laden is still out there. John 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some information to Bush 43 and Reagan. It's more NPOV now. We can negotiate on them. John 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I cited a source that supports the "fact" that the Bush policies have resulted in the foiling of numerous potential terrorist attacks. This was an important issue during his presidency unlike that of his predecessor and that is why it should not be included for Clinton. This is the reason why Bush was reelected in 2004 and will be notable for his historical ranking. He will probably be rated high like Truman despite low approval ratings, approval ratings do not matter in a president gets his historical ranking. It is based on his accomplishments and the fact that a terrorist attack hasn't occured since 9/11 in this climate is extremely notable and needs to be recognized.--Uga Man 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personaly, I don't think Bush will be as highly regarded as Harry Truman. Truman was special, Bush is not. Bush doesn't have much to be proud of. The Iraq War is a mess, The War on Terrorism is a mess, the scandals and lies of his administration are outrageous. Nobody doubted Truman's honesty, not even during his time. But there are many doubts about how honest Bush is. Truman desegregated the army, what did Bush do? Nothing that special. No, Bush is will be a mediocre President. Just like Clinton. And Bush didn't win reelection in 2004 because of the fouled attacks, but because John Kerry was a weak candidate and Bush and his men are great liars. And don't forget the stories surrounding the elections of 2000. No, only conservatives think Bush is a great President. John 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove that bit about foiling potential terrorist attacks under Bush. Political opinions exempted; that claim seems a bit subjective.Dashiznit.carl 13:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not a "claim" its a fact read the source. Understand that this needs to be here because this is why Bush was reelected in 2004 and it will also go into account when historians judge his presidency.--Uga Man 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "source" refers to one isolated incident that far from justifies use of the POV term "numerous." The claim that Bush has foiled potential terrorist plots is not historically significant, since the same could be said for any contemporary president; just because some conservatives discovered terrorism was a problem on September 11 doesn't mean it wasn't a major problem before that, with numerous potential attacks being foiled under many different Presidents of various political stripes. On the whole, the "notable achievements and failures" reeks of POV on the issue of terrorism, since it fails credit to previous presidents for laying the groundwork for current counterterrorism operations -- examples include Clinton's Presidential directive on "Counterterrorism and Protection of the Homeland" and his (often-mocked) obsession with destroying al Qaeda and bin Laden. (I'm not too familiar with specifics of the presidencies of Bush 41 and Reagan, but I imagine they certainly took actions in response to terrorism as well.) These are the kind of things that, while these actions may not have seemed significant in the 80's and 90's, seem much more important now that we have a couple more years worth of historical perspective; perhaps we should consider adding information on what actions previous presidents have taken on terrorism. 132.204.220.220 06:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan
Is there any prove that Buchanan was a homosexual? John 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You should read the article Sexuality of James Buchanan it may answer your question--Uga Man 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does not prove that Buchanan was a homosexual. They suspect it, but there is no prove. And that is the problem. Just because King and Buchanan lived together and Buchanan never married is not enough prove. John 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove it, It makes no difference to me, I understand that there is not enough proof and it really doesn't have anything to do with his historical ranking, I should have never put this here and I apologize--Uga Man 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personaly I think you are right. I think he was gay. Not that I really care, I'm open-minded about that. But, like you are saying, it doesn't effect his ranking and the is not enough proof to be sure. John 10:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Entire "Notable Achievements informing rank" column is Original Research
Not only are many of the alleged achievements or failures examples of POV violations (e.g. "charisma", "lack of charisma", "poor leadership") but, even more importantly, there are almost no citations that any of the things mentioned in this column actually did "inform" the rank of the presidents. What's more, this section has become a cockpit for revert wars. Please do not reinsert any of these alleged achievements/failures without specific citations for each and every one. We would need references that, for example, historians who actually voted in these polls voted for Lincoln because of the Gettysburg address, to take one example. Grover cleveland 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles ranking presidents often cite reasons for their rankings (ie: the Feb 26th, 2007 U.S. News and World Report article by Jay Tolson). Poor leadership and charisma can be cited from "The Presidents" series on The History Channel.  It's the views of experts and therefore citable correct?  I'm not familiar with the specific citing standards of Wikipedia.  Also the events such as the Food and Drug  legislation under Teddy are quick "bullet" points of their terms.  Possibly change the column title to "Notable Achievements/Events?"  And to "Do not reinsert without citations that the presiden[t]'s rank was affected by these factors"  most of the things listed in that column are major event in the respective presidents term(s).  Rollback? --Rtkwe 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The US News and World Report article sounds as though it could be citable: specific items it mentions as contributing to the rank could be reinserted, provided they have inline citations. Points that merely summarize presidents' terms in "bullet points" are unhelpful and of dubious relevance to this article:  anyone who wants to know more about the president can just click on a link to the appropriate article to see a much fuller account, and the choice of such "bullet points" will inevitably be selective and controversial and could itself be seen as a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.  Certainly the article should not be attributing traits like "charisma" or "poor leadership" to presidents:  according to WP:NPOV policy we can only report the views of other who make such attributions -- thus it's OK to say "Scholar X says that Roosevelt has charisma" in the Theodore Roosevelt article when supported by an appropriate citation, but it's not OK to say the plain "Roosevelt had charisma" anywhere in Wikipedia.  In this article, even "Scholar X says that Roosevelt has charisma" is arguably inappropriate unless scholar X also gives that as a reason for Roosevelt's performance in polls of presidential greatness.  You may want to check out Wikipedia's No original research and Verifiability policies.  Grover cleveland 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove section on George W. Bush?
This entire section seems out of place given the context of this article. The entry is about historical rankings of U.S. presidents, and recent polls about the current president are not exactly historical. I propose that this entire section be deleted, unless someone can provide a good reason why it is relevant to this article. ~ S0CO ( talk 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with S0CO that the Bush section is out of place in this article and should be omitted. It's like including a section on a current film on the AFI Best Films page. The article should be ABOUT RANKINGS; specifically, the criteria used by the significant ranking groups, the historical context, i.e. to explain significant changes over time, and of course the rankings themselves.

