Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 2

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

George W Bush hasn't left office yet
So why does it list January 2009 as the date that he did? Add (expected) next to the date or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.188.33 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Harry "S" Truman
Harry S Truman's name is listed as "Harry S. Truman". This is inaccurate; His middle name is simply "S", it doesn't stand for anything. I'd change it myself, but the page is restricted from editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.158.29 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Harry S. Truman. It appears an argument could be made either for or against the period; but as long as it's consensus that his article is located at Harry S. Truman, we should certainly defer to that.--Pharos (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson
I changed it once, but got reverted: shouldn't his bar be a different color since he was a Unionist president? -Litefantastic 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although Johnson often sided with Democrats, he was elected along with Lincoln under the Republican ticket (known as the Unionist Party at the time). The article lists John Tyler as a Whig, because that's the party he was elected with, even though he often sided with Democrats. If Tyler is listed as a Whig, Johnson should be listed as a Republican.24.118.91.125 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His cabinet throughout largely consisted of Republicans (even though many of them, at the end, would soon switch over to the Democrats, others certainly did not - William Evarts, e.g., became Hayes' Secretary of State, and I don't think Seward ever fully broke with the Republican party). Tyler's final cabinet, on the other hand, pretty much entirely consisted of avowed Democrats like John C. Calhoun and John Y. Mason.  On the other hand, Johnson made a serious bid for the Democratic nomination in 1868, something Tyler was entirely unable to do in 1844.  john k (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * Jefferson's picture isn't his official White House portrait either. John 10:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added all the pictures that have been asked for to Commons. They are now available to be put on the list. I don't have access to do this so somebody should do it.--William Henry Harrison 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

What makes a portrait "official"?

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

So according to this, there is no one "official portrait".

Also, if a president is assassinated, then who approves the portrait?

If you insist on only having portraits and no other pictures, then I think you should change the title of the article to reflect this. ( By the way, I can see that you've made some exceptions to this rule, because there are some photos.) It is strange to have an article called "list of presidents..." and not be able to see the face on some of the portraits, because the face is too small, or it is turned away, such as on Aaron Shikler 1970 painting of JFK, that Uga Man has put in the article and claims is "official".

I appreciate that you want consistency in the article, but artistic value is not the only criteria for an encyclopedia image. The ability to see the face is at least as important, if not more so, in my opinion. Another issue is that the artistic style is not at all consistent with the other portraits. So in terms of artistic value, a more appropriate image would be more consistent with the style chosen for the article, even if it's a photo.

More wiki photos here

I ask the community for their thoughts and opinions, and to consider using this "official" white house photo instead.



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

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

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

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


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

--- Uga Man,

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

A portrait is defined thusly:

portrait (plural portraits)

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word "official" is vague and uninformative. The phrase "White House approved" is much more accurate and informative. Anyway who defines "official", and how do they define it? That answer needs a reference too.

I think we need an intro paragraph or captions that explain what the images are. References are the minimum. Is there any reference anywhere that states that the painting is "official", according to the preceding definition?

Is there any reference anywhere that defines what criteria are used by the white house committee to select paintings?

