Talk:President of the United States/Archive 7

Incumbent?
Is the "incumbent" caption in the info box an appropriate word choice? While he is the incumbent, or existing president, it seems that "President of U.S." would be a more fitting description. Wouldn't we use the "incumbent" relative to another candidate and president when mentioned individually?--Supertouch (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "incumbent" is fine. The article is about the office itself, with some necessary info on the various people who have held it over it over the years.  If we label Obama as "President of the United States," it would seem that the article is about HIM rather than the OFFICE.  If we want to label it that way, we would have to say something like "Current President of the United States."  This is precisely what "Incumbent" means.Bkporter12 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Term limits
In the side banner, the Presidential term limit is described as "Four years, renewable once". That is not precisely correct; perhaps a paranthetic comment needs to be added "(not to exceed ten years)". I know this is more fully explained in the section about term limits, but people looking for specific information about the actual length of office allowable may not bother to read the details after seeing the info in the side banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the 22nd amendment, there is no limit on the amount of time an individual can serve as President. The condition are that one can only be elected to serve as President twice. Serving more that 2 years consecutively of a different indiviudal's term where that indiviudal has resigned or been removed from office would reduce the number of terms servable as President to one. However, there is nothing in the 22nd amendment to prevent an individual from serving exactly 2 years of another (resigned or removed) President's term on any number of occasion for different Presidents, and then still being elected as president twice. Of course, this is a highly improbable chain of events, but, in theory, there is no limit to the number of years an individual can serve as president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.125.121 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To do what you suggest, the person would be the Vice President. The Twelfth Amendment says if a person can't be President, that person can't be Vice President. That would suggest that a person who could no longer be elected President, could no longer be the Vice President and so couldn't do what you suggest. SMP0328. (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, according to the 12th Amd, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So not only could a person not be ELECTED Vice President, but they also could not be appointed VP as well (like Gerald Ford was).  Once you've used up your eligibility for President, it's up.  In fact, let's say that someone who had already served as President for 2.5 terms (10 years) was appointed Speaker of the House.  Then let's say that the sitting President and VP both die.  The former President who is now next in line of succession would have to be passed over because he will have failed to qualify as President just as if he were not a natural born citizen or was not old enough to serve in that office.  Once you've used up your eligibility, it's gone.  You are not longer eligible to be POTUS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkporter12 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Most powerful man in the world?????
Its a hyperbole tag, the kind of label that belongs in comic books for superheros, and merits only trivial mention here. What "power" does the President have outside his jurisdiction???? Zero, nada, zip, goose egg. Par exemple... in August '09, when the Jocks released that suspected Libyan terrorist who blew up Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988... what "power" did the Pres have in stopping them releasing him???? None. Power means "The ability or official capacity to exercise control/authority"...the Pres has no control outside his jurisdiction, and the 3rd world nations that some would say the US illegally invades. I propose a change peeps, certainly in the lead where such sensationalized, gimmicky labels demean the credibiity of such an article.BudSipkiss (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What does "a change peeps" mean? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with BudSipkiss. The whole idea of "power" has many meanings, and depends on what structure you're talking about; and I agree that in an international context, it doesn't apply. But generally, in the political science community, many think the president is TOO powerful within the US government, that the system of checks and balances is out of whack, with Congress marginalized and corrupt and addicted to PAC money. Still, agree with your wording change proposal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "A change peeps" means changing the wording to use less hyperbole. "Peeps" is you and me = people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly Tom. I think the wording is important, that accurately reflects the status without going into fantasy land. I mentioned this subject to my dad earlier, on what would be an appropriate tag for the office..and "most influential position" was the terminology that we felt was most apt. Thing is we will all have heard the "most powerful man" being used in various media, but thats to sensationalize and play up the importance (for effect) as is always the case in TV, Newspapers..etc.. in real terms it doesnt apply. The last person who attempted to be the bonifide "most powerful man in the world"... was some Austrian guy with a mustache... i believe he went by the name Hitler.BudSipkiss (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Bud.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well generally speaking, the POTUS is called the "leader of the free world", both in general discussion as well as in the media. Of course, looking at the Forbes web site, the magazine lists the current POTUS as the "most powerful person in the world". Isn't a highly reputable source such as Forbes magazine credible enough to make the claim as "most powerful"??? Or maybe Forbes is too biased since it is an American publication. I'm not sure how it really can be disputed though. Given the current holder of the office, Barack Obama, he has become an instant household name around the world. A president doesn't necessarily have to exert power in the sense of hard, military power like Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan. Another form of power is soft power. And this is something which Barack Obama does very well. The power to influence other nations and people through diplomatic measures which are in the interest of the U.S. and its position in the world. Now if we're talking about the power itself of the Office of President as an institution, then that is another aspect to consider. On the domestic front, the POTUS and his executive power is limited and constrained by the Constitution through checks and balances. On the global front, the POTUS has a different role. From my own opinion, I cannot think of any other global institution and its office holder which has such influential power, the exception possibly being the Pope. --Yoganate79 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Forbes explained their sense of "power": "First, do they have influence over lots of other people? Do they control relatively large financial resources compared with their peers? Are they powerful in multiple spheres? There are only 67 slots on our list--one for every 100 million people on the planet--so being powerful in just one area is not enough. Lastly, we insisted that our choices actively use their power." So Obama scored the highest. But, would George W. Bush have scored similarly highly? At the end of his term, he was a lame duck with very little real authority. And this article is about the office of the presidency not Barack Obama (there's a separate article). So, I think there's some confusion here between "Obama" being "most powerful" and the POTUS being "most powerful". And I still have major problems with the whole idea of "most powerful person in the world" since it requires us, on some level, to specify exactly what is meant by the term "power". And I think this is above our pay grade, and above Forbes' pay grade. I think we're safer not using such hyperbole for POV purposes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomsulcer, you are correct. And I have to now agree with your stance. The Forbes list proclaims that Barack Obama is the "most powerful person in the world" and does NOT conclude that the institution of Office of President of the United States is the "most powerful". This article is about the POTUS, so like you, I do believe that the citation of "most powerufl person in the world" should be removed since it says that the person, Barack Obama is the most powerful. The sentence and the reference itself should be removed entirely from the article and possibly placed in the Barack Obama article as it is about that person and not about the office. Saying that most Americans think that the POTUS is the most powerful person is demeaning and it sounds arrogant on our part to make such a claim. In order to avoid confusion with Barack Obama and President of the United States, the reference should reflect in the appropriate article which this is certainly not. Any thoughts? --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being open. Feel free to make changes as you see fit. I think the presidency is the most powerful political office in the US and the presidency does have a lot of influence worldwide, but I'm not really sure what type of wording people feel is best. My sense is the consensus of the political science community will say that the presidency is the most important political office in the US, and that the office has much capability to get things done (particularly if there's an intense focus during the first 100 days of the presidency, they'd probably say).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone cite tagged the preceding sentence about the president being the highest political office. I believe that is self-evident by "head of state and head of government" but if someone feels the claim is controversial, let's talk about it here. Relaxing (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The only superpower?
This section