In fact, I think that it is useless to even include recent presidents in the rankings at all. It's clear that it takes many years before one can begin to accurately place a president into historical context. Harding was popular and Hoover was mocked, but their rankings do not reflect it because historical context supercedes the opinion of contemporaries. IMO, only now can we even begin to place Reagan's presidency into historical perspective. I question the credibility of rankings that include HW and Clinton, but including GW at all is unacceptable. Mdeaton 13:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet, polls are polls, and some tend to include current and the most recent Presidents. Regardless, the polling will be done repeatedly; so, not like the numbers will remain static in years to come. KyuuA4 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove John Kennedy from top 10
The remaining "top 10" ranks are often rounded out by Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, and in recent polls, Ronald Reagan Kennedy rankings: 13 14 (tie) 08 10 10 15 08 18 14 15 2 out of 10 times certainly isn't often.

Neutrality Disputed
On 11/1/07, IP 74.38.90.197 added the neutrality disputed template to the article. Mdeaton 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since didn't explain here what the reasons for the NPOV label are, I just removed it.  68.167.253.27 02:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Siena???
Why is Siena College considered a reliable source? They are an unreliable source -- I mean honestly, who are they?! We should get better polls, or remove Siena College, or at the very least un-weight them; they are considered a full 1/3 of the current ranking. Wah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamacious (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They're legit. From Siena College:
 * "The Siena Research Institute, founded in 1980, conducts opinion polls that are quoted by the national media including the New York Times and USAToday, and well-known authors such as Betty Boyd Caroli (First Ladies). In 1982, SRI conducted the world's first Ranking of First Ladies. More recently, SRI has conducted studies on a First Woman President and hosted the First Woman President Symposium in March 2005. SRI regularly conducts polls concerning New York's consumer index and polls prior to elections."
 * --Comesincolors2 (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research in rankings charts
Buried in the Average column discussion above, it is noted by Congolese that the average columns themselves constitute original research and should be removed. Before removing it, I thought it would be a good idea to mention it down here for discussion for those who may not have seen it above. Any thoughts? Mdeaton (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and removed the Average and Standard Deviation columns from the rankings chart since they constitute original research. If there is a source out there somewhere who publishes a poll index of scholarly rankings, feel free to add it and source it, but we can't list selected polls here and then average them.  Also, as discussed before, does anyone have any thoughts on the issue of whether or not actual rankings/poll results should be included here at all?  It is difficult to justify since we can't list all polls, leaving the editors of the article to decide which surveys they feel are most relevant and authoritative.  A good example is the use of multiple polls in this section by Siena, albeit different years . . . this makes them appear to carry a lot of weight while other scholarly polls are not included here which may also be well-credentialed yet reaching very different conclusions.  As I stated previously, this article may need to be about rankings systems, while not actually including any rankings/poll results.  Thoughts?  Mdeaton (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I reversed these edits temporarily . . . going to require much more work and couldn't leave the article in that state in the meantime. Questions above are more valid than ever. Mdeaton (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Corrections made. Mdeaton (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We should tread carefully here; I've heard that WP:OR and related policies are currently embroiled in an extremely long-running dispute, and I remember that one of these policies used to say that simple arithmetic (2+2=4) is not original research. —Random832 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And to say that this is original research opens the door to: Population densities are original research where the sources only give area and population. Sortable tables are original research where the sources don't propose ordering by a particular criterion. etc etc. —Random832 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but I don't think that this falls under simple arithmetic as does the population density problem - there, the numbers are facts. The problem here, as I see it, is that there is no way to properly choose which polls are used and remain NPOV.  It is also fallible to assume that all of these polls should carry the same weight in an average since there are no universal guidelines (in terms of the credentials of the participants, among other factors) for publishing a poll.  In addition, this article used an average that was, as was noted by adamacious above, using several polls by the same organization (nothing against Siena) that gave them an undue amount of weight in the average. I just don't see, at this point, how there can be a composite index of the rankings formulated here while remaining free of POV or OR.  I think that the best we can do is offer examples of scholarly polls in a sortable chart as is currently the case so that conclusions can be drawn by the reader.  Mdeaton (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw those scholar surveys a while back and I thought they were drawn from these averages done by the original researchers. http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html. If you look into their methodology PDF you will also see the presidential rankings and how they figured them. I do not know this topic well enough to take it further, but I thought this might be relevant to this discussion as I was surprised not to find those again.Azikqua (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The "average scholar rankings" section was apparently restored, so I removed it again per above. Unfortunately, I screwed up the edit summary - perhaps it was too long, but it was supposed to say "The 'average scholar rankings' section was correctly removed because its premise was Original Research. See discussion on talk page." Mdeaton (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Surveys of scholars - Sourcable
Sources should be available (either online or hard copy) for the table columns in the Surveys of scholars section. It'll be good to provide referencing for each. KyuuA4 (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a case of Ignore all rules since we know all of the stuff happenned. Only the stuff that is questionable needs to be sourced.--Uga Man (talk)  UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidents by average scholar rank
OK. Seem to notice this table being removed - readded. Even seen different versions before. Now, in order to keep this table, it'll be best to have some kind of reference citing it -- particularly the Notable achievements and failures informing rank column as reasons for a President's ranking. KyuuA4 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an issue about the "notable achievements and failures informing rank" column, but it is the fact that the entire chart is based on original research, and it is not appropriate to ignore all rules, which as previously stated, is acceptable in WP in certain situations in which the rules adversely affect the entry; not the case here, however. If there were a clearly defined set of qualified ranking organizations, and the average was taken from that set, it would be ok.  The problem as stated previously is that this average is taken from only the rankings that editors chose to use and list in this article.  There is no way to include every set of rankings in existence, so the best we can do is list some examples of scholarly polls of qualified historians/analysts. It is necessary to avoid averaging those examples if the article is to remain both NPOV and free of OR. I did not remove the section again pending further feedback here and to avoid an edit war.
 * On the issue of the "notable achievements" column: this column was NOT included in the chart that was originally deleted (by me) due to the OR issue. Per the discussion above (which I was not a part of), that column had been previously deleted because the consensus was that it was an unnecessary magnet for vandalism when it would be simple to just link to a presidents entry if more information on their presidency was desired. Mdeaton (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The table is all what Wikipedia Rules want to prohibit. Its POV (the discussion about GWB Ranking above may serve as indication), its original research (how we decide to balance those rankings? Why only US-based rankings, there are other "scholars" in the world) and it mocks "objectivity" (as all those fancy tables do) giving over-exact numbers and the like but is clearly not reflecting "common sense" or any similar to it. It should be removed or at least clearly relativized. We are all smart enough to know, that selection is key creating tables like that. And who justified all the other decisions made to make the different (selected) polls compatible....?? This is unworthy of any encyclopedia, for sure of the best.Fairfis (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again deleted section due to its OR premise, not to mention that it has been a totally unnecessary magnet for vandalism and POV problems, and doesn't help the article at all . . . Mdeaton (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The section in the table called Notable achievements and failures informing rank: is especially a magnet for POV pushers and vandals. I really dislike that section for a few reasons: one of which is that it is a lot of recentism (Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush have the longest entries there, for example) I must admit that I do like the table (as it appeared here, for example) but I guess it is OR and I have no idea how accurate it is.