The reference should have a dates too.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Federalist
I'm not sure about that footnote about Adams not really being a Federalist. We claim he was somehow less a Federalist than Hamilton, or than Jefferson was a Republican. What's the basis for this? As far as I'm aware, none of the parties was formally organized in the way that parties would be organized from the Jacksonian period onwards, so this seems to create an artificial distinction. john k (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the distinction is artificial. Most important U.S. politicians active in the period before Jackson's presidency frequently changed the subject of their praise or scorn from the Federalist to the Republicans and back again. The presidents from that period are noted in the list as belonging to a particular party mostly becuase of the way historians have classified them, not actual strict party affiliations. Since a situation were every President from Adams Sr. to Adams Jr. is listed as belonging to "No Party" is undesirable, and both of the article's sources consider Adams to be a Federalist, the "No Party" footnote should probably be removed. --Ace ETP (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Cheney Vandalism
Changed current vice president from 'dick head' to 'Dick Cheney'--Abusing (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Names of Presidents
Has there been any discussion of using the full complete legal name of each president in this list? Maybe having two name lists, one denoting what the individual is commonly known as, and a second that lists the full legal name of the individual. For instance, the list mentions "John F. Kennedy", but not "William J. Clinton". And with Bill Clinton, you would have to denote possibly three names. He is known as "Bill Clinton". His full legal name is "William Jefferson Clinton". However, he was born as "William Jefferson Blythe III". How about denoting whether the individual was a Junior? For instance, John Adams was a Junior. John Tyler was the IV. --Lasloo (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the list should be kept as-is. Some presidents are best known by their official names ("John F. Kennedy") and some are best known by other names ("Bill Clinton.") The article now has the flexibility to use the name best appropriate for the individual President. I think it's silly to create a separate name list, one with common names and one with full legal names, and equally silly to draft a hard rule requiring option A when, for a given individual, option B makes more sense. I think any changes to the current list are unwarranted and would be unnecessarily confusing. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Official photos are not being used because photography was not invented until somewhere around the William Henry Harrison administration. Portraits are much more consistent and perhaps the other pages should be edited to match this one. On the White House website and in the White House itself, the portraits are prominently displayed. You are correct that "A large part of Wikipedia is consistency" and perhaps that is the reason that this page is featured and First Lady of the United States is it. It is inconsistent and if I had the time I would fix it. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a good point; I suppose I really have no business here, but great job with the Featured list. Happyme22 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should use the official photos whenever we can as long as they look better than the portraits, as the photography during the William Henry Harrison administration was not as good as it is now. - Diligent Terrier  and friends 13:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you judge if a photo is better than a portrait? How can you deal with the inconsistency this would cause on the list? --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems silly. The only "consistency" necessary is that we should have pictures showing what each president looks like. john k (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not silly, the portraits need to place the presidents on level ground. The official portrait is the only way to provide this consistency.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several problems here. For one, some of the portraits being used hardly even show the presidents' faces, and don't look very much like them. It is clear that they have been included for internal consistency, but it actually detracts from article quality.  Second, what was great about this page was that you could look back at the portraits and see the point at which photography replaced painting.  I remember really liking this list for that reason, and am disappointed to see that it has changed.  We need to decide if it is more important to keep things consistent with reality (ie: using official portraits, pictures included), or consistent with the page itself.  I don't really see the logic in making a point for the latter, although it has been made above...   Johnny California  09:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make another point for reverting to the photos. While they are consistent with reality in terms of being the "official portraits," they are also consistent with reality in terms of being actual pictures.  As such, they do a better job in their role as portraits&mdash;showing people what they actually look(ed) like.  It's a shame that we don't have pictures of the first presidents, but this doesn't mean we should change the modern ones to paintings.   Johnny California  09:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

GWB Portrait
Everyo president's portrait image is a painting except GWB's. Kind of inconsistent, can this be fixed? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The official portrait has not yet been painted. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, wether G. W. Bush has a painting or not, the fact is that the difference is extremely obvious. It would be an improvement to put a photo in which he appeared not so close. Just to make it more similar to the paintings.

Another tiny detail, is that only George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have portraits in which the flag appears. I don't know if there's another portrait of Clinton, but it would be better that none of them had the flag... just to make them more equal to the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.236.25 (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, someone get an administrator to elevate this article's protection level
This article regularly falls victim to numerous well-intentioned, yet ultimately disruptive edits by new or anonymous users, as well as numerous counts of vandalism. The former edits usually involve the addition of new, more derivative categories (or sometimes even footnotes) regarding minutiae already covered on the other U.S. presidential lists, or the changing of a president's name (such as adding an "R." to Gerald Ford or removing the period after Truman's middle initial), despite past consensus that whatever the article's name is should be used. And common vandalism in this article includes almost daily replacement of names listed with those of other historical, fictional, or made-up persons, and additions of 2008 presidential candidates at the bottom of the list. With all this in mind, and since there is absolutely no reason why this list should ever be changed unless a new presidential term begins, I propose that this article's protection level be elevated. The already established and somewhat minimalist consensus on what type of categories and footnotes this article should have is very unlikely to change any time soon, and any major overhaul would require previous discussion, so the protection should not be a hindrance for constructive changes. This is a featured list and it should be stable. So wouldn't it be for the best to lock up this article and keep changes to a minimum until noon of January 20, 2009 (with perhaps the code required to add the president-elect ready as soon as a winner is declared, despite addition not ocurring until two months after that)? --Ace ETP (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more, I just saw this article for the first time today and it's history and discussion page are both a train wreck. I added it to Requests for page protection, using some of your reasons.  Thanks.  --Spacefem (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The article had already fallen victim to tons of the usual disruptions in the short time beyween your suggestion over at Requests for page protection and the arrival of the cavalry. --Ace ETP (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion with the Vice President boxes marked Vacant
I think that there is a confusing aspect to the fact that some Vice Presidential boxes are marked with the word vacant underneath the name of the original incumbant. It seems to me that people might not understand that the name was the incumbant that was elected, and that the post was then vacant after the person died in office/resigned or whatever. Perhaps could we put dates in? I.e Example Vice President, 1882-84, Vacant 1884-6. It just might make the information on the page more accessible and more useful. Perhaps a little detail about why the person left office part-way through the term, as in 'Died in office' or 'Resigned' or 'Impeached' etc. Just might make it a little more encyclopaedic.