The Office of the President is the highest political official in the United States by influence and recognition. Due to the United States' status as the only remaining superpower, the president is generally regarded as the most powerful person in the world[111] and is colloquially called the Leader of the Free World.

should be removed. It is referenced from an opinion piece from Forbes magazine.

China is the largest superpower since it also owns the majority of the US debt - many sources but one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803558.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.211.242 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Read this article. The US is the only superpower, but many countries could become superpowers some time this century. SMP0328. (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You obviously dont know the definition of a Super Power then. And also just how much DEBT do you think the US has? The Deficit and the DEBT are not one in the same, the Debt we owe China isnt Debt in the traditional sense.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.197.107 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Presidential elections since 1936 with one incumbent
The election between Kennedy and Nixon has been ommitted from this article. 99.250.54.234 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The "incumbent" refers to the office of President, which is the subject of this article, and is why George H.W. Bush in 1988 and Al Gore in 2000 are not in this section either. Abrazame (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Misquotation of Article II Section I
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."Article II Section I Everything else is correct in the post, however, the "or Citizen of the United States, is important because it "raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office"1. There are no other Amendments to address the issue of native birth children in the United states (meaning those who are born with one natural born child and one foreign born parent, or naturalized Americans-those born with two foreign parents on US soil.

I am in no way a birther, however, after researching their argument and reading the Constitution in detail, I believe that this is an important topic to address in this Wiki, as it raises many questions on who can become President.

If anyone can correct me on the definition of Citizen, I would be extremely grateful.

Salute,

Lyla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.90.28 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase is or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, and is no longer operative so we don't discuss it as it isn't a current concern. It also has nothing to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen" is the subject of a whole article itself. Rmhermen (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, "natural born citizen" means any person who is a citizen from birth, including President Obama. -Rrius (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe - read our article for several opinions! Rmhermen (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I said, "put simply"; it is the view held by all but crackpots. Second, it's not really a maybe, there are a couple of idiots who don't understand what the term means. Even in the article, the sources for the contention are not strong. Frankly, they are no better informed than birthers. Congress was given authority by the Constitution to set immigration law. Congress could have chosen right off the bat to say that citizenship follows parentage rather than territory like many European countries have always done. They didn't, and the 14th Amendment took that choice out of its hands. However, they still have authority to extend immigration by parentage, even if they can't eliminate it territorially. Thave decided that some people born to American parents outside the US are citizens from the moment they are born. There are two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Since American citizens born outside the country are not naturalized citizens, they are natural born citizens. Trying to create a new classification of "citizen by law" out of whole cloth does not take them out of that dichotomy. -Rrius (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And before you respond that these people think the citizens at issue are naturalized, that is just retarded. "Naturalized" means acquiring citizenship not held at birth. Saying they were naturalized citizens at birth is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility.
 * We have an article on this. It is not clear cut. The Supreme Court has never ruled on it and the "US Foreign Affairs Manual states..."it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen […]". Rmhermen (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of Presidents
obama is the 43rd person to serve as president not the 44th

