Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States/Archive 3

User: Sleyece; Comments, Concerns, and Feedback
I made many edits to the table. Notably, I changed the aggregate to a "frequency of position" system, in which a number of ties result, but I feel a much more accurate representation of the overall dataset is represented. What do you all think? I also limited the table to 15 positions, so that data will fit on the web page. I added, with appropriate citation, a recent "538" poll to the dataset for 2016. If possible, I think the table should be updated annually, with citation, from here on in. What do you all think about these adjustments? Thank you all for your understanding and diligence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do not make such massive changes without discussion. Furthermore, your new table is seriously flawed. Not only does it remove the aggregate, which we already discussed and agreed to leave in, but you completely deleted Barack Obama's rankings from the table. I'm restoring it to its previous form. Feel free to add the 538 poll to the table, but don't just make such radical aldjustments without discussing it here. As for the annual update, it sounds good, though I'm concerned about the feasibility of updating it every year. Anasaitis (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The aggregate has been discussed, and it has been continually pointed out as statistically flawed. I also removed ALL incumbent ratings. President Obama is not currently ranked because he has never been an Ex-President. Sleyece 00:03, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the aggregate has been discussed, and it was agreed that it would stay. I see nothing in the relevant discussion which suggested it was statistically flawed. Also, why would you remove the incumbent ratings? This table covers everything In the surveys, and some of the cited surveys included the incumbent President. You cannot just delete parts of the table like that. If it's in the cited material, then it should be included here. Anasaitis (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. Let's hear from some other users. Sleyece 08:51, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Anasaitis," I know gaslighting when I see it. The aggregate was discussed, and YOU decided it would say. I appreciate your opinion less now. --Sleyece 09:49, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

"Gaslighting"? I don't appreciate your insulting accusations. I also don't appreciate the fact that you have taken it on yourself to completely restructure the table without discussion. We do agree on one thing, however: this should be discussed with other users. I think this should be done BEFORE any radical changes are made to the content of the table. Anasaitis (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If we continue to have a dispute about our edits, perhaps we should seek conflict resolution, ? I am adamant that all polls on the table AND that the table actually fit on the page. I think a page this important should eventually be a featured article. We can't achieve that if our data isn't even formatted to the standard page width? Can we agree on that as a baseline? --Sleyece 08:32, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you asked for other users' opinions, I'm inclined to agree with Anasaitis. The incumbent rankings should remain. Obama may not have completed his term when they ranked him, but the cited surveys did rank him and you can't ignore that. The aggregate should stay at least until there's a consensus on removing or replacing it. In the meantime, I'm reverting the page to the 9 December version. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sleyece reverted my edit without explaining why, and it doesn't look like anyone here agrees with him so I changed it back. I don't think his changes should be made until there's some kind of consensus for them, but I only edit sporadically so I'm not really sure how to handle this situation. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize to you (talk) --Sleyece 13:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I honestly didn't care about your comments about me not having an account. My problem was that you made some fairly large changes (namely removing several of the included surveys/rankings, replacing the aggregate with "frequency of position," and removing the rankings of incumbents) without discussing it beforehand, and that every time another user rolls back those changes you reinstate them despite having people disagree (and no one agree) on the talk page. My biggest concern is the incumbent rankings; when several of the cited rankings include the president who was in office at the time and those presidents' rankings are removed from the table, that amounts to a misrepresentation of the cited material. I saw you removed Trump from the table in your latest edit but that was only a tiny issue. I'm rolling back your other changes again. All I'm asking is for you to wait on removing the older polls and reinstating the "frequency of position" until there is a consensus here in favor of it. If you'd like to put out a request for comment that would be fine, but you can't just keep reinstating the changes every time somebody puts the page back to the way it was before when no one else agreed with it. Regardless of what the ultimate decision on replacing the aggregate and removing older surveys is, the incumbents' rankings must be included. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:3422:1BF4:6275:9ADA (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I assumed your attack on me was political in nature, but I did not have proof until your confession. Thank you. (talk) --Sleyece 17:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not attack you, I'm merely concerned with some of your edits, in particular removing the rankings of incumbents. I have no idea what you mean by "political." I just want to make sure the article faithfully represents the sources. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:3422:1BF4:6275:9ADA (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the comments, it seems that I am not the only one concerned by the recent edits. I'd also like to add that the title of the article is HISTORICAL rankings of the Presidents of the United States, which would imply that it covers more than just polls going back to 1982. The length and overall size of the table does not matter so long as it covers what it is supposed to cover. These include the other historical polls discussed in the article. I can think of quite a few pages with similarly large tables, and I don't think they suffered for it. I think the quality and quantity of information within the table should take precedence over the appearance of said table within the article. As a further note, I'm also none too pleased that some of the polls for which I added sources were deleted. Anasaitis (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Anasaitis. It is always nice to hear your opposition has remained strong. Also, "Historical" rankings refers to the rankings of HISTORIANS of POTUS job performance. This changes over time, and must be continually updated. If you have a Wiki precedent for tables where data does not fit on the page, please show me an internal link, don't just give me anecdotal evidence. I strongly doubt there is real precedent. So, take your time with a response, as I won't be expecting one that does not include more anecdotes and character attacks. Thank you! -- Sleyece (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't like this weird "frequency" aggregate. It may make sense to a statistician but the average reader won't have a clue. Second. I have no problem with having Obama included. If he was ranked along with others then omitting him is arbitrary. War (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Frequency, I feel, is more representative than simple aggregate. --Sleyece (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the frequency is more confusing for the average reader and I think it should be reverted. Obama not being included is strange when he was included on the survey and it just seems nonsensical to remove it. Also Trump shouldn't be on the list until he formally enters office. DeathByGunboat (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have restored Barack Obama's rankings. This is the second time you have removed them, Sleyece. Please stop removing him from the polls. As I said before, if Barack Obama was included in the surveys cited in the table, then he should be included in the table. Anasaitis (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama's rankings have been removed again. For what it's worth, I think they're informative and it's important to see how historians view a president in the context of history over the course of his administration. Please stop removing them. Psychicmuppet (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense to censor rankings that were there in the source material because of an arbitrary distinction like whether the person ranked is incumbent. This would only make sense if the title of the article were "Historical rankings of ex-presidents of the United States". The role of wikipedia is to summarize what the sources say, that's all, so if they rank Obama, clearly this article should reflect that. For now, though, it does make sense not to include Trump, because he is not yet a President. Whether to include him after he's President but before any studies have ranked him would be debatable. Neow (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the table should be reverted to it's previous format, restoring the aggregate. I agree with DeathByGunboat and War. The average reader may find the frequency section confusing. I also think that at least some, if not all, of the pre-1982 surveys should be restored to the table. The page is titled "HISTORICAL rankings of presidents of the United States", and this includes rankings prior to 1982. Limiting the content of the table to surveys made from that date onwards takes away from the relevance and usefulness of the table within the article. 2601:4C4:4000:D492:D472:5DFF:C953:5FF0 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If the consensus is to revert to a previous state, or modify the aggregate, or both, I will respect that fully. Donald Trump is not included at this time. - Sleyece (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In the chart, can we have an asterisk or something to denote the polls where the president was in office. I think it is necessary information, especially to help readers understand something like the discrepancy in Bush's rankings in different polling. Brian9577 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So, from what I can gather, it seems that most people want the aggregate restored, and the table returned to it's previous format. If that's the case, I'll restore the table to the way it was. I'll wait a few days before I do so, however, just in case anyone else wants to chime in. Anasaitis (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the wait has been long enough, and the consensus is fairly clear. It's time to restore the aggregate and original table. Sleyece (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the proposal to revert to to previous format and restore the aggregate. Also, Trump should be removed until a qualifying poll is published that includes him. JayZed (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's done. Now we just need someone to re-add the recent polls and Donald Trump. I know he hasn't been in any of the polls, but he is President. Anasaitis (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added back the C-SPAN 2017 survey and updated the aggregate column accordingly. I didn't add back that 538 survey that was included for a little while, because if you look at it, it is itself an aggregate of other surveys that are already in the table we have here, and it only makes sense to include individual surveys in this table. I also removed the Times survey (which had been removed before but was restored recently when the older table was restored) because it was a survey of journalists, not scholars, and this is a table of scholar surveys. Finally, I think it's debatable whether we should include a line of blanks for Trump since there haven't yet been any surveys that rank him, yet he is a President. To me it seems silly to add a line of blanks, so I didn't do that. Neow (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I added back #45. Note: Some users expressed concern about a President being added before being rated. It may require further discussion. Sleyece (talk) 15:46, 05 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The aggregate was restored to previous state, and the table was reverted to a previous state with consensus changes. Further discussion regarding changes to the aggregate and the incumbent rankings should get a "New Topic." — Sleyece 17:43:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Should rankings prior to completion of final term of office be excluded?
There is no doubt that rankings taken prior to completion of the final term of office would reflect a perspective that is not retrospective--something that is the case with all presidents prior to Ronald Reagan. Does this not skew the results?Charley sf (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's for us to decide, as wiki editors. The title of the article is "Historical rankings of presidents", not "Historical rankings of ex-presidents." If a group ranked a sitting president along with ex-presidents, our role is to report the rankings they published. But it's good that we've marked the rankings of sitting presidents so that readers can easily see when that was done. Neow (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove party columns from tables?
The party columns seem a bit undue-weighty to me. Not sure of the utility of being able to sort Andrew Johnson and Barack Obama into a group together. Removing the party columns would also give more leeway on space for the two tables currently including it. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I like being able to see the party in the table when sorting on other columns and even being able to sort on the party, but I agree it's bulky. I'd suggest shortening the column header to "Party" and abbreviating the party names (Dem, D-R, Fed, Ind, Rep, Whig), with links on the abbreviations so that people can easily find out what they mean. Neow (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