PoddingtonGirl (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's not a single Vice President to have left office early whose reasons for doing so aren't noted through the use of footnotes. --Ace ETP (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No Political Party
George Washington had no political affiliation, therefore he is an Independant. George Washington did share the same views of the Federalits, but hated the idea of political parties -- completly despised them. He thought that political parties did not serve the interests of the people! Even though I am Pro-Life, Does not make me a Republican! For those of you that are not familiar with the Presideny of George Washington, you might want to start off reading his Farewell Address. I am changing his Political Party to Idependant (Un-Affiliated).

IndepAmerican (talk) 3:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To say that Washington had no political affiliation is pure negationism. He certainly was affiliated with members of his Cabinet and the Congress who supported his policies, most of whom were future Federalists. But as the Federalist Party didn't even emerge as informal political group until his presidency was over, and as he advised against the formation of strictly organized political parties, many historians referr to Washington as nonpartisan. But he certainly was not an independent in the modern political sense of the word, as that term implies that there were political parties that he could be independent of, which there weren't. --Ace ETP (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is that having negations? George Washington was, without doubt, Un-Affiliated. To say that Washington was a Federalist is like calling Bill Gates the founder of Apple (Which could also be debatable). Washington has said countless times in his presidency that he hated the ideals of Political Parties. Federalist Papers have named him a Federalist - Which is just not the case. Today, to name Washington in a Political Party is Disrespectful to his legacy, his entire presideny was based on the fact that unity must be achieved if you want to help the Interest of the People; Political Parties, in the opinion of Washington, have stood in the way of that very true, very great, ideal. --IndepAmerican (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Ashnard, The superscript that follows numbers, like '31st', '32nd', '33rd' or '34th' is not an indication that the number refers to a date and a date only. Those superscripts are there to indicate the contraction of the full-version of the words, as in thirty-first, thirty-second, thirty-third, thirty-fourth and so on. So it is correct for somebody to use a superscript when referring to the thirty-first of anything, be it the month, i.e. 31st October or be it the 31st President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. So for instance I could use a superscript to say 'I have just eaten my 94th apple this year'. Hope that helps. PoddingtonGirl (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Three have resigned"
The lead says that three presidents resigned. But as I recall, only Nixon did so, and the footnote [R] appears only by his name. So who are the other two? Or should it be changed to one?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, I fixed the possible vandalism. I don't know how long it has said that, but thanks for bringing it up. Next time be bold and don't be afraid to fix something that you know is wrong. Again thanks for catching the problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all wrong information is vandalism. It was added in good faith as a result of the Featured list removal nomination, here: Featured list removal candidates/List of Presidents of the United States. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that it was possibly made in Good faith, that is why I did not tag the users talk page, but vandalism, however subtle, comes in all forms. The redirect does not say anything about three presidents resigning, so I don't know where that user recieved his/her information.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The mistake was made most likely due to the fact that the "Resigned" foonote appears thrice, as Vice Presidentes John C. Calhoun and Spiro Agnew resigned as well. The number of Presidents to have died of natural causes is off as well. --Ace ETP (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, this was me when I rather stupidly counted the appearances of the "footnotes" in the previous referencing system and summarised that in the lead. Thanks for correcting this, and sorry for the trouble caused. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It seemed subtle/good faith, so I brought it up here instead of being bold. I'm glad you all replied so quickly.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo after Nov. 4th?
Since whomever gets elected on Nov. 4th will not have a Presidential portrait yet, and probably will not for awhile, are we going to go with a photo? The same one currently used for the respective candidates articles now? SiberioS (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we'll have to use a photograph, but it's likely an official presidential photograph will come out soon after the innauguration and we won't have to use any of the ones currently appearing in the candidates' articles for long. By the way, I was under the impression presidential portraits weren't unveiled until after a President left office. Does anyone know if the recently added Dubya portrait is the genuine official thing? The White House website (which uses portraits for the first 42 presidents) still uses the photograph we had until a few days ago. --Ace ETP (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No source is given, so I say nuke it. --Golbez (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Lock this page
It's being vandalized right now and is too hot a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.26.202 (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you all :)
For putting so much time, effort, and discussion into this list. :) 76.190.170.15 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