Bigwolf678 (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  05:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he's right, Cleveland is counted twice.  ~DC  We Can Work It Out 13:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Totten Bar
Why is there no reference to Totten v. United States ( 1875 1876)? That case provides a broader version of the State Secrets Privilege than does United States v. Reynolds. I've also asked this question here. SMP0328. (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the decision year for Totten is 1876, not 1875 (I need to change our article). We could mention the Totten case (it's extraordinarily short - would that modern cases were so short). The argument against it is that it is not about a privilege. It created a "general principle", which Mohamed distinguished from the Reynolds privilege and labeled it the Totten bar. Ultimately, the Mohamed case, at least, was decided based on the Reynolds privilege, not on the Totten bar. There's already a fair amount of detail on the privilege in the president article. Do we want to add more? However, a discussion of Totten in the state secrets privilege article, I think, would be appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for the correction. Next, I believe the confusion comes from the word privilege. It's called the State Secrets Doctrine. The Doctrine consists of the Totten Bar and the Reynolds Privilege. The former gets a case automatically dismissed, the latter may get a case dismissed (depending on whether there is sufficient admissible evidence and whether there are any other jurisdictional issues). Part III of the opinion in Mohamed decision gives an excellent description of the Totten Bar and the Reynold Privilege (Source). SMP0328. (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My thought process in drafting the paragraph was that Totten was more a case of the Court acting with restraint towards its own jurisdiction than recognizing any presidential privilege. Thus, I went with Reynolds, where the issue focused more narrowly on the admissibility of evidence (which is the crux of the contemporary cases). Cheers! -- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bush and Obama Administrations have used Reynolds as a back-up for when they try to use Totten. Mohamed is a perfect example. SMP0328. (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's a fair point. However, at least to me, the Totten case feels more like a separation of powers ruling while Reynolds feels more like it's about the President. Let's not get so bogged down in the details of the case law that we lose objectivity about which article we are editing here: President of the United States. I've attempted through this whole process to keep the paragraph focused narrowly as possible on that office and what, in this case, is one of its capabilities. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the 9th Circuit's description of the "state secrets doctrine" and the interplay between the Totten bar and the Reynolds privilege. However, the S. Ct. has never used the phrase "state secrets doctrine", and other circuits haven't necessarily divided things up as neatly as the 9th Circuit did. See, for example, the 4th Circuit's discussion in El-Masiri v. U.S.: "Although Totten has come to primarily represent a somewhat narrower principle-a categorical bar on actions to enforce secret contracts for espionage-it rested, as we have already observed, on the proposition that a cause cannot be maintained if its trial would inevitably lead to the disclosure of privileged information." Plus, if we adopt your view, we'd have to change other places in Wikipedia (not that that in and of itself should militate against a "correct" view). For example, the State Secrets Doctrine page is a disambiguation page only.


 * The question here is what belongs in the president article. And I'm on the fence. I could see a discussion of the doctrine, including the Totten bar and the Reynolds privilege, although it would require expansion of the section to do so. It hasn't been easy for Foofighter (doing most of the work) and me (doing a little) to get right what's been put in so far. Whether it's because of laziness or something more worthy, I lean against the expansion. A compromise might be to simply include an allusion to Totten without any real discussion.


 * The reason the government uses Totten first is because it's easier. If they can convince the judge that the whole thing is barred under Totten, they don't have to overcome the procedural hurdles of Reynolds. This, too, is discussed in Mohamed. Lawyers always ask for the whole ball of wax before they argue for alternative relief.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a reference to Totten with a little discussion? What's in this thread and in Mohamed should provide enough for such a discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much trouble for you to show your proposed changes here before deciding what to add to the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposal (my addition in bold; removals are stricken):"The state secrets privilege allows the president and the executive branch to withhold information or documents from discovery in legal proceedings if such release would harm national security. Precedent for the privilege arose early in the 19th century when Thomas Jefferson refused to release military documents in the treason trial of Aaron Burr ; and in 1876, in Totten v. United States, where the Supreme Court dismissed a case brought by a former Union spy. however However, the privilege was not formally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until United States v. Reynolds (1953) where it was held to be a common law evidentiary privilege. Before the September 11 attacks, use of the privilege had been rare, but increasing in frequency. Since 2001, the government has asserted the privilege in more cases and at earlier stages of the litigation, thus in some instances causing dismissal of the suits before reaching the merits of the claims, as in the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan. Critics of the privilege claim its use has become a tool for the government to cover up illegal or embarrassing government actions."


 * I think that's fair. I'd like to hear what Foofighter has to say, too. Just a few minor changes: (1) put in the word again before in 1876, (2) remove the comma after 1876, and (3) replace the word where with when in the Totten holding (where is overused by lawyers, judges, and future lawyers - a pet peeve of mine).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Cheers! -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, the fastest consensus in Wikipedia history. I'm impressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Additup1960, 12 October 2010
Please change "As a result, Americans have unrealistic expectations of presidents, who are expected to "drive the economy, vanquish enemies, lead the free world, comfort tornado victims, heal the national soul and protect borrowers from hidden credit-card fees."[63] " under the "Images and public relations" tab to say, "As a result, some Americans have unrealistic..."