2013 Gallup poll, weighted averages
The weighted averages strike me as odd, placing Barack Obama only in the third-last position. Compare this with Carter, who had a more negative reception, and Bush sen., who had a similar amount of critics in this poll but much more indifference towards his term.

I don't know what formula was used for the weighting, but assigning values from 1 to 5 for "Outstanding" to "Poor" (ignoring "No Opinion") gives me very similar results (smaller deviations might be due to rounding) in all but four cases:

At first I suspected tampering, but those averages have been unchanged since they were introduced. Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of falsifying the numbers to make a point, but the direction of these differences are somewhat suspicious. Though it is debatable whether we should include these averages at all. I didn't see them in the Gallup article, so these might fall under WP:OR. Don Cuan (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The raw data in your table here differs significantly, both from the (current) article and the source material. The page as written today matches the raw data from the survey, and there are only minor differences in the weighted average when using 1 to 5 weighting.
 * That said, I would support removing the weighted average from the table as it does not exist in the source material. Jelloman (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The table was copied from the article at the time of writing, though the values have since been changed by User:Neow. Apparently, someone vandalized the percentages while leaving the averages unchanged. Don Cuan (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did two things. Some of the percentages had been vandalized so I restored them to the values from the citation, and the averages were just wrong, so I fixed them. You can verify them easily enough. E.g., for JFK, 18*1 + 56*2 + 19*3 + 2*4 + 1*5 / (18+56+19+2+1) = 2.08. Neow (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Frequency isn't a good model; aggregate is better
So now it's like the frequency score is what's the most common placement for the president, but I think it's not a good model. For example someone who has placed 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd and 3rd would be assigned 1st cos that's the most frequent placement, but someone who placed 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd and 2nd would be assigned 2nd even though the latter has done better in polls. I think how it should be and it was still a couple of months ago that it was based on aggregate. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * we've always used an aggregate number. Jmj713 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How can FDR be 1st according to aggregate? Qwerty21212121 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The one chart clearly says frequency of position and not aggregate. It was changed from aggregate into a worse model. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