 * I ask out of curiosity, what is wrong with the old version here? I'm just wondering as a reader, not necessarily an editor. Thanks, daveh4h 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. The problem with the table is that the average is based on only the few polls listed in the later section.  As others have previously noted, 1) there is no way to include all polls, so those listed are done so by the choice of the editors of this article and there are no official criteria for such polls, 2) the polls listed and used in the average include multiple polls by some organizations (Siena, for example) which give them undue weight in an average, and 3) recent presidents are only included in a few of them so have an inadequate data set in comparison with earlier presidents.  We really only need problem #1 to prohibit the average. Averages made on a WP entry can be ok if there is a definite data set for the calculation (someone above mentioned the example of population density), but here, there is no clear data set nor are there definitive guidelines for establishing one.  It is a frustrating problem because I suspect that such an index may be what drives traffic to this entry, but without an authoritative index formulated by a reliable source, we just can't create one here and remain free of OR and POV. Mdeaton (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's Party
He ran as Lincoln's vice president under the Union Party, why is he listed as "democrat/none"? If anything it should be union/none because he didn't really follow any of the ideals of the Union party FernoKlump (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Um, I don't understand why average POV rankings of presidential greatness belong in an encyclopedia. This whole article needs deletion. It doesn't help that the rankings seem wrong. Or that the conservative WSJ consistently ranks republicans higher than democrats compared to the others. The average scholar rank table is completely worthless. Wow, you've got two data points for GWB. That's highly scientific. This page is complete nonsense. It is fundamentally flawed. It is unsalvagable. Bbrown8370 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, this article has its dirty little fingers in tons of articles. What a mess.  This is the worst article I have ever seen on Wiki. Bbrown8370 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilson, Reagan, and Polk
I don't understand why, in the first paragraph, mention of these three "rounding out the top ten" is continually deleted in favor of replacement with JFK, who does not make the top ten in almost ANY of the lists. Wilson and Polk are almost consistently in the top ten, and Reagan is in the top ten for at LEAST two of the most recent polls, so I've re-added them, and I expect to see them stay. CinnamonCinder (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kennedy is in the top ten four times, Reagan just two times. And Kennedy was included in just two polls more than Reagan. So JFK's name does belong there. At least more than Reagan's name John (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Events do not belong in this discussion (NPOV)
This article legitimately deals with rankings of past presidents by historians. Pop culture references to the current president have no place in this article. I deleted these inappropriate comments. Perhaps the author might consider reinserting them after a suitable period of time has allowed historians to form a historical opinion, or perhaps they could be inserted into an article dealing with current politics? -- NDM (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2008