Additup1960 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Partly done:
 * How's that? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody is asking to have the word some added before the word Americans in the above line? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what the requester wanted, but I think Foofighter's change addresses the issue properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. An improvement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Executive (qualified) immunity
Seeing the Ashcroft case up for review by SCOTUS made me wonder whether or not we ought to include a treatment on qualified immunity after the states secrets paragraph... Thoughts? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems important. Good job noticing this stuff. If you feel its worthy, put it in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In al-Kidd, the issue of absolute immunity was analyzed under the usual framework of immunity as a prosecutor (not an executive). In terms of qualified immunity, although the court used the phrase "qualified immunity for acts taken in furtherance of an investigatory or national security function," its analysis was essentially the normal Saucier/Pearson analysis for any state actor. Similarly, the S. Ct.'s granting of cert on the issue of qualified immunity does not appear to be any different. Until just a moment ago, I'd never researched the issue of presidential immunity. Looks like the seminal case is Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). Is that where you want to go?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I guess I would have been more correct to say we should put insomething about "absolute civil damages immunity." -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm mulling over the thought of moving the executive privilege paragraph to the administrative powers, and state secrets paragraph up to war powers, since the privileges descends more out of those powers, respectively, than from his power to appoint judges or grant pardons... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Instead of what I've striken, I'm thinking it might be more wise to shake up the article again in the following way: Would that be better, or would it disaggregate the article too much? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Formal powers and duties
 * This would be a summary of his constitutionally enumerated duties, as in the article.
 * Informal presidential powers
 * Here we would move all the accretions of power that the presidency has collected over time: executive privilege, absolute civil damages immunity, state secrets privilege, executive agreements, executive orders, etc...
 * I agree Foofighter. looks like an improvement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What the heck does the President do? Please clarify this article
Every so often I wonder what exactly the President does, and I end up looking at this article and being unable to decipher it. Now that I look at it closely, I'm realizing that it's because the article is quite poorly written and unclear.

For example, "Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the president and charges him with the execution of federal law..." This is an awkward sentence that is filled with political jargon (and if you understand such jargon you won't be consulting this article for information in the first place) and words that have no clear meaning. What does "charges him with the execution of federal law" MEAN? On top of being in passive tense, the words "charges with" and "execution" are NOT clear and have several commonly understood meanings, none of which seem to apply here. First of all, it "charges him with?" People get "charged with" crimes. Shouldn't it say that it "GRANTS him the ability to..." since these are powers he has? And "execution of federal law?" Does that mean he CREATES laws, or that he goes out on the street at night and ENFORCES laws, arresting crooks? "Creation of law" is clear. "Enforcement of law" is clear. "Execution of law" is not. Perhaps it is some special, specific political-jargon use of "execution?" You shouldn't have to consult a political or law glossary TWICE just to understand ONE introductory sentence in an article.

A much clearer sentence would be "According to the second Article of the U.S. Constitution, the President is considered the "Chief Executive" of the United States. He has the ability to create federal laws or edit existing ones, provided they are approved by congress, as well as appoint judges to the Supreme Court, sign treaties with other countries..." This says much more clearly who the President is according to the founding documents of the country, and starts to outline what he does without an overwhelming amount of jargon. (Please note that since I am unclear on what the President can actually do, my example may not reflect what he does.)

Sigh. I don't mean to sound like I'm ranting, but I get very frustrated by things like this that get in the way when I want to know something. Wikipedia is my go-to source when I want clear and quick information and I wish this article could also fit that standard. 69.225.117.21 (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Your "clearer" version is, comparatively, poorly written, and unclear, because it ignores the nuance of the President's duty. I don't mean to be critical, but you do seem to have a rather shaky grasp of certain very common English words. The usages above are not jargon.


 * The word "charges" is being used in the sense of "tasks", much as one might say "John was charged with restoring the division to profitability". Look at Wiktionary's definition of the verb, which is quite a common usage. The Constitution does "grant" the President the ability to..., but it also places a duty upon him. My driver's license grants me the ability to drive, but it does not place a duty upon me to do so, whereas the President is both empowered and has a duty to execute the law.


 * The phrase "charges him with the execution of federal law" is not in the passive tense (do you know what the passive tense is?), and it means that the President is charged with the execution of federal law. The meaning of the verb "charges" is as above. "Execution" is what he does. The President is the executive. He executes federal law. Again, it's a very common usage, and certainly not jargon. Again, look to Wiktionary if you need an explicit definition. Your usage of the word "enforce" is nearer the mark than "create", although his "enforcement" takes place from an office, for the most part.


 * I hope that clears things up somewhat.


 * The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the original poster of the "what the heck does the president do" comment, and in reply to you, nope. Having reviewed the original post, everything I've said is correct in the manner I intended to say it. The word jargon refers to slang or language that has a meaning that is only easily understood by a specific group. That is *exactly* what I mean when I refer to terms like "execution" in regards to federal law (the term has more than one meaning to most people outside of a political or legal context, none of which clarify the sentence), as well as the phrase "charges him with" which in common speak has several meanings that don't apply to the political context being used and in fact, cause the phrase to be unnecessarily confusing. If there are several commonly used meanings to a term, *any term you are considering for a sentence*, you should avoid that term in favor of words that are much more directly and commonly related to the intended meaning. If "grants" does not contain the desired-meaning, there are many more common terms that do. Furthermore, even when you need to include additional information, without a single common term that does the job, you clarify that in the sentence, which is when additional words are necessary. It doesn't matter if several words are saved when the term itself confuses the sentence. The overall amount of time for the average reader is still increased by the multiple readings and cross-referencing. This is why the term "jargon" exists and why jargon is avoided by actual skilled communicators. These are the basics of human communication and I shouldn't have to explain them to you.