EDIT MARCH 25TH: I think the problem is fixed now and it says "aggregate". Good. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.siena.edu/sri/results/95%20Presidency%20Survey.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.siena.edu/sri/results/2002/02AugPresidentsSurvey.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707011431/http://www2.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%20Release_2010_final.pdf to http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%20Release_2010_final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160801184550/http://www.gallup.com/poll/165902/americans-rate-jfk-top-modern-president.aspx to http://www.gallup.com/poll/165902/americans-rate-jfk-top-modern-president.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Aggregate fixed
I fixed the aggregate, as it previously was not as described in note 30 (ratio of favourable to total pairwise comparisons, excluding ties). I will upload the source code for computing the aggregate soon, and then link it here, so anyone can use it to update the aggregate next time there's a new poll.Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sienna Research Institute Skew
There are four polls in the aggregate that are from Siena. Does this create a skew/bias through time that favor's Siena's rankings over other historian groups and institutions? - Sleyece 17:43:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. If it were more than that, then maybe, but as it is now, no. Anasaitis (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Sienna poll does not include Civil Rights rankings in its presidential rankings. This creates a scew for someone like Grant who defeated the Ku Klux Klan while President. The Sienna poll ignores this and thus Grant is ranked lower. That is a skew. The polling rankings are both political and unreliable. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree . The polls themselves are fine, and Grant is generally lower on the rankings because he presided over massive scandal, which he chose not to, or could not do anything about. I just think that five polls from any one organization is a massive flaw in the overall aggregate. Sleyece (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Political skew or bias
Is there an inherent political skew in these rankings ? Is slavery being ignored for ranking Presidents Jefferson, Washington, and Madison ? What are the political affiliations of these historians who do the rankings ? Do these historians all have PHD's in history in determining the rankings of Presidents ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like it is YOU who is being politically biased, not the rankings. You cannot judge historical figures poorly just because they did things that were common back then, but are considered immoral now. Yes, figures like Washington owned slaves, but so did a lot of people back then. Furthermore, the Democratic and Republican presidents are distributed pretty evenly from top to bottom. The top ten best and worst are men from multiple parties, so there doesn't appear to be any bias there. The list is fine. There are no indications of bias, political or otherwise. 2601:4C4:4000:D492:65DE:CDB7:4B40:90B9 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the user who created this section has some bizarre demands for the table. In the section above there is a demand for Grant to be ranked higher because he "defeated the Klu Klux Klan," whatever that means. This user seems likely to be violating WP:Not for politically motivated purposes. Sleyece (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have any politically motivated purposes ! Biographers of Grant starting with Smith 2001, Brands 2012, and White 2016 have praised or noted Grant for his civil rights actions. There has been a Grant revival in research. Chernov is going to put out another Grant biography in October 2017. I don't have any bizarre demands for the table. When Civil Rights is considered, and only the CSPAN poll 2017 considers Civil Rights, Grant's rankings goes up. When Civil Rights is not considered Grant's rankings are lower. The Lost Cause did much to damage Grant's reputation. The Dunning School was very political. In my opinion, historians are capable of being politically motivated in their assessments of history. With all the positive biographies of Grant why have not his rankings gone up signifigantly ? That is a question that I believe worthy of discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for expanding on your position. I am genuinely sorry if you thought the previous post was a slight against your character. As for the second half of your post, this page does not factor biographies into the rankings. This page is an aggregate of various polls of historians. Sleyece (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize if there were any misunderstandings. I know this page does not factor biographies into the rankings. My question is, and maybe it can't be answered, is how do these historians, scholars, journalists come to their conclusions on these Presidents ? Do they only read one biographer, such as McFeely's Grant, published in 1981, but ignore the Grant revival starting with Smith 2001. The CSPAN 2017 poll actually moved Grant up a notch from 23 to 22. Civil Rights is not included in the Sienna rankings, and Grant is ranked lower. I know this article is suppose to report the results. Would it be worth mentioning that the CSPAN 2017 rankings included a Pursued Equal Justice For All category ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Software for computing poll aggregate
I've written a program that lets you compute the aggregate for the table under "Survey scholar results".

Instructions: https://github.com/Bl-rp/president-aggregate-ranker Download: https://github.com/Bl-rp/president-aggregate-ranker/releases Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Data verified & corrected
I've verified and corrected the poll data under "Scholar survey results", "Popular opinion", "Popular opinion polls on recent presidents", and "Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010". I didn't check the data under "Memorability of the presidents" because it only appears to exist in graph form and it would be a PITA to check all the exact values. There were a lot of inaccuracies, likely due to malicious edits, especially in the "Scholar survey results" table.

For many of the polls under "Scholar survey results", I'm not sure if the source accurately reported on eventual ties. In particular, the only source I could find for the CT 1982 poll also had the Schlesinger 1962 poll and failed to include ties, so if there are ties in CT 1982, we wouldn't know. In fact, this page did claim that there was a tie in CT 1982 before I went through all the data, but I took it out because there were several other inaccuracies in the poll so there's no way to know if that was false too.

I found no source for the disapproval numbers in the 2010 Gallup poll, and there's no indication in the source that they exist. I also found no source for the disapproval numbers in the Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll except for W. Bush and Nixon, but they clearly exist. The 2006 Gallup poll does have disapproval numbers.

Why do we only have the 2010 poll on this page anyway? Someone should combine the 2006 and 2010 Gallup polls, the Public Policy Polling, and the Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll into a single table. Also, the 2014 and 2017 Quinnipiac polls should be combined into a single table. Something like this: https://i.imgur.com/SqtYaxr.png

Here are the sources I used to verify the data besides those already found on this page. Perhaps some should be used as sources on this page, since I couldn't find the info I needed with the current sources, but I don't know source policy so I'll let someone else figure that out.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8e9d/ab07d52c00cda6f5d42a1fae1ca9627b2c34.pdf Schl. 1948, 1962.

http://web.csulb.edu/~astevens/posc100/files/ratings.htm Schl. 1948, 1962. M-B 1982. Strangely excludes the 36th and final rank. CT 1982 - only 10 best & worst.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27550039?seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents - free to access after registering. Schl. 1948, 1962. Fails to report on ties, as I mentioned earlier. M-B 1982. CT 1982 - only 10 best & worst.

http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/hst341/presgreatness.htm Schl. 1948, 1962. Also fails to report on ties. M-B 1982. CT 1982. Schl. 1996. Fails to report on ties.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~mcguire/greatpres.htm R-McI 1996

http://history-world.org/pres.pdf WSJ 2000

https://books.google.se/books?id=LunKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=uspc+2011+presidents+poll&source=bl&ots=hsd-B1jCsF&sig=Goj_yhGNv11VEvQYfdvrHoW5d7s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixxvjy2qnWAhXBQpoKHXQEB7IQ6AEIOTAC#v=onepage&q=uspc%202011%20presidents%20poll&f=false USPC 2011

I'll also post another section about polls I found that might be worth considering for addition to the "Scholar survey results" table. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Polls to consider including, and inclusion criteria
The 1977 DiClerico / U.S. Historical Society Poll may be worth including. Both sources I've found only list the 10 greatest, but they also don't list the full Chicago Tribune poll so it's possible that the DiClerico poll does rank all presidents, in which case it could be included in the "Scholar survey results" table. Otherwise it could be included in a different section. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27550039?&seq=10 http://web.csulb.edu/~astevens/posc100/files/ratings.htm

The 1981 D.L. Porter gives a full ranking, and should probably be included in the table. The only source (freely viewable online) I've found also has the 1962 and 1996 Schlesinger polls and fails to report on ties in these, so if there were ties in the D.L. Porter poll, we wouldn't know. Though as I've mentioned in the "Data verified & corrected" section, this is also the only source I've found for the CT 1982 poll, so this is not a good enough reason to exclude the Porter poll unless we delete the CT poll. http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/hst341/presgreatness.htm

The Maranell / Dodder poll (measured 1968, published 1970) should be included in the article, as its own table as it does not simply rank presidents from "best" to "worst". It's found in the link just above, and one of the scales in the two earlier links.