 * Hi NDM - I agree that your edit summary, and your first two sentences above, probably justify deleting the Rolling Stone opinion piece (although it's OK for a legit historian to opine in a popular magazine, and to use that as a source elsewhere, e.g. in George W. Bush). However, I don't see any valid argument for deleting the History News Network survey.  There is nothing in WP policy, this particular article, or academia that precludes historians from forming judgements about current presidents.  It is understood that opinions shift over time, but that doesn't stop scholars from ranking recent and current presidents, and of course we include other surveys (with similar methodology to the HNN poll) where historians do just that.  Happy to ask at WP:RSN if there is no consensus to keep the source. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns here. However my answer to your question about why opinions regarding current presidents do not belong in this article is simple in the extreme. The title of the article "Historical Rankings of U.S. Presidents" axiomatically precludes current events discussions. {emphasis added} Furthermore, opinions of historians expressed in non-academic settings do not qualify as rigorous scholarship. Also, the mere fact that they are historians does not endow their opinions with any greater weight when discussing current events. Not meaning to be overly flippant, but we should turn to "currenteventorians", rather than "historians", for opinions about current events. While I like the overall tone of this article, a current events article or politics article is the most appropriate place for the current events part of the discussion dealing with a sitting president. As the old saying goes: "Mix science and politics, and all you get is politics." I think we have an analogous situation here. If we do not agree on this, I think this issue should be refereed. Respectfully, NDM (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I assume you object also to the C-SPAN, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune and Siena polls for the same reasons (i.e., scholars commented on current and recent presidents, and they did so in a non-academic setting)? If we accept your logic on sources, I think we're going to have to toss out a whole bunch of them, in fact most of the article, since it is mostly sourced from media polls of historians ranking presidents up through the present day (i.e., precisely the type of source you are disputing here).  I doubt most editors will want to go that route.  (Not meaning to be a buzzkill if you're one of the 20% or so who still like Bush.  But most folks don't these days, including historians.  And we have a reliable and germaine source saying so here.) --Comesincolors2 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well put. That is exactly my objection: historical perspective allows for more reason and less emotion that popular opinion on current events. Had this article been written 34 years ago, Nixon, under threat of impeachment for misdeeds committed while in office, would most likely been the "worst" president in any popular poll hands down and 10 years ago, Clinton, impeached for misdeeds committed while in office, would have been a top contender for "worst", based on the popular sentiment at the time. Neither would be appropriate for inclusion in this article, however. You appear to be invoking the "snowball clause" to support your argument, to which I counter with the "uphill battle" as my defense of this point of view. I do not choose to discuss current popular sentiment, nor do I choose to assign myself to either the "20%" or 80% group. I merely (and correctly) state that such polls belong in a separate article on current events, not historical rankings, and perhaps this content should be moved to another forum, such as Wikinews.

My objections to the structure and content of this article is well founded in Wikipedia policy. To quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: One, "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"; Two, "Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion." Straw polls, whether conducted within Wikipedia or without, still remain straw polls, and have no business being used in an attempt to justify a point of view on this discussion page, nor do they belong in the body of an article proper; Three, Wikipedia is not the place for "''opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes(i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view''. ''Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles" and; Four, "Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." {Sorry to be your "buzzkill", but I must "also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation.''"]

If I did choose to radically edit this article, which I have not done yet out of respect for the Wikipedia process, I would do exactly what you suggest that an editor would not wish to do, specifically, I would edit out those polls which dealt with "current affairs or politics" and get back to an article on historical rankings of US presidents. With a resolute eye on the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, I remain, Respectfully, NDM (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NDM - (Clarification: My reference to popular sentiment was meant as an aside, for context.) Popular sentiment isn't what is being added here.  The opinion of historians is what is being added.  Historians can and do comment on current events; that doesn't make their commentary any less historical, because history includes events up to the present.  That's why the polls I mentioned above, as well as the HNN poll, include presidents up to the time the respective polls were done.  So you've provided no good reason to remove the HNN poll without removing all the others of its type.


 * On your policy citations: (1) We've established that the source in question is identical in type to the majority of other sources cited here. (2) Refers to polls of WP editors, not sources used in articles. (3) Same as 2.  (4) My comments are not remotely intended to harass, insult or intimidate, and I truly hope they were not taken in an NPA-ish way.  Anyway, you're quite right that as editors, our views on Bush don't matter, so I've struck part of my comments above.  What matters is whether polls of historians that include the current president are acceptable, and more broadly whether current events are something historians can comment on reliably.  Consensus appears to be "yes", since most of the sources in the article fit that description.  --Comesincolors2 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope my unsolicited feedback is welcome here, but I think the strongest case against the inclusion of the "poll" in question can be found in the very article in which the poll is presented: "It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners." Regardless of the credentials of those who did choose to respond, it is the equivalent of a phone-in poll that TV news channels use all the time: not just unscientific but the results of which are always slanted toward the emotionally compelling.  And if other polls used in this article use similar methods, then they, too, should absolutely be omitted.


 * Incidentally, I also hate the inclusion of current and even recent presidents in these polls, but the scholarly studies/surveys usually do use them. I've stated here before that I think that the article's future may have to be one without any polls listed and be just about the topic of presidential rankings - the procedures, the credentials for well-respected polling organizations, and the changing nature as historical context becomes clearer over time, etc.  Mdeaton (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mdeaton - Thanks for your comments, and of course they're welcome. Yes, it's an unscientific survey since it has self-selected responders, but that's also true of several other polls already cited in the article, such as the C-SPAN polls of both viewers and historians.  They are still acceptable, imo, as long as the methodology is made clear.  I don't see the problem with current presidents being included.  I really don't understand the implication that professional historians' views on current events are somehow unreliable.  They'll change over time, but that's true also of past presidents:  e.g., John Adams has risen over the last few decades. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your input, Mdeaton. Comesincolors2, your apology is accepted. I still feel I must point out that nobody has yet explained why the inclusions in this article from popular surveys concerning a currently seated US President do not run afoul of the proscription against ""opinion pieces on current affairs or politics...."" as I described above. The inclusion of so many of these polls which mention a currently seated president have, IMO, turned the final sections of this article into just that, an opinion piece or perhaps a backdoor straw poll.