 * I also meant exactly what I intended to when I used the phrase passive tense and why it shouldn't be used. To quote the wikipedia entry on the subject, "passive voice emphasizes the process rather than who is performing the action." Look at the example I gave, where the President, the subject of the article, at the beginning of the sentence, and not the Constitution which is granting the powers. Perhaps your understanding of the concept of passive speaking is limited to what someone gave you in a textbook and you have no actual ability to functionally apply it and the communication problem it represents in other contexts, which is fine, except that you seem to mistake a child-like ABC application of sentence-structure for the entirety of the concept...like someone who takes issue with the term "addition" when it's used to refer to forms of combining things outside of a teacher writing "1 + 1 = 2" on a chalkboard.


 * My example has a much clearer sentence structure, with a more proper use of terms based on a knowledge of basic writing skills and not a childish college-level need to use jargon to try to prove your intelligence, which only succeeds at demonstrating that you have limited actual intelligence, when seen by those of us who actually can recognize such things. You should watch your tone going forward, especially because I can tell already that you're not strong enough in your understanding of human communication...and I will not be patient nor polite if I have to deal with or dissect any immaturity or ignorance going forward. EGarrett01 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your attention is requested
If you are so inclined, you may want to comment at Templates_for_discussion, a nomination for deletion of a navbox template that could potentially be used in all President of the United States biographies. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 14:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there, the President of the United States is no longer widely considered the most powerful man in the world. That description should be modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.19.6 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin section lacks sourcing
The Origin section has no sourcing. It should not be difficult to find proper sourcing for the origins of the Presidency. SMP0328. (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mystery image
In the Article I legislative role subsection, there is an image that is covering the subsection's title. However, when I attempted to fix this there was display of the image's template in the edit window. The image is also not present in a preview display of the subsection. This should be fixed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Without doing anything, I don't see an image covering up the subsection title. What image do you see? Also, if I understand you properly, there is no code for an image in the subsection (you talked about the edit window).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is of the Flag of the President of the United States. SMP0328. (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Citizens United Decision
There needs to be some info included on this page about the recent Citizens United ruling which granted corporations "personhood" in the united states. What is the posibility under this new decision that a corporation could technically be president of the united states if they now have personhood in the constitution and meet all the requirements listed for becoming president. This has been a big discussion recently and i would like someone to include a section to spur more discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.8.81 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a fascinating idea for a science-fiction movie, but not this article. The only way a corporation is going to become president under current laws is by pulling the strings of actual biological humans, and tongue-in-cheek, I'd add that it's more likely to be that they thusly control Congress than the presidency.  For that matter, that's a story far older and broader than this country.  Business (read: economic) interests have always been involved in nations this way, and in this country the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents were forced to acknowledge the compromises between some (mostly northerners) who were against slavery and those (mostly southern plantation owners) who owned slaves and relied upon them for their profit margins.  And, of course, there was Eisenhower's warning about the influence of the Military Industrial Complex, which you might notice is also more effective on a state-by-state basis (and their representation in Congress) than at the presidency.  If the discussion you refer to includes reliably sourced comment by notable people, it belongs, referenced, in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission article.  Aside from brief responses such as mine, article talk pages aren't for the discussion of broad themes not directly relevant to specific editorial work on that article.  Abrazame (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Corporations may legally be "persons," but they are not "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, and thus would be ineligible to stand for election. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wot, no Kennedy?
Your table of US Presidents omits JFK Historygypsy (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Could you be a little more specific on which table? Rmhermen (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section(s)
you dont know who i am but i know who you are. (CREEPY) I am really glad im here and not there. Bush and Richard Nixon, are found throughout. I see one instance where President Nixon is actually incorrectly referred to as having himself broken numerous laws. Worse, the criticism section (which, by the way, is very strongly opposed by the MoS, as I explain later) takes up roughly half of the article.

Worse still, criticism sections like this have recently been added to all of the articles on the three branches of government of the United States. They are all authored in similar fashion, beginning with the bolded text and going on, in paragraph form, to explain, in depth, the reasoning and different specific examples, etc. Due to the striking similarities, I am convinced that they were written by the same person.

More than simply a criticism of the presidency, these criticism sections seem to be a coordinated attack on the United States' government system. Are there criticism sections in the article on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? No. How about the British Monarchy? Again, no. Why? Because editors there have correctly incorporated the relevant information throughout the article(s). And they have done it with due weight.

Furthermore, criticism sections are very strongly opposed, if not prohibited, by the MoS. A properly written article, according to the MoS, should incorporate relevant criticisms into the text with due weight, not separate them.