I've happened to notice that the Siena 2010 ranking in the "Scholar survey results" is the same ranking as "Overall" in the table "Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010". But isn't each poll in the former table supposed to be an aggregate of a survey asking scholars to rank their overall views of each president from best to worst? Because this does not appear to be the case with the Siena 2010 poll: there's a column called "Experts' view" - actually the exact wording is "Your Present Overall View" according to the source below - which is what we're looking for. There's also an "overall" view which is presumably some sort of aggregate of the scores in all the other categories. Again, Siena 2010 in the "Scholar survey results" table matches the "Overall" column, whereas "Your Present Overall View" is exactly the kind of data we should have in that table, so I propose we change it. https://web.archive.org/web/20100704230244/http://www.siena.edu:80/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%202010%20Rank%20by%20Category.pdf

This raises the issue of what the other Siena polls, and in fact what all the other polls are actually measuring. Ideally, someone should try to find out, but it might require sources that are not freely available online. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If it doesn’t list all Presidents, then I don’t think we should include it, or at least not in the table. That is for polls listing all Presidents only. I think the Siena polls have already been discussed, so try looking at the older conversations. Anasaitis (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the main table is only for polls ranking all presidents. I already addressed where each poll might be added. The earlier discussion about Siena polls was about whether they should be excluded because they use a different set of criteria than most, including e.g. luck. My concern is: aren't the polls supposed to measure the same thing? Isn't the whole idea to have a table of surveys that ask scholars to rank presidents from best to worst? Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527203417/http://www.siena.edu/uploadedFiles/Home/Parents_and_Community/06_may_expert_bush_release.pdf to http://www.siena.edu/uploadedFiles/Home/Parents_and_Community/06_may_expert_bush_release.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050903122022/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fdean%2F20010511.html to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fdean%2F20010511.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Sleyece/Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States
In case there are any users who wish to use/reference the version of this article advocated by this user in 2016- early 2017, it may be found here. Sleyece (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822131607/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43774/kennedy-and-reagan-lead-list-of-good-presidents-for-americans/ to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43774/kennedy-and-reagan-lead-list-of-good-presidents-for-americans/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2018
You put Trump at the literal bottom? Are you serious? You're telling me he is literally worse than James Buchanan and Warren G Harding and George W Bush? 65.33.65.72 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Based on the cited polls, this is the information that has been provided. You can come up with other sources that adequately judge all Presidents in the same fashion and that can be used. —   IVORK  Discuss 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "and George W Bush" The source from 2018, Places Bush as the 30th best president. The American Political Science Association has ranked Bush as a better president than (in order) Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Richard Nixon, James A. Garfield, Zachary Taylor, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, James Buchanan, and Donald Trump. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Remove "They concluded that "the results indicate that military deaths as a percentage of population is a major determinant of greatness in the eyes of historians"."

That is not what the paper concludes. Rather, they say, much more exactly, 'We find a strong positive correlation between the number of Americans killed during a president’s time in office and the president’s greatness rating." (Henderson and Gochenour, p. 506) Therefore, if this text must be included in the article, it needs to be done without making WP:SYNTH claims... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Rather than change the objectionable text, I have removed the entire section that discusses this study. Upon further investigation, the study cited has had no impact on its field, being cited by only one publication in the five years since this study was itself published.  That is a one-sentence passing mention in the introduction to a 429-page political economic study of slave hunting, so hardly evidence of relevant impact.     Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018
"The bottom 10 often include James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Ulysses S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, and George W. Bush."

Please change Ulysses S. Grant to Herbert Hoover, or someone ranked lower than Grant. In recent surveys, Grant has ranked number 20 or 21.

http://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2#36-herbert-hoover-9

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/ Gcollins2 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Two recent surveys do not overturn the general statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of presidents of the United States by age which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Obama and "world opinion polls"
I undid the recent change of adding Obama to "More recent presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are often rated among the greatest in world opinion polls", because the only basis for that in this article are the 2017 and 2018 Quinnipiac polls and the 2017 Morning Consult poll, and those are as negative as they are positive, so it gives a false impression even though you could argue it's technically true. Although "among the greatest" implies among all presidents whereas the aforementioned polls only consider post-WW2. On that note, the only poll comparing Reagan and Clinton to all presidents is the 2011 Gallup poll, so "often rated among the highest" is misleading in a strict reading of the statement. Regardless, if Obama should be included it should be clarified that he is viewed about as positively as negatively, at least by the polls currently in the article.

I also changed the wording to "public opinion polls", as there are no world opinion polls on this page; only US public opinion polls. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that this sentence wasn't about the polls in the article. It should propably introduce the issue by shortly stating that the greatest in the thought of the world are not so great in the view of Americans. Clinton is a very good example as he's still massively praised by the world, but nowadays gets many negative thoughts by Americans. Of course a source was missing for that, but the author propably might have thought that he wouldn't need it for a half sentence that is not the issue of the article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's no source it could just be the author's impression. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's no source, then WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This Can't go on Forever
The main chart in in this article is already significantly off the page. The rankings only go back to 1948. Imagine just 100 years of rankings. To see the aggregate rankings in 2048, readers will have to scroll sideways for five minutes. Is there any effort or foresight as to which polls will be eliminated and/or consolidated in the next few years? Will this article become complete nonsense with no regard to the fact that there will be new rankings every year or two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot Sleyece (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Probably need an editor that is familiar with tables to try to solve that problem. I've been wondering the same thing, since the table is already off the page by several columns. I would think you should be able to collapse several columns until the aggregate, and have a "show" option for those who want to see the various historical rankings. But I do not know how to do that. Dave Dial (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have used Vert header and permitted wrapping of long names.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=845545948&oldid=845544006] This enables the table to display at around 45% of the previous width without hiding anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great job, . Is there anything that can be done about the excess space in the first three columns (from the left)? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see those columns will become thinner as new polls are added over time. Never mind, good show. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent job PrimeHunter! Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same thing, only to find out someone had already done it. Excellent job! Now the table fits within the page without the need to delete sections of the table. Brilliant! Anasaitis (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Section 6 - Public opinion polls on recent Presidents
The introduction to this section should be expanded to note that the nature and methodology of this best/worst question is inherently biased against the sitting president. As noted by Josh Huder, Senior Fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, after the publication of the 2016 Quinnipiac poll: "The question effectively asks respondents to compare current events to past events. ... Recent stimuli affect the attitudes respondents use to answer a question. ... It’s unsurprising that the two times this question has been asked (in 2014 and 2006) the sitting president has been recorded as “the worst president.” This isn’t to say it will always be the case. However, our memory of previous presidents fairs much better than their actual job approval during their presidencies. The events dragging down their job approval are long over." https://gai.georgetown.edu/whos-the-worst-president-evaluating-the-quinnipiac-poll/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.218.208 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of colour in the table
The green/orange/red you've chosen are quite terrible for the small but significant colorblind section of the community. Maybe make the green into a cyan or other pale bluish color, so that the gradation is saturated-X/weak-X/weak-Y/saturated-Y? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:8310:5B80:DACB:8AFF:FEA7:FCDD (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult thing to address because eyes can be blind to red OR yellow and blue. I don't know of a color scheme that makes all parties comfortable. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump's addition
I find it interesting that Trump is even on this list, since he's been in office for less than 2 years. I also noticed that the only citation for him being the worst president ever is an article from a source known for their strong opposition to him. Not to mention his constant criticism of them. Furthermore, it is an op-ed piece. Literally someone's opinion. The article is literally just about Trump. Which makes it's use as a source extremely questionable at best. And considering that it's the only source for that information suggests that it's largely irrelevant. If you read the article, the author took someone else's previous list, asked a few chosen political experts (of which they don't name), and put Trump in the place the experts said.