I feel that the burden of proof lies on those who wish to keep these references, which appear to contradict Wikipedia policy, rather than on those who wish to remove them. For this reason, I believe that this article should be extensively edited to bring it into conformance with standards. Respectfully, NDM (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi NDM - what WP:NOT says is that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be opinion pieces on current affairs, not that they shouldn't cover reliably sourced opinions about the same. See Movement to impeach George W. Bush.  That article is full of opinions about current affairs and politics, and includes statements like "according to so-and-so, GWB should be impeached because of the Iraq War".  That's OK.  What wouldn't be OK is if the article said "GWB should be impeached because of the Iraq War" without attributing the statement.  Same here.  It's OK, here in an article about surveys of historians, to cite surveys of historians.  What wouldn't be OK is to say "George Washington was one of the best presidents.  And George W. Bush one of the worst."  That's what WP:NOT means, in terms of NPOV: "assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."  -Comesincolors2 (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of such current events polls merely reveals the bias of the Wikipedia author (and quite possibly the editors of the original magazines). Again quoting from Wikipedia policy: "Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view" [emphasis added] I do not see any attempt on the part of the author(s) of the last portions of this article to present NPOV information when discussing the sitting President, judging by the referenced articles.

And again: " merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" The articles cited may in fact represent true opinions of the people surveyed, but again, given the nature of this political topic, Wikipedia policy dictates that the author(s) of these portions of the article have a higher hurdle to clear when discussing the current President than when discussing the first. The Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons offers an analogous situation. The standard of proof and the ethical responsibilities imposed on the authors and editors is simply higher in certain situations, and discussion of current politics, no matter how cleverly disguised, is one of these situations.

The mere fact that so many anti-Bush surveys are or were included in the reference list makes it crystal clear to the objective reader that the intention of the author(s) of this disputed content was to pervert the original focus of the article concerning evaluation of historical presidents. I feel that they have hijacked the original intent of this article to advance a political agenda and therefore I again call for this information to be purged as not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia under the current heading. Move these survey results to an article about how many people in America hate Bush and I will not quibble with it, being satisfied with the integrity of both the article and the author. Collegially, NDM (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi NDM - on your first sentence, I'm a little confused about why you would make the bad-faith assumption that editors like me are biased just because we want to include well-sourced material that happens to comment unfavorably on Bush. I thought you'd argued above that the political leanings of editors shouldn't be an issue here.  You were right.  So, please don't accuse other editors of bias when you have no evidence for that charge.


 * NPOV doesn't mean "no point of view", or a synthesis of all views. It means covering all sourced views fairly.  As WP:YESPOV says (emphasis added): "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."  Here we don't have conflicting results from surveys:  most historians polled rank Bush poorly, especially the more recent ones.


 * When and if we find a survey ranking Bush highly, of course we'll include that. But when positive surveys don't exist, then we go with what we have.  Same for James Buchanan:  he's generally ranked near the bottom.  NPOV doesn't mean that we should exclude those polls.  It would only be an NPOV violation if the negative surveys were cherry-picked while positive polls were excluded.


 * So we don't have an undue weight problem. We just have a preponderance of sourced scholarly opinion that is unequivocally critical of Bush.  That's not a violation of our "biographies of living people" policy.