THis is someone else but i would just like to point out that George Washington was NOT the first president of the United States nor was he the second. GW was the nineth president of the US. John Hanson was truly the first President and it also states this in the Articles of Confederation not just from an eigth grader but in an American document. It has been bugging me how GW gets all the credit of being the first pres when he was not. It is just like how Paul Revere is thought to have been the one who rode to Concord when it was really Samuel Prescott was the only rider of the three(Paul Revere, William Pawes, and Samuel Prescott)who made it to Concord to warn the people that the 'Regulars' not the 'British' were coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.103.221 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, George Washington most certainly was not the ninth President of the United States. He was the first. The gentlemen you are speaking of held a completely different office, titled 'President of the United States in Congress Assembled'. It was not an executive office. It was more analagous to either Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This office was under the Articles of Confederation.

When the Constitution was ratified, it created a new government, with a new office called President of the United States. George Washington was the first person to hold that office. J.D. Walker (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)]

Proper party for recent presidents
Should they not be listed as Republocrat?


 * No -- Jwinters | Talk 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF? FA Class? LoL
Barack Obama is the fourty fourth president of the United States

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

ALSO.......Why is Obama listed as President. He has not won the election. Someone should really change this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujeylee (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not president or president elect. He is likely to become the latter on Tuesday when the Electoral College meets. Until January he shouldn't be listed as president.

JohnC (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is president, president elect, president designate, and action president. Any other status known? I don't know what the future president is called after winning the general election but before the electorial college meets. Is the the designate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.174.75.3 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Home states
If this list is to remain featured, then it needs to be stable, and I feel like home states being re-added as a category might threaten that stability, as may open a can of worms. Not only because the home states of many presidents (e.g.: Grant, the elder Bush) are debatable, but also because it may threaten the simplicity needed for this list to be manageable. Without a doubt, this article should be more than a collection of names, and that's why we have categories which cover aspects of the presidencies, such as the term of office, the parties, and the VPs - despite there being ancillary lists completely dedicated to those topics. But should we have categories which cover aspects of lives of the presidents, as opposed to the presidencies? I think that allowing just a single one will open the question of why there can't be more, and we'll simply won't know where to draw the line. Should there be a category for previous offices held? Pre-political occupation? Military service? Education? I don't think this list should be exhaustive. What do other editors think? --Ace ETP (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The home state of a president or potential president are important and it may be theonly information about a president actually covered in the constitution.There is no debate as to the home state of a president. Each candidate must declare his home of residence when he applys to be placed on the ballot. This is considered the home state, regardless of where the candidate was born. They do this because in the constitution, it says that "Electors may choose no more than one candadite from there own state." Very important information if you ask me.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at all the only personal data about a President covered in the Consitution. By your logic, we should also have categories for age at accession to the Presidency and years spent as a resident of the United States. If these people served as President, it's clear that they met consitutional requirements, and we don't need to know how they did it. They still are things relating to the personal lives of the Presidents instead of the presidencies, even if they were aspects of their personal lives which entitled them to the Presidency. And they leave us, as I said before, with no knowledge on where to draw the line. --Ace ETP (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the one who added that category, but I will not add it again. I don't care what y'all do, it was just a fun idea I wanted to try. I added the state in which the President was Born, so that there is no debate, but you should put the ideal residence the President is from because that is what it says on the ballot. NOTE* That Andrew Jackson's Birth place is Unknown and is highly debatable - he was born in Waxhaws, but we do not know if he was born in North or South Carolina; There should not be a Debate because Andrew Jackson put the state of Tennessee on the Ballot, so that is the State we should add too! -- IndepAmerican (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.248.188 (talk)
 * There is no good possible reason why it cannot be added. Now that you mention it, age would also be a good addition to the article. What is the consensus? 2 to 1. Lets be Bold and get it done.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already presented several reasons for not adding the category. If after a bit more of discussion a few more editors, specially some of this article's regular ones, agreed with adding the "ballot state" category, I'd concede defeat. But I don't think anyone who's intervened so far has adressed my points about home states being something relating to the lives of presidents and having nothing to do with the presidencies (and therefore being a category whose addition will not make the limits of the type of information this main list should cover clear, as I've said before) very well. I don't think it's been adressed at all, in fact. --Ace ETP (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see and concede the point that you are making about the article only being about the presidency and not about the personal life of the men. I still think that adding the information would be useful and wouldn't hurt, but as long as the entire article is just on the presidency, I have no problem with the way it reads now. Is there another article where this list of information could be added? Many people like lists such as this, because it takes all of the information thay may possibly need, and places it all on one page for an easy read.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll see that the end of this article there are several collipsable templates, one of which links to several lists of United States presidents ordered by several things pertaining to both the presidencies and the lives of the office holders, including states of residence and birth. As for the category not hurting, it may do no readily apparent harm, but as I've argued, it may make this list not only redundant but also lacking of a clear purpose and criteria for inclusion of categories. --Ace ETP (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Time in power, per party
I was curious, so I added up the time each party has been in power (carried to the end of Bush's second term; transfer days given to incoming presidents). I figured I'd post the results here in case somebody wants to work it into the article somehow:


 * Republican = 32,183 days
 * Democratic = 30,596 days
 * Democratic-Republican = 10,227 days
 * Whig = 2,922 days
 * "Pro-Administration" (Washington) = 2,865 days
 * Federalist = 1,460 days

(I wonder, is there a ready-made script that could add up the totals for us?) --70.105.224.161 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Canadian equivalent to this has a self-updating script for the incumbent, so you might want to check that out. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When will this be updated? Nov 5th or Jan 20th?
Wikipedia's never had a change of US President before. Should this list be updated as soon as one of the major candidates concedes to the other, or only once a new President is inaugurated, or sometime inbetween? &mdash; ciphergoth 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is a "List of the Presidents of the United States" not an article about the Presidency or one on the major candidates running for office. As such, I think this article must be held true to its title: this article must be a list of the Presidents of the United States. Even if someone were to clearly "win" on November 4th, we do not know if that person will become President or if another event (however unlikely) could intervene. Under the most likely course of events, President Bush will serve until noon on January 20th and his successor will take office at noon on January 20th. I think we have to wait until those events happen, though, before we add a person to "List of Presidents of the United States" who ...isn't. Thanks for thinking of this; if we can get consensus on a policy now, we can get semi-protection and avoid the millions of revisions later.  JasonCNJ (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. We update on January 20 next year and not a single second before that. Calle Widmann (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The table should be updated on Jan 20; the text should be updated on Nov 5 to note the president-elect. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * YES! President-elect moving to President on Jan 20th! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama is not the president yet. Heck, the networks *just* called his victory, and he's already listed here. He almost certainly will be president, but he is not yet. I say leave Bush as the last president until Obama officially takes office. Chaotic42 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a list of Presidents - not a list of President-Elects. --Madchester (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP has had plenty of changes of state heads of various countries. SOP is to stick 'em in as presidents-elect, just as has been done with this page. Leaving them out violates the point of wikipedia being timely, and of being an information source. By failing to provide the information, it becomes disinformation. Either have this argument every single time a president is elected, or do it right from the get go. Where "Right" = "the way people expect, the most informative way, and the way followed for all other nations, because the US is not special." DewiMorgan (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive page lock
I know there's going to be an edit war on this page soon. Is there a way to temporarily lock it for at least the day? -- Jwinters | Talk 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert and lock please
This is going to be an edit war. 64.234.26.202 (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Barack Obama is the fourty fourth president of the United States

I second, leave Obama on the page and lock er down Magnum Serpentine Magnum Serpentine (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL? Anything can happen in the 2+ months before Inauguration Day.  We need more discussion to decide whether we add a President-elect to a List of Presidents. --Madchester (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest removing Obama until Inauguration Day and protect the page for a while. As noted in a section above, this is a list of Presidents, not Presidents-Elect.  -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PRESIDENT-ELECT OI OI OI!!! Tough titties fellas! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)