Considering all this, the fact that he's still in office, and the fact that the current American political landscape is so incredible polarized on the current PotUS, his inclusion here based on a single op-ed is just silly.2601:243:8200:4780:B150:3348:2E4B:D761 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Although it appears in the opinion section by op-ed contributors, they "surveyed presidential politics experts". I disagree with you attempt to paint it as merely opinion as it is approximately as valid as any of the other surveys of presidential politics experts. Regarding how short a time that Trump has been in office, this seems to be no different to me than the Siena Research Institute survey of 238 participating U.S. presidential scholars that was conducted two years into Obama's presidency. As for the source, the New York Times is indisputably a reliable source. Your statement that the "article is literally about Trump" is a total mischaracterization of the piece. Peaceray (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We've been through this multiple times. The consensus is that an incumbent CAN be ranked Historically. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias
Isn't it interesting that many of the top contenders were actually tyrants that happen to be heroes within the Progressive narrative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tyrants have "usurped legitimate sovereignty" and are "unrestrained by law". With the possible exception of Gerald Ford, all these people were elected to the position of President or Vice President, and were restrained by the (outdated) United States Constitution. Dimadick (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first two lead sentences for the Progressivism article indicates that it "... is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." The most prominent mention of that "tyrant" in American history is the Sic semper tyrannis uttered by John Wilkes Booth when he assassinated Lincoln. I am wondering if the  editor thinks that advancements in science, technology, economic development, & social organization are bad, or if that editor thinks that Lincoln was a tyrant. Peaceray (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019
Under the general findings section, William Henry Harrison served for 31 days in office, not 30 as stated by the article. He served from march 4 to april 4, according to his own wikipedia page. Wallace3043 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While he died on his 31st day in office, he did not actually serve 31 full days. He served a term of 30 days, 12 hours, and 30 minutes. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Short Term Presidents
Tragedy has unfortunately ended the terms of three presidents. As Wikipedia states:

"Because William Henry Harrison (30 days) and James A. Garfield (200 days, incapacitated after 119 days) both died shortly after taking office, they are usually omitted from presidential rankings. Furthermore, Zachary Taylor died after serving as president for only 16 months, but he is usually included. In the case of these three, it is not clear if they received low rankings due to their actions as President, or because each was in office for such a limited time that it is not possible to assess them more thoroughly."

It might be useful for the editors to readjust the list without WH.Harrison, in particular, as there is little real basis for judging his actions as president, especially since that assessment is now so broadly and considers so many factors so robustly (eg.Siena College Research Institute, Presidential Expert Poll of 2010 and the 2017 C-Span following the intent pioneered by the Siena--both excellent additions to this Wiki Site).

Regarding Garfield and Taylor, they should be maintained on the list as we have enough of a sense of both of them to assess what kind of president they were.

In closing, I agree that given the complexities of life today, we have enough data to rate a current president early in his first term (see next).Charley sf (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

What does background mean in terms of the table?
Is this where I would ask this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannerrollin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an indication of the relative rank - blue ones are in the best quarter, read ones in the worst. The key is at Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2018 Siena College Poll
Just so you are aware, a new poll is out. https://scri.siena.edu/2019/02/13/sienas-6th-presidential-expert-poll-1982-2018/ Besselfunctions (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &, I have included it in the table. However, I have no clue how to update the aggregate. I put in a request for help below. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! ExclusiveWillows (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Aggregate of all polls up to and including APSA 2018 by ranking each president's ratio of favourable to total pairwise comparisons, excluding ties. I am trying to update with the poll from above, and I just included all data points from the 2018 Siena College Poll to the table. Can someone help me out here with figuring this out? Thank you! &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That means, "Someone engaged in some original synthesis that should be removed" (which I'll do in a moment). Or, slightly longer version: Barack Obama, for example, was included in four of the rankings, three with 43 presidents and one with 44. He received ranks of 15, 18, 12 and 8, which means that he was favourably compared with (ie higher ranked than) 28, 25, 31 and 36 presidents, respecitively, for a grand total of 120 favourable comparisons out of 169 total comparisons with other presidents in those four polls. A "favourable comparison quota" of 120/169 or about 0.71 apparently is the 11th-best. There is no indication that this is a meaningful ranking of US presidents, and it's certainly not one based on a secondary source. Huon (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't get anything you said after the bit about original synthesis (which I am surprised I didn't realize until you explicitly pointed it out.) Thank you for trying to explain it anyways, though (when you didn't have to). My brain must be fried from all those edits to the table. Thank you for everything else as well! :D &#8213; Matthew J. Long  -Talk-☖  20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a shame to lose the aggregate column - as a wikipedia reader I found that calculation to be one of the most useful parts of this page. I had hoped it would simply recalculate with the inclusion of Siena 2018. 98.243.168.169 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The aggregate is a long-standing part of this article, check the archives for when it was debated. It should be added back, please. Math does not need to be sourced. Jmj713 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go, I've updated it. It should stay unless a new consensus emerges. Code here: https://github.com/Bl-rp/president-aggregate-ranker HonestManBad (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Math maybe doesn't need to be sourced; that this is a meaningful way of doing the math does very well need to be sourced. How are we not creating a new ranking that no source supports? How is creating a new ranking unsupported by any sources not original synthesis? Huon (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed the archives and found many assertions that there's a consensus for having the aggregate (usually by the same few editors), but no discussion where this consensus was ever clearly formed. The closest was Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States/Archive 2, but I don't see the policy-based arguments against the aggregate ever addressed. For what it's worth, I could easily think of multiple other ways to create an aggregate that might lead to different rankings. What makes the current version "the" aggregate?
 * At a closer look at the math currently used, that's nonsense. It's possible to have a set of rankings that are entirely consistent but lead to an inconsistent "aggregate" (ie despite A being ranked higher than B in every ranking that compares the two, the "aggregate" ranks B higher than A). How is using such a methodology appropriate? Does anybody know whether the "aggregate" in our specific case doesn't suffer such obvious flaws? Huon (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the example you cite should be possible. Suppose the next president Bob's first poll puts him at 10 and FDR at 11. Naturally, FDR would still be ranked about the same as always, while Bob would be around 10. An aggregate that's "consistent" as you say would be preposterous, and I'm not sure it would even be possible given any data set.
 * What's the most intuitive way of aggregating a bunch of polls? Obviously you'd just average the ranks and sort by the resulting numbers. If you're a little more savvy, you'd do a weighted average according to how many dudes are in each poll. Well, this method is basically just that except (1) being ranked 1 among three dudes (i.e. being better than two others) is twice as impressive as being ranked 1 among two dudes (i.e. being better than one other), so the proper weighting is by how many other dudes are in the poll, so the total minus one; this method gives proper weights to the number of participants; (2) this method properly deals with ties which otherwise would count the same as wins. I view the method as the most natural refinement of the most intuitive aggregate method.
 * I'll also note that with the aggregate clearly stating the method, it's really just math and the article doesn't claim "this is the objectively best method". And if you're gonna be that picky about what you consider original research, then isn't it original research to say "these are the Notable scholar surveys"? HonestManBad (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's give a specific toy example: Four presidents, five rankings.