 * I also don't know where you got the impression that current events don't belong on Wikipedia. Again, WP:NOT says that articles shouldn't become opinion pieces on current events, not that they can't cover current events.  There are tons of current events articles on WP.  See Portal:Current_events.  WP policy doesn't support your arguments on current events and NPOV.  --Comesincolors2 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Overview and Intro
I've never come across loose data marked as empirical or scientific before. Would say, a survey by Tiger Beat merit an inclusion? Presumably empirical data is collated according to the questions asked, the manner they were posed and to who? I find the whole article quite bizarre. Presumably some of the questions have mentioned the current incumbent at the Whitehouse? Is it always a set question or series of questions? Are the question/questions always posed at the same group of people (race/education/socio-economic group)? --  EhsanQ  (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, the data are all empirical. The degrees of scientific-ness vary. -Comesincolors2 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reagan in recent polls
I was thinking that it might make sense to, somewhere in the article, attribute Reagan's recent jump in rankings to his recent death. It seems that the two things are definitely related. Or perhaps in a broader sense, mention that the recent death of a President tends to cause a temporary jump in historical ranking.208.179.66.68 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To riff on recent events effecting polls, I would expect, as our federal budget problems become bigger, historians will revise their view of presidents, including Reagan, whose contributions in that area were negative. Funny thing is that I think GB senior did Reagan a huge favor by dealing with the budget deficit problems by taking the "new taxes" bullet for him.  GB senior temporarily dealt with a problem which ironically his son made worse with unbalanced tax cuts.Mattnad (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia Non-Biased POV
With the removing of the libertarian list of presidents, this page now violates the non-bias Wikipedia POV clause. While the conservative and liberal lists are still present, the libertarian list was removed because it was "unusual". Calling libertarians a funny bunch is absurd, as up to 40% of Americans are libertarian in ideology. This list needs to be added back on for a non-bias page. Casey14 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem to be a problem. The young-earth creationist point of view isn't represented either, thought they may make up a bigger proportion of Americans than the libertarians can boast. --Jlwoodhome (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Opinion Polling
A section needs to be dedicated to the inacuracy of opinion polling. Opinion polling represents education on the presidents. The presidents that are more known are likely to have higher position in polls (reasons Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Roosevelt, and others are always near the top, while late 19th century presidents and early 19th century presidents are usually near the bottom) Casey14 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bush
This article is incredibly biased against the Bush administration. Yes he is a bad president but he has many successes. If you are going to include this you have to counterbalance those negative polls with Bush's successes. He brought down Saddam Hussein, got Iraq to have free elections, correctly identified the unstable middle east as the growth of terrorism, was quick to retaliate against those who attacked us on 9/11. He did keep the economy, for most of his administration, very well, and that is more than clinton and carter did. Let us be serious about this and quit with the weasel words and the biased sourcing dressed up as actual research. This is a poor excuse of scholarship and we should be ashamed at the blatant attack against the Bush administration, and this is coming from a Bush critic. Get with it folks! Polls, especially in light of the liberally biased news media, are mostly responsible for most of the negative views on Bush. They did not treat Clinton like this and Clinton was one of the worst and most useless administrations we ever had. His domestic programs were a waste of money, his tax increases stiffled growth, his policies did not bring the prosperity that occured during his administration, he got that from the Reagan and Bush administrations, he lied under oath, he trampled on our constitution, and proposed more socialist programs and increased the size of government, he mostly ignored the threat in the middle east, he did not allow us to refine and drill for more oil and we are paying for that now by not being energy independent, and he on more than one occassion turned down the offer of the middle east giving bin Laden to him on a platter. He is a bigger failure than Bush, yet he was not criticized for any of his numerous failures and gaffes. If you think Bush is bad wait till we have Obama...but in all fairness let us balance this article out and not make it sound like it was written by PMSNbc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.131.27 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 23 June 2008
 * If we find a scholar survey that's positive about Bush 43, of course it can be included. Indeed, if we find ANY more scholar surveys about Bush 43 or any other president, they should go in.  There has been no attempt to cherry-pick evidence.  Rather, it appears, so far, that scholars surveyed have reached different conclusions than you have.  That doesn't mean they're right and you're wrong, or vice versa; WP is about verifiability, not truth.  Also, we don't include original research, so what you or I think isn't relevant here.  --Comesincolors2 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "WP is about verifiability, not truth" - WP is about verifying that Liberal/Marxist views are expressed as FACT, while real history is distorted through the Liberal Left's agenda.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.169.77 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think at this point in time it's pretty well obvious to, well, the VAST majority of the world that Bush has been a terrible leader and probably the worst since Andrew Johnson. The only people that seem to disagree with this are far right winger republican fanatics.  But really, what the heck does the rest of the human population on Earth know, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.161.13 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hysterical Right-Wing Historical Revisionism
This article seems to keep getting mowed by the lunatic fringe. Ever single survey cited lists George W. Bush as one of the worst Presidents in US history. It is a sad, salient fact. Please, stop deleting George W. Bush from these historical polls. Facts are not here to make you feel better - that is your concern, not ours. chemstar (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[Citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.175.196 (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton in a 1982 survey?
The "Liberal and conservative raters" section states that "The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey[9] asked historians whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues. The table below shows that the two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. Both groups agreed on the composition of seven of the top ten Presidents (and were split over the inclusion of either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, Lyndon B. Johnson or Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Andrew Jackson or Woodrow Wilson), and six of the worst seven (split over Jimmy Carter or Calvin Coolidge)." I am puzzled by the inclusion of Bill Clinton as a president in a 1982 survey, 10 years before he was elected! Can someone clarify this? Cmadler (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing; also, the survey cited doesn't give Reagan a rank, according to the table above.155.104.37.18 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering about this, too. If no one can shed light on it soon, the whole section probably ought to be yanked, as it's obviously counterfactual in that respect and thus may be untrustworthy in others. jSarek (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reagan
The article recently said:


 * Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan

"Ronald Reagan" was marked "dubious", with the following footnote:


 * Reagan came 6th on only one academic poll, but in percentage polls, he is often in the top three

I removed Reagan, replacing him with Jackson, and replaced Jackson in the following paragraph with James Madison. I didn't realize when I did this that it had been the subject of recent discussion, but my reasons were as follows:

1. The article itself does not support the claim that Reagan is often ranked just below the top three. Reagan appears as high as sixth on only one of the polls it describes. Jackson appears sixth on four polls.

2. Regarding the claim that Reagan is "often in the top three" in "percentage polls" (whatever those are), there is no citation or substantiation of the claim.

If "percentage polls" was intended to refer to popularity polls of the general population, it should say so. Perhaps some wording like "Some presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, have consistently scored more highly in popular opinion polls than in polls of historians."

-- Dominus (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Reagan line should be struck from "General Findings" entirely. He's too recent for any academic consensus to have formed. Scholars are all across the board in their opinions, and public opinion poll find him to be both one of the best and one of the worst, so no public consensus has formed nor will one form until all of us who remember Reagan are too old to care. Incidentally the same goes for Clinton and both Bushes, especially Bush II. That's a game that's still in the bottom of the 9th and no honest, intelligent discussion should be crowning him with the "worst ever" award any more than we should be calling for Obama's likeness to be added to Mt. Rushmore. Discuss Reagan in some other paragraph, where the viable conflicting views can be addressed. --Jlwoodhome (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Carter listed under General Findings?
How did Carter get listed under general findings. Almost all the data in the article shows him somewhere "in the pack". Shouldn't A. Johnson or Nixon be listed there instead?

--Jlwoodhome (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its just an example first off, Hoover is in there too and hes not always at the very bottom. Second Carter is ranked extremely low in several polls. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not ranked lower than A. Johnson anywhere, and seldom ranked lower than Nixon. If we're looking for the best and most consistent examples, they're you're men. If, on the other hand, there's a political axe being ground, Carter should stay. --Jlwoodhome (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Times of London ranking
The Times of London has a new ranking of American Presidents. I don't agree with all of their results, but I think they did an excellent job of avoiding recency bias, which is often a big problem with Presidential rankings.