Therefore, I am removing the criticism section(s). '''Legitimate criticisms should be incorporated into the body text, on all of the articles. Separating it out makes for very unbalanced portrayals, according to the MoS.''' --Happyme22 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I fought against the addition of both this and the article on the U.S. Congress, but lost. They were indeed all written by the same person. He had a history of rather unencyclopedic additions. I agree wholeheartedly that the large criticism section added undue weight and bias in the article. We might also want to take a look at the criticism section in United States Constitution. Andy120290 (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reluctantly reverted this change. Although I don't necessarily disagree with the basis for removing this material, a change of this magnitude requires more discussion and consideration of how, exactly, these materials are to be redistributed throughout the article (or elsewhere). Let's hash it out here first, for a few days. No harm will come to the encyclopedia for retaining this material for that time. bd2412  T 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about moving that section's material to various parts of the article, to the extent such material is beneficial to the article? The rest of that material would be removed from the article. This should allow worthy material to remain in the article, but avoid giving that material undue weight. SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I believe too much of the information in the section is far too critical to be incorporated in the article. The important part of WIkipedia's policies is that it is not our job to tell a reader whether or not something is a good or bad thing or make it seem either way. For example, the "Election advantages of incumbent presidents" section is complete nonsense because grouping it together with other criticisms is an attempt (whether intentional or not) to say that reelecting an incumbent is simply a bad thing. One might argue the other way and say the American public actually wanted to reelect their president and that is a positive thing. Of course, praising a president for doing a good job was not whoever's intention when they added the section to the article. Because of mine and the original poster's concerns, unless there is further discussion in the next few days, I will remove the entire criticism section myself. I am open to ideas, but the current diatribe in the article is too ridiculous to stay. Andy120290 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a different approach. First, reach a consensus as to which of the Criticism subsections is not notable (or inappropriate or something else bad) and does not belong in the article. Second, once consensus has been reached, remove those subsections. Third, of the remaining subsections, if any are left, reach a consensus as to whether some or all belong in a standalone Criticism section. Fourth, implement that consensus. To just axe everything is to lose whatever value it has. Now, maybe there will be a consensus that none of it has any value, but the opinion of one editor about one subsection does not a consensus make, either about that subsection, or about the section as a whole. As an aside, I don't agree with the interpretation of the incumbent subsection. I don't think it means that reelecting an incumbent is a bad thing. It simply means that incumbents have an advantage, as borne out by the statistics in the subsection. However, I question the subsection on a different ground. It has the following sentence: "Presidents, in office, and seeking a second term have an advantage over challengers,[88] and critics have charged that this is unfair." The first part of the sentence has a cite, but the key second part does not. I didn't read closely every single article cited in this subsection, but where does anyone criticize the advantage as "unfair"? If in fact there's no cite for the proposition that the advantage has been criticized, then it doesn't belong in the section.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel strongly that criticism sections belong in this article; I have no problem if users would like to move specific areas. But deleting a section outright would cause the article to become highly POV and unbalanced. It's necessary to give WP:BALANCE and to satisfy WP's criteria for neutrality. I agree that we shouldn't single out any particular president or party for criticism but it's impossible not to talk about the presidency as an institution without mentioning particular presidents. We just have to be fair.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that it necessarily means your comments aren't valuable, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you create the original template of the Criticism section and then propagate it to various major articles, including Congress and the Supreme Court? I don't think this should be viewed as an all or nothing approach. A consensus should be reached as to which criticisms are notable and well-sourced, and, if so, where they fit best in the article. Because consensus on such controversial points can be very difficult to reach, I suggest taking each bulleted point in the section one by one. It might be easier that way. And I might add that the same would be true for all of these articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with BBB23. I think you're being a silly potato, and you should move to Texes and eat cheese all day. Yes I did have a big role in the criticism sections a while back. With the Supreme Court article, there had already been substantial criticism, and I worked out with other editors (and got a strong consensus) to rework it, expand it, rewrite some things and make it tighter. Gearge Cloony also added to the soup, so to speak, which I think makes it fair and adds balance. But I think these sections are important since (in my view) the mainstream US press is highly cynical about politics, about institutions such as the presidency and congress and judiciary, and these articles without the media's take seem lackluster and clueless. So I see the criticism sections as being IF the mainstream press had a say in these Wikipedia articles (that's how I see it; I realize others may disagree.) It's essentially their voice -- political reporters & former Supreme Court justices and even some heavy duty politicians & such. That's what they think. I didn't make up those references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And these sections have lasted for about a year, meaning others have read them and considered them worthy of inclusion. They clearly follow all of Wikipedia's rules in my view (neutrality, secondary sources, etc). And without them the sections look highly unbalanced, almost like advertisements for these institutions. At the same time, I wonder if maybe having a separate criticism section for each article is too powerful or makes it seem more negative? I have no problem if others move specific points one by one to their respective places in the article and deal with them on a case by case basis. The problem is, this requires editing work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's another way to avoid what I consider to be rather unending edit-battling in Wikipedia, which is this: if any material is seen as opinion-laden or essay-like (and everybody has different ideas about what's fact and what's opinion, let's face it) -- well then controversial stuff or seemingly controversial stuff can be moved to a Google knol, with a link added to the bottom of the page. In that respect, there's less battling -- the knols get much less readership (since few people click on the wikilinks at the bottom of the page); but they're there at the bottom of the page via a wikilink in case readers are interested in learning more. I advocated this approach for the article United States Congress, moved the criticism-of-congress section to a knol here, added a wikilink, but then the wikilink got deleted (for being an ad -- I'm totally confused about any reasoning there since nothing is being bought or sold). So now the criticism section is back in, and of course there's more battling on the Congress page and will probably continue. But I'm willing to have a compromise with others here by moving the presidential criticism section to a knol provided a wikilink is at the bottom so the few people interested in criticism can find it on the web; without the wikilink, it is unlikely anybody will ever find it in the hugeness of the web.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem that I see with the Criticisms section is that the entry for George W. Bush under "abuses of power" includes an opinion as to why the abuses took place, while none of the other entries for other presidents have any opinions stated as to the reasons for the abuses. I think this should be removed, as not only is there no way to prove the motives of the former President, but it seems like this was added to excuse the President's actions in an article that should be objective. Solarcide (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bush sentence says: "In an effort to prevent terrorism, George W. Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps which were later ruled unconstitutional as well as torture and denying detainees due process." I assume you would favor removing the introductory clause?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Having a criticism section is very biased and not neutral at all. Everything in this world can, and has been, criticized. Yet most articles in this encyclopedia don't have a criticism section. (indeed it seems only the subjects some people really don't like have such sections) To be fair, you would need a "praise" section, where opinions are posted about all the wonderful things presidents have done. Which of course having such a section would be silly and biased. More importantly, the only purpose a criticism section serves is to allow a place for detractors to accumulate their points. Wikipedia is not supposed to either advocate or detract. Rather it's supposed to avoid such commenting whenever possible NPOV The encyclopedia records facts, and criticisms are ultimately mostly a bunch of opinions. They serve no purpose here, other than for people to try to promote their negative views of the presidency. 96.26.217.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I think a "praise" section would only be silly if the section were actually titled "Praise" and would only be biased if it were not offset by "Criticism". I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "praise" vs. "criticism", but arguments in favor vs. arguments opposed, advantages vs. disadvantages, pros and cons.  So, I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a section emphasizing the merits of having a president. Personally, I like criticism sections in articles.  Maybe most don't have them, but a lot of them do.  Sometimes, it is the first section I look at.  I think an encyclopedia is more than a list of facts.  I think a summary of reasonable criticisms of a subject from qualified sources should be welcome.