 * Now tell me the "aggregate ranking" that your chosen method gives is reasonable. Tell me that your method that produces this aggregate is reasonable. And yes, it's your chosen method, and describing the method that creates the synthesis ranking doesn't make it any less original synthesis. Can you find a reliable source that says aggregating presidential rankings in this way is an acceptable method? Regarding the scholar rankings, those are published in reliable sources; it's not us deciding that they're notable enough to be published. If I asked 20 scholars, produced a ranking and put that in the article, that would be original research, even if I clearly named all 20 scholars. Huon (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In this ranking, Bob would have an aggregate score of 0.286 while Charlie would have 0.333. Is this ideal? Perhaps not; just by looking at the data and not applying some sort of method, you would conclude that Bob > Charlie. But is it wholly unreasonable, and does it deligitimize the method? First of all, let's recognize that the scores are very close and could easily swing with additional data. This is appropriate, as the relationship establishing that Bob > Charlie is very flimsy: one single poll where they are adjacent in the ranks. All the rest of the data says nothing about Charlie but is wholly negative for Bob, firmly establishing Bob < Alice. The data says much less about Charlie vs Alice, so we should expect that additional data is more likely to show that "Charlie < Alice" is not always true than that "Bob < Alice" is not always true. This may seem flimsy, but in an aggregate we have to consider all the data, not just the data that compares Bob and Charlie, and we have to figure out what the other data indirectly says about the relationship between Bob and Charlie.
 * Suppose we only have three polls with two participants each, saying A > B, B > C, C > A. Now we add a fourth saying A > D. Of course you'd put A ahead of C, as the three first polls don't give you any help ranking A vs B vs C, whereas A > D says something positive about A while staying silent on the others. Now suppose instead of A > B you had C > B plus a thousand polls with A and a thousand other presidents, ranking A first every time. Suddenly the symmetry is broken, and both B and C are clearly ahead of A in one sense - but is the data we removed more positive for A than the data we added? Clearly not. We have a very weak relationship between A, B, and C, and lots and lots of data that is extremely positive for A. We'd have to put A ahead.
 * Let's take an example that is more relevant to the situation: James Buchanan manages to get 37/45 on a fluke, while the new president Bob gets 38/45. Would Bob be at around 38 in the aggregate, or around 44? We could keep going through examples, but the supposed flaws you point out are simply not flaws in any data set that it would be at all reasonable or desirable to apply an aggregate to.
 * Determining what are 'notable' 'scholar' surveys is no different from determining what are reliable sources. At some point a subjective standard is set, so Wikipedia simply cannot be 100% objective. Even so, a reliable source could ask one scholar for a ranking and publish that, or two or three or four scholars and create an aggregate. How do we draw the line at what's notable? Even presupposing a standard for which sources are reliable, we'd have to subjectively decide whether a survey is large enough to count as notable.
 * Reading about the policy on synthesis, I don't get the sense that it's supposed to be interpreted so strictly. The aggregate could just as well be considered a summary - a more detailed version of saying "Grant generally ranks poorly in the polls". HonestManBad (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Aggregation of rankings
Should the table of rankings of presidents in the Scholar survey results section contain an "Aggregate" column? Huon (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose; as I said above, the aggregate is original synthesis based on a methodology not used or supported by any sources. The specific methodology chosen is also problematic for multiple reasons. It can lead to implausible "aggregates" (see section above). It assigns equal weight to each ranking although multiple rankings are by the same organizations and thus presumably suffer the same biases. It also assigns equal weight to very old rankings which likely no longer represent the scholarly consensus (Andrew Johnson was in the third quartile in 1962 and before, consistently in the fourth quantile in 1982 and ever after. Coincidence? I think not). So even if we cavalierly accepted original synthesis, there's no reason to favor this synthesis, and many reasons to not use it. Huon (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse; I consider it to be math and summary rather than original research by synthesis which is the actually forbidden kind of synthesis. I've made the case extensively above so I won't repeat myself too much. Huon's arguments here are just about him not being personally interested in what an aggregate of the data says. And the aggregate, being a summary of the table, is no more biased than the table as a whole. Suppose we had one organization ask the same scholars 10 times a year and we put all those in the same table as the other polls; they'd dominate the table regardless of whether there was an aggregate, so the bias doesn't come from the aggregate. HonestManBad (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse Math is not original research. Per No original research: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I am rather conflicted about this. One reason for it is that this is a staple of the article (which isn't really an arguement so much so as a reverse WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Further, I think historically there has been consensus for the inclusion of this aggregate (per WP:IAR). However, I am rather receptive to the arguments by above. This isn't original research per se, but it seems an awful lot like WP:SYNTHESIS. Which polls we include can make a huge difference on the results. While I think the inclusion of the 1948 poll is neat, it doesn't exactly reflect anything thing remotely associated with 2015 APSA poll. I mean, FDR had died 3 years before it had come out. I am pretty sure it is going to skew things just a bit. Really, you could selectively include polls from various sources to make the aggregate look marginally closer to whatever you want. I mean, a bunch of these polls don't even include James Garfield. How are we going to reliably say that his place in the aggregate is correct? Don't even get me started on the 21st century presidents. You could put George W Bush back in the fourth percentile with ease if you add the right polls. Finally, a note that the editor who made the original request on my talk page to include the latest poll has now since banned (too lazy to get the links). &#8213;  MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  00:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Endorse; This has been a long-standing part of the table and a useful part, and as has been pointed out, an aggregate or a summary is routine calculation which is in no way OR. An aggregate is necessary in this case for some context of how these polls treated each person over time. A bare line number of ranks doesn't tell the whole story. An aggregate helps with that, and the system by which it's derived is explained. Jmj713 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - which summary is a routine calculation? This? I could think of multiple others, maybe one based on a least squares approach, or something more akin to how the "most successful country at the Olympics" is usually determined (ie by number of gold medals). Or we could follow Nate Silver and sort by average rankings; that would lead to yet another aggregate. That last one would at least have one source where an expert thinks it gives meaningful results (with caveats, of course).
 * "Context of how these polls treated each person over time" is lost in an aggregate. Why is it meaningful to aggregate the relatively good opinions of Andrew Johnson pre-Civil Rights era with the bad ones afterwards?
 * I don't ask for a source that says the result of the chosen calculation method is indeed the ranking given in the "aggregate" column. But the choice of method is ours and significantly impacts the result. Would those who say it isn't OR also argue in favor of adding alternative aggregation methods which can equally well be described? If not, what makes this aggregation appropriate and possible alternatives inappropriate? Huon (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds more like an issue with choosing which polls to include. But that’s a separate issue from an aggregate, which is absolutely needed and is objective (it’s math). Jmj713 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it might be math, but math can certainly be used to skew the results. I think the issue is not which polls to include (I think that the graph does well in finding a diverse amount of polls from years past), but which polls should be included in the aggregate. That seems to be the pressing question here. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  17:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - for all those saying "it's just math and thus cannot be OR", I have just wasted quite a bit of time to create multiple alternative "aggregate" rankings. Each of them is "just math" that aggregates the rankings given in our table, yet the results vary widely. I haven't actually done what I'd consider methodologically best (but still OR) because that involves quite a computational effort. Since apparently the features of the methodology aren't relevant as long as there is a "just math" methodology, I won't bother detailing them at this point (you might guess what I did based on my column titles). Now tell me why the aggregation given in the article is more appropriate than any of the alternatives I came up with, or whether we should add the other aggregations too. Huon (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment In any case the overall ranking must stay. It was a while ago that there was no overall ranking and just an aggregate, which gives a wrong view of the rankings.--Qwerty21212121 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude. The meaning and calculation is unintelligible to the reader, the source is not V presented, there is no apparent value to it.  It just confuses things because it’s not an average or median or anything meaningful ... I’m more puzzled by it not lining up with either ... e.g. LBJ aggregate is less than most of his individual grades. Just looks wrong.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Any aggregation would be WP:OR. I would however suggest trimming the amount of polls/estimates (currently around 20) to the more notable ones to improve readability. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Aggregate Question; How Is It Possible?
How does Barack Obama aggregate to 17 when there is only one poll that ranks him 18, and the others are lower. One poll puts him at 8. Please advise. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: The aggregate has been removed for some incomprehensible reason. *See new section* -- Sleyece (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019
Donald Trump is one of the best President in American history and history will show that! 2601:280:4200:9055:946:146E:FBD6:FCB9 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a specific change request. If and when history will produce reliable sources ranking Donald Trump highly, I'm sure these will be reflected in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Frequency of Position