When mentioning polls of ordinary Americans, I think this article should point out that the polls are subject to recency bias (i.e. people usually give higher rankings to recent Presidents). --JHP (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

An "unscientific and informal" poll
So why is it included? Looks like it was removed once before. Not surprising it was put back. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Table sorting issues
The "-" characters disrupt the sorting of the tables. Since the article is locked, someone else will have to determine a solution for this. As it stands, sorting is terrifically problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.95.53 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed - sorting is worse than useless in this case. Wammes Waggel (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnson
Why do Americans rate LBJ so low, when he is very highly regarded elsewhere. He was the one who implemented the civil rights laws and also the "war on poverty". Wallie (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The same question can be asked about why Reagan and JFK are regarded high by majority of the US populatio, but many historians do not. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the Vietnam War for LBJ, that's what kills him in the rankings. --208.82.225.245 (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Taft
William Howard Taft seems like the most underrated president the country has ever had. He achieved loads -- progressivism, trust-busting, conservation, tariff reform, protection of the sanctity of the judiciary, and peacekeeping / reciprocity treaties -- in only one term. The main reason he was less popular was simply the fact that he wasn't Roosevelt, and received short shrift from history. Could someone explain why he earns only middling ranks from these expert polls?

35.8.239.80 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Totals column
The Scholar survy results diagram needs a "Totals" column. There have been other types of columns that have been removed because they were considered OR. A simple "Totals" column wouldn't violate OR. The highest rated presidents would have the lowest totals. Very simple. There would obviously be a number who would tie, but so what. What think ye? -- Fyslee (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected edit
The CSPAN survey section appears to have been altered by a fan of the United States' 40th president. According to the source cited, Reagan was ranked 11th, not 1st, with Lincoln coming in first. If someone could be so kind to fix this, that would be great.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Fixed. --- RockMFR 19:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong
zachary taylor and benjamin harrison are both listed at 29. Harrison is at 30.


 * Done. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was the libertarian ranking chart deleted in April 2008?
Why was the libertarian ranking chart deleted in April 2008? That was the only chart that was notable and interesting in that it was different from all the rest. It was a "Man bites Dog" news story, Harding first and Lincoln last. Isn't that what news is all about? I don't think that the chart should be too prominent, but I definiately think that it should be included. Is wikipedia biased against libertarians for some reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.146.38 (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who isn't biased against Libertarians? What did they get, like 1 percent of the vote in the last election? Kidding aside, perhaps because it wasn't a significant poll of historians or professionals that observe the presidency? That could be the reason. Newsworthiness doesn't equal inclusion in Wikipedia, depending on who you talk to I guess, since this isn't a news website but an encyclopedia.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM - someone please fix
The last edit (as of time I type) changed "George Washington" in the table to "George W. Bush". 92.234.205.16 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Times Online Survery
The Times Online took a poll on the greatest Presidents, I tried adding it in myself but I do not understand the codes well enough to do it. Here is the link, if anyone else wants to add it in. 1 -Kieran4 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should probably be added to external links for the time being, but not to the actual chart as it is a UK historian poll. - Nite Owl   II  01:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Idea for charting
Just a little thought for the table, I'm thinking we should add additional colors to represent presidents inbetween the high and low ranking ones between 11 and 30 (example: above average - light green, average - yellow, below average - orange). I would like to hear some opinions about this before even considering adding it to the article. - Nite Owl   II  01:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been on the page for a while and must admit that current bold colors in the table are just too bold... pain to look at. Perhaps light (pale) green and light (pale) red should replace current deep green and deep red. I won't recommend any intermediate, fine gradations - too fluid to be notable. NVO (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the colors are an eyesore. I'd get rid of them altogether. Happyme22 (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quartiles
Quote from the section on "Scholar survey results"

"Green backgrounds indicate top quartile. Red backgrounds indicate bottom quartile."

Obiously the Top Ten have beeen marked green instead of the top quartile. For instance in the 1982 Murray-Blessing survey ranking 36 presidents the top quartile would consist of 9 president. However, the tenth ranked Lyndon B. Johnson has also been marked green. 213.182.236.62 (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bush ranking in Wall Street Journal 2005 Poll
Recently, I have noticed that the Wall Street Journal 2005 Poll has been changed. Previously, it showed George W. Bush ranking 19 out of 40, yet later, it was changed to 18 out of 40. I have checked, and I have noticed that in the actually poll, it does indeed show Bush ranking in 19 out of 40, not 18 out of 40. Perhaps someone could explain why someone has changed Bush's ranking in that poll? Here is the link that shows he ranks 19 out of 40, by the way: http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/ --Joker123192 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

80. Include No Polls Conducted During Term
80. This is an historical ranking. Thus no poll for an incumbent president should be included during a term of office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.232.9 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Average Polling
As we can see these polls change a lot over time. I think it would be interesting if we added a column that indicate the Presidents combined poll averages. Essentially combined all their scores together from each poll and then show their overall average. I would do it myself, but exactly sure as to how it would be encoding. I have done the math with an excel spreadsheet, but not sure how to include it. Any thoughts? David1982m (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This was done before and removed after above discussion. In summary, it was considered Original Research due to the fact that all such polls can't be included and there is no authoritative criteria for ranking organizations - in other words, it would be an average of only the polls selected by the editors of the article.  There were also few other problems, but read above for more. Mdeaton (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama?!
He's not even done with his first year yet. Why is he on the list? 129.120.177.8 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he doesn't have any ratings yet. So, it can't be that big deal.  I figure keep him there until further notice Diamond Dave 02:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