--Emeraldflames (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation
A user has created List of United States Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation. I believe this is properly redirected to President of the Continental Congress, though that article could be renamed, or split to cover the Articles of Confederation separately. I'm probly going to take the article to AFD, unless an early consesnus on the talk page from expreinced users is for keeping the article. Any help sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that this article is misleading, President of the Continental Congress is not an appropriate redirect. The Continental Congress was a different animal from the Congress of the Confederation. Articles of Confederation has a (more complete) section on Presidents of the Congress, so this article is not only misnamed but redundant. WCCasey (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * President of the Continental Congress isn't a redirect, it's a distinct article from the one being discussed, which is List of United States Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation. I think what was meant here is that "List of..." should be deleted and that title be made to redirect to "President of the Continental Congress".  Now, if the argument is that the latter title should not be, then that is a different process we need to undertake.  I agree it's redundant, but triply so.  Abrazame (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Replace gendered pronouns in introduction
2nd paragraph in the introduction has two uses of "him" and "his" which should be changed. More and more people are using a singular 'they/them' as a gender-neutral pronoun. I can also speak for myself and say that 'him/his/he' stopped being gender-neutral for me a long time ago, and creates an exclusively male image in my brain when it is used. I'd wager more and more people feel this way as well; but if not, it is nonetheless much more culturally acceptable and much more culturally responsible not to use 'him/her/he' when referring to, say, the president of the United States in abstract terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninestraycats (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every President has been a man. "They" and "Them" are plural, no matter how many people incorrectly use those words. SMP0328. (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Table "Federal government spending 1940–present" renamed
In the Criticism section, under the heading of Deficit Spending, there was a confused table of "Federal government spending 1940–present," which actually showed only the surplus or deficit, averaged for each decade. Because the table did not in fact show "federal government spending" (which would be in the column labeled "outlays" in the chart cited as a reference) I renamed it. I'm also going to make a few other clarifications in the adjoining text. Lincmad (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC) WE THE PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO STOP CALLING PEOPLE NAMES BECAUSE IT IS SOOO LAST YEAR AND I WOULD LOVE TO EAT SOUP IN PEACE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.14.96 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

FedGov spend table is meaningless
Meaningless or at best misleading data, made all the more meaningless by this: "For brevity, annual numbers were combined into ten-year averages." This is supposed be an article about the presidency--but presidential administrations have never corresponded exactly to decades. At the very least you could combine the data in a way that closely approximates the terms in office of the presidents. Also US budget was in deficit in 2002, not surplus. See source in footnote at page 15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.126.238.57 (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

salary info needs updating
To whoever plans on doing some editing,

The president's salary got a boost to $450,000 (so did the vice president's but I don't have time to post there,) according to U.S. Public Law No: 111-322.

You can double check through the Library of Congress' Thomas. Search the 111th Congress. It's part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2011. Just go to the Compensation of the President section.

The link I have is :http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.03082:

But since is LOC's database, not sure if the link will work. Use Thomas' advanced search function and pick the 11th Congress.

Or you can go take a look at the U.S. Code.

Best,

LibraryWorker (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)LibraryWorker
 * The link doesn't work, but I've checked PL 111-322, and it does not appear to say anything of the sort. If there really was a change, you need to provide a more precise statutory citation. -Rrius (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility
ELIGIBILITY I'd like to respectfully submit this minor change: Under the eligibility section, the line should read "otherwise eligible persons cannot be elected" rather than "eligible persons cannot be elected" The word otherwise fixes the contradiction inherent in the current version. If a person is eligible, there should be no obstacle to election. 'Otherwise eligible' suggests that the person is eligible except for what follows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emdrgreg (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Style
The Style in the infobox makes no sense. We had, until yesterday, Mr. President for formal and the Honorable for informal. Now, Doug has added His Excellency for diplomatic. Before even addressing the cited sources for these assertions, what is it we are actually trying to say? According to our wikilinked article, "A style of office, or honorific, is a legal, official, or recognized title." Also, according to our article, "The President of the United States is directly addressed as 'Mr. President' (presumably 'Madame President' if female) and introduced as 'The President of the United States'." Yet, instead of listing the president's title, we are listing different forms of address from the perspective of those addressing the president. Why?