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A couple of years ago I suggested a "Frequency of Position" model to replace the aggregate. It ranked each President based on how many times they received a particular ranking. There was not consensus for it at the time, but maybe there will be under current consensus. It's not a perfect idea, but at least it's not synthesis. What do other users think? -- Sleyece (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you point to that suggestion in the talk page archives so we can read the details? I'd say applying any editor-devised methodology to create a new ranking of presidents is synthesis. Is there a reliable source confirming that your methodology is appropriate for aggregating presidential rankings? Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If my proposal is considered synthesis, then the conversation is not worth having. I was suggesting it as an alternative because it's simply counting credible polls. So, I guess I disagree with you on the premise that it would be synthesis. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This is what the "frequency of position" looked like for the short time it was implemented. FoP -- Sleyece (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, in this system, in the event that no credible polls rank the same President twice, the most recent chronological position will be used. *Note* Since this system is not an aggregate in any way, ties are entirely possible, even likely. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To me it appears you assign to a president the rank that he's most often assigned in the various scholarly rankings? What happens if the president is assigned different ranks with the same frequency, say ten scholarly rankings give him rank 15 and another ten give him rank 18? Do you go by whichever of those 20 rankings was newest, or by average age?
 * "Rank most often given to a president" may have fewer SYN problems than the "aggregate" rankings discussed above, but I still fail to see how it's useful. The polls have widely varying numbers of presidents, and having the same rank in different polls may not mean the same thing. For example, Harding was consistently ranked worst in the first nine polls, but that gave him rankings anywhere from 29 to 41.
 * As an aside, this isn't properly formatted if you intend it to be a WP:Request for comment as opposed to a "regular" talk page discussion. Huon (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the President has an equal amount of two or more positions, the newest data would be considered the most frequent. What all do I need to do to format this RfC properly? -- Sleyece (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Both aggregate and frequency seem a calculated form of synthesis but not SYNTH. I sort of like it wouldn’t be affected by one outlier, and sort of dislike it because two coincidentally being the same would distort it.  (i.e.  1, 48, 1, 42, 50, 49, 46 would not aggregate to a middle spot, it would instead show the extreme “1”.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It would not show "1" in that case. The FoP would be 46. Also, I never claimed that this is a perfect system. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see now that you had two 1s in the set. Yes the FoP would be 1 in your example. If this were a real world case, that would not last for long if it were a true outlier. Since new polls are coming out all the time, after a third year the FoP would reflect the poor performance of the President. It could also indicate a shift in historical perspectives for a particular President. FoP does unfortunately allow for some extreme outliers since it is not an aggregate, but it does not provide for long term outliers to dominate the rankings. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't provide for that. If the original set is 1, 48, 1, 42, 50, 49, 46 (as above) the FOP would be one. If the next rankings are 43, 51, 45, 44 and 47 the FOP remains as "1" for at least another five publication intervals. You could get around that by trimming the extremes, but then no president would ever be ranked first or last. Alternatively you could just remove the highest and lowest rankings (leaving any that happen to share the same value) but that isn't guaranteed to remove all outliers and you still have all the original research problems of wikimedian-calculated averages. FOP also cannot easily reflect changes, e.g. a president has a really high rating, say, 3, 1, 1, 2, 5, 4, at first (FOP: 1) but then it emerges that they did something really bad or attitudes change and the next set of polls are 45, 44, 46, 50, 37, 49 the FOP is still 1, despite the plummeting rankings. Finally it is entirely dependent on the number of presidents in the ranking. Say a president is ranked 47 of 47, 47 of 47, 48 of 48, 49 of 49, 50 of 50, 51 of 51, 52 of 52, 53 of 53, 54 of 54, and 55 of 55. FOP will rank them 47th of 55 presidents even though they were last in every single poll. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're doing math here like this is Linear Algebra. It doesn't have to fix every possible extreme to be effective. If an FoP seems to violate changing attitudes toward a President, any user can simply send it to the talk page for consensus. Then, one or more polls can can simply go uncounted by consensus to provide a more accurate portrayal of modern historical view. See WP:NOT for more information. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're doing that then what you're doing is creating a subjective ranking that better fits the point of view (of a self-selecting group of editors) based on a synthesis of the sources. That's contrary to both the WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH policies. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm sorry. Well, then the only way to avoid Synth is to risk significant outliers or have no system at all. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose the use of a "frequency of position" system. It's still fraught with SYN problems because, as explained above, there's a choice to be made to break ties, and that choice is our own. Furthermore, the problem of unequal numbers of presidents in the polls and of the correspondingly different meanings of the same position in the polls is not addressed. For example, in the December 2016 version of the article that Sleyece linked to, Martin Van Buren gets assigned a "21", which puts him in the second quartile of 42 possible ranks - but three out of the four ranks "21" that made that rank the most common were from polls with fewer presidents and were actually in the third quartile for their poll. Claiming that Van Buren is most frequently positioned in the second quartile is clearly false. Huon (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, Martin Van Buren's bureaucratic incompetence turned the trail of tears from a racist policy into a small genocide. I'll admit it's a pretty big pitfall that FoP puts him in the 2nd quartile. Any corrections, as you say, would require WP:SYNTH. I don't know what to tell ya. I'm pretty ambivalent to FoP becoming the standard, so I'm not going to vote. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * oppose the 'frequency of position' system. This seems unnecessary and fraught with potential for problems.Tchouppy (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose (via FRS) This seems to violate WP:SYNTH and it seems likely that it will misrepresent the sources. It's also poorly defined and could lead to argument about how to calculate. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It's literally just counting. Any user that has passed 4th grade Math should be able to handle FoP. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As explained above, you have a choice between (1) simple counting leading to meaningless and/or misleading results and (2) simple counting with additional elements that violate NPOV and/or SYNTH policies. It's entirely unclear which you are actually proposing as whenever someone objects to (1) you say that (2) can solve those problems, but then when someone objects to (2) you say it's actually just (1). Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly I'm proposing "1", and I'm saying that "2" would be better, but it would violate policy. So, either Support "1" and deal with the obvious pitfalls, or oppose "2 because "1" can't be "2", and therefore, it does not deserve to exist. Obviously, I'm not going to argue either way because I don't care. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing both because they are equally (if differently) bad. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a well reasoned position. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I wasn’t expecting another discussion on this matter so soon after the previous one, but it seems that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the recent decision. Regarding Sleyece’s proposal, I don’t think that would be a suitable replacement for the aggregate that was removed. Personally, I would much rather the old aggregate be restored. For arguments in favor of such a move and why it doesn’t violate Synth, you can look at older RfCs. If someone has a better proposal for an aggregate, however, I would support it. If no one has any better ideas, then I would support Sleyece’s proposal, albeit reluctantly. Anasaitis (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a great idea for how to reinstate the aggregate! Literally just reinstate the old aggregate! Ignore the objections from Republicans/Russians (who can tell the difference these days?) who are clearly just scared of the fact that Donald Trump will look really bad in such an aggregate, and do NOT allow Wikipedia to become politicized by such lowlife scum! Novel idea, isn't it? If we are literally at the point where we have to fight and debate over the nature of mathematical fact... We are absolutely in 1984 "2 + 2 = 5" territory already. The idea that even Wikipedia is not immune to such propaganda is sickening and extremely frightening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:100:69D0:FC9E:7123:73CE:D94 (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a better idea. Let's do none of that. The "Republicans/Russians" alone shows you are not a serious user here contribute to an Encyclopedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why On Earth??
Who's idea was it to remove the aggregate altogether, and how soon will it be reinstated? -- Sleyece (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you pretending that you did not read the discussion above and its conclusions? :
 * "Based on the strength of the arguments, I find that there is consensus that any aggregate calculated by Wikipedians would be synthesis and should therefore be excluded. This discussion does not preclude the inclusion of an aggregate calculated by a reliable source, as this was not discussed, but I would recommend seeking consensus for the inclusion of a specific aggregate before adding it to the article." Dimadick (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I can claim credit for the idea to remove the aggregate, and I tire of people thinking their personal opinion overrules a consensus established in a month-long RfC. No one has since brought any new policy-compliant arguments in favor of having the aggregate. It violates WP:SYN, and Obama's aggregate ranking is a good example. As I showed above, I could easily devise alternative methodologies that give Obama an "aggregate" ranking anywhere from 13 to 16. Why is the aggregation method that says "13" any more appropriate than the one that sas "16"? Both are "just math", and neither is a particularly absurd method. I'm going to remove the aggregate once again. If you disagree with how Thryduulf closed the RfC, the way forward for you is explained at Closing discussions. Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had already refuted your arguments, and you didn't respond to them or bring up anything new, but I guess these were not considered since they were not part of the "Request for comment" section despite being directly above it and referenced within my comment. This is purely "consensus by rank", not by argument. Extremely dishonest tactics by the two of you. HonestManBad (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read that section and your arguments there do not refute that Wikipedian-calculated aggregates would be synthesis - some of them actually rather the opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting rid of the aggregate wasn't the mistake, replacing it with literally nothing was WP:NOTHERE. Don't take my word for it, look just below at someone who relied on this article for Encyclopedic information that they are now denied... all to protect a few editors egos and the glorious consensus. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A simple mathematical calculation of the average ranking for each president based on all the polls considered here would NOT be original research. Clearly. I am actually stunned this topic even came up for "debate" and was bewildered to find the long-standing average that I could for years rely on this page to find could no longer be found when I searched for it today. As far as I am concerned, there is no "debate" about these numbers. You can perform all the mental gymnastics in the world to come up with some elaborate method so that you can pretend that 2 + 2 = 5; that does NOT make it so. Despite what the anti-thought which pervades the Donald Trump era might have us believe, I do not think even such simple, black-and-white mathematical FACTS as this have suddenly become a topic for subjective dispute. The idea that they might HAVE is DEEPLY concerning to me, and should be extremely disturbing to any thinking individual. And the presence of this perverted "alternative facts" ideology even on Wikipedia makes it more clear than ever WHY Donald Trump MORE than deserves his position at the absolute bottom of these rankings; the embarrassment that comes with that is what I STRONGLY suspect was the imputes for unduly removing this long-standing precedent. Literally nothing on this page remotely resembles a coherent, LOGICAL argument for why they should have been removed. All I see is a bunch of political bullshit. Until someone can make a convincing case that there is a genuine objective mathematical standard that disproves the simple fact that X president rankings combined divided by Y number of polls somehow no longer equals X/Y, the long-standing precedent of including the aggregate absolutely SHOULD stand. I consider its removal not merely a matter of semantics and certainly not some kind of desire to improve the objective quality of this encyclopedia; it is clearly in my eyes done with far more sinister, manipulative intentions more befitting of political propaganda than a database of fact. And this very grave matter should at the very least be far more seriously considered and debated before anyone tries to re-instate said propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:100:69D0:FC9E:7123:73CE:D94 (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A Wiki-infant making their first Wall-of-Text edit just to display the scorn the general public has for the nonsense "idea" of throwing the aggregate out with nothing to replace it. Out of the mouth of babes, as it were... -- Sleyece (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019
Vandalism! Someone pushed Obama to the bottom of the Presidential Historian Rankings. That's absolutely wrong. An editor needs to correct the intentional vandalism. Mycsusbacct (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019
Never mind! I see how you've ranked it now... Mycsusbacct (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay sounds good. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)