Undue weight given to fringe groups
The "Libertarian ratings" section isn't warranted. Extreme right-wing pseudo-"libertarianism" is a fringe political movement, of which Misesian economics is a fringe subset. Neither of these are important enough to have their ratings included here. The section should be removed as per WP:WEIGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into the description of libertarianism as "a fringe political movement," I agree that this section doesn't belong in the article. The "liberal" and "conservative" polls were conducted among numerous political analysts, while the "libertarian ratings" section is culled from apparently two works by three authors. Removing it now, unless we want to also add in the opinions of the Greens, the Communists, and the Reform parties. ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiebb (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical Error on Color Coding?
The TWELVE worst U.S.Presidents ranked by CSPAN/2009 are color coded RED while only ELEVEN of the best U.S.Presidents for the same poll are color coded GREEN. James Polk is the TWELFTH President ranked by CSPAN/2009 and in the past has always been color coded GREEN. Would it not make sense to color code the TWELVE BEST AND WORST Presidents in a uniform way (ie.Twelve Best/Twelve Worst) which would include Polk who heretofore has always been color coded among the best, i.e.GREEN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.7.169 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ranking based upon combined Average Electoral and Popular Votes for each term
I have to find the source, but I somewhere a ranking based upon on average of electoral and popular votes combined with each time they ran. I also found something that ranks each candidate by the average of change of value a dollar each year of their presidency and then rank based upon who stayed closest to the dollar. Would these be something that could be added? Diamond Dave (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports 2007 poll
What is the Rasmussen Reports 2007 public opinion poll doing in the Scholar Survey results section, which shows a whole bunch of historian polls? Shouldn't it be removed from this section, seeing as it is not a historian poll, like the other polls in this section? Also, according to the original poll, it shows that Jimmy Carter had a 57% favorability rating, and a 34% percent unfavorability rating, yet this article had been edited to say that the poll showed that he instead had a 34% favorability rating and a 57% percent unfavorability rating. Perhaps someone could explain why someone has edited this to show something that is clearly a lie.--Joker123192 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I made a mistake. --65.11.204.229 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The interesting thing about this poll to me is that the seven presidents with the lowest total scores (favorable score + unfavorable score) are the eighth through fourteenth presidents. Why are Americans least familiar with (or least opinionated about) presidents in office during these two decades (1837 to 1857)?  I'm sure the fact that these were all single-term (or less) presidents is a factor, but is it the only one? 69.225.199.200 (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Worst presidents seem to be Republicans
I can't help noticing that the list of "red" presidents, who have appeared at least once in the bottom quartile of a survey, consists almost entirely of Republicans:


 * GWBush (R)
 * Carter (D)
 * Ford (R)
 * Nixon (R)
 * Hoover (R)
 * Coolidge (R)
 * Harding (R)
 * Harrison (R)
 * Arthur (R)
 * Garfield (R)
 * Hayes (R)
 * Grant (R)
 * A Johnson (National Union)

That's 11 Republicans, one Democrat (Carter), and one Democrat elected on a National Union ticket with a Republican running-mate (Johnson).

If we go back before the Civil War there are some more "bad" Democrats, but that would hardly be fair since the Republican party hardly existed and the political system was generally completely different then.

By contrast, if we look at the "good" presidents (those who have appeared in the top quartile of a poll) over the same period we find them evenly balanced, with five Democrats and five Republicans:


 * Reagan (R)
 * LBJ (D)
 * Kennedy (D)
 * Eisenhower (R)
 * Truman (D)
 * FDR (D)
 * Wilson (D)
 * T Roosevelt (R)
 * McKinley (R)
 * Lincoln (R)

It would probably be WP:SYN to put this in the article, but I am interested in what this says about our presidents and the surveys. Are they just biased against Republicans, or is it simply the case that most of the worst presidents were Republican? Grover cleveland (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a bias against Republicans - I'd argue it's just coincidental. Keep in mind that there was a massive realignment in ideologies that makes any comparison between the modern and historical Republican Party difficult to justify. Remember that the Republicans were considered to be the liberal party in Lincoln's time. :) Also, I think it's not too difficult to say that GW Bush, Ford, Nixon, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Harrison, Arthur, Garfield, Hayes and Grant really were lousy presidents. Alexthe5th (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical thinking to add?
There are two things that I find amiss with this article, but am loath to alter for lack of references and due to the no-OR policy:

1. Every individual survey will contain a varying, but usually large, amount of arbitrariness and subjectivity, which should be pointed out to the many naive readers. (I do not want to be mean to the masses, but I find that the ability to think critically, reason properly, etc., only becomes prevalent in the upper tenth, or so, of the IQ distribution.) Note that this applies even if the survey uses objective seeming criteria, because the exact criteria chosen and the evaluation of degree of success are sources of subjectivity. Additionally, complications like ups-and-downs in the economy, occuring wars, and other external factors can distort the result.

2. The three big ones were the respective leader during the three most defining times of the US (with some reservation for WWII) and the three most important wars in its history (in the case of Washington not necessarily as Commander-in-Chief, but at least as a leading general). It is highly plausible that their perceived greatness is due to the "when" rather than the "who". Notably, it is the same in many other countries, Churchill being a prime example. This probable cause of perceived greatness should also be pointed out.

(Incidentally, 2. is a good example of what I discuss in 1.)

Could someone who is better informed about the literature on the subject intervene? These thoughts must be present in numerous sources. 94.220.242.124 (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Error in Recent president polls section
Line right under heading says topic is polls concerning Eisenhower and later. Truman was before Eisenhower. Tmoy (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Historian Polls
I am very active on this page, but cannot yet make changes to semi-protected page. Would someone please try and include the 1996 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. poll in the section for historian polls. It is very interesting and should be considered as one of the largest polls of it's kind.

Please take this into consideration and respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)