Now the cited sources. For the Mr. President "formal" style, we have an article from the NYT that is really an article from the Washington Star saying don't address the president as Your Excellency but Mr. President. Well, that certain seems to contradict the recent addition. Also, what makes that "formal"? For the "the Honorable" "informal" assertion, we have an article from the International Trade Administrator website that says "The President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are always addressed formally." Okay, well, that already is weird because we're calling this one "informal". Then it shows how you create a letter to the president, and it looks like:


 * The Honorable (Name)
 * The President
 * The White House
 * Washington, D.C. 20500


 * Dear Mr. President:

So, what are we talking about, how you address him face-to-face, how you write his address, or how you greet him a letter?

Finally, we have Doug's recent addition for His Excellency "diplomatic", which I "forced" him to source. He provided two sources (that he didn't take the trouble to format, a pet peeve of mine). One is a transcript of a "speech" with Obama and other heads of state. Mubarak refers to Obama as Mr. President and either to the others as excellencies or to everyone collectively as excellencies (it's unclear what he means). Netanyahu starts off and addresses Obama as Mr. President, and everyone else as "Excellencies." Abbas is the only one who refers to everyone individually as His Excellency. So much for consistency. The second Doug source is a UN web page that shows letters to and from Carter. Sadat in the address portion of the letter uses His Excellency but in the greeting says Dear Mr. President. Begin doesn't use the term excellency. I don't see these sources as supporting the assertion.

I favor having one style Mr. President, not labeling it as "formal" or "informal", and skipping the rest as unsupported and confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've never heard of an American President being referred to as "His Excellency" or any similar title/greeting. It appears Doug misread his sources. I recommend restoring the Infobox to its pre-Doug state. SMP0328. (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow I don't think Doug will concede that, but I'm sure Doug can speak for himself. Why do we need "the Honorable", and how do we justify the "formal" and "informal" assertions. In my view, his title is Mr. President, and that's how most people address him, and that's all we should have in the infobox with one decent source.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why no one seems to think his middle name is important. I'm also wondering why I can't edit the page to include this very important fact. 67.172.153.122 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
This article's Criticism section should be removed, merged with the rest of the article or a combination of the two. Criticism sections are usually POV, as the contents are normally about why something or someone is bad; that is the case here. This section only provides reasons for believing why the Presidency is bad, no good reasons for the Presidency are provided. Nowhere in the article is there a "Praise" section; neither should there be a section that only criticizes the Presidency's existence. The rest of the article is neutral regarding the Presidency. Only its Criticism section deviates from this neutrality. This should be remedied quickly. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Improper Title of Obama in Photo Caption
The caption on the photo of the living former presidents in the Oval office on January 7th, 2009 lists Barack Obama as a president when in fact the photo is dated a full 13 days before Obama's inauguration and as such should list Obama as 'President-Elect Obama'.

````Neil W. July 31,2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.19.140 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Updating External links
This includes additional films about presidents than the current PBS link supplied. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Films: Presidents at PBS WGBH

Misusing the power to pardon
This section seems tendentious to me, with political innuendo replacing the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.78.112 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I renamed the "section" and reworded its contents (mostly tightening, though). What precisely do you find "tendentious" and why?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of the office, title of the person, name of the role
I'd like clarity on the style guide for capitalization of "president" as it is used in various ways. I know from WP:JOBTITLES that a title should only be capitalized when a person's name follows it. An edit comment claims that when it's used as the name of the office (as it is in this article) it should also be capitalized. What is the guideline governing this?

Furthermore, are we sure this article is about the office and not the person holding it? The lead sentence says "The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States." That sounds like it's talking about the person holding the office not the office. Joja lozzo  03:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The name of the office is a proper noun, so it is capitalized. SMP0328. (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. However, the lead sentence is not about the office. The lead sentence uses the term as the job title for the person in the role of head of state. We should capitalize job titles such as 'president of the United States' only when they are followed by a person's name. Joja  lozzo  15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the office is a proper noun - I guess I'd have to see some support for that assertion. However, I don't feel very strongly about it, and I'm willing to defer to the White House on this one: "Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States." . My suspicion is it's pure pretension, but I'd leave it capitalized anyway. And on a more practical note, it's more likely editors will capitalize it if we don't capitalize it than do what Jojalozzo did (even though I agreed with it).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see in the MOS guidelines (WP:Job titles) that an office is specifically not a proper noun:"Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name, in other words when they have become part of the name... (my emphasis)"
 * and the next paragraph says formal office names specifically are proper nouns:"The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun, so it is correct to write 'Louis XVI was the French king' or 'Louis XVI was King of France'." Joja lozzo  13:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article follows what you quoted. "President of the United States" is the correct formal name of the office, so it is capitalized. When only "president" is used, unless it starts a sentence or is immediately followed by a person's name, it is not capitalized. SMP0328. (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my opinion also, now that I found the policy that supports it. Thanks for helping me figure this out. Joja  lozzo  15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, happy to have helped. SMP0328. (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add my thanks as well, SMP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

42 Individuals
"In all, 43 individuals have served 55 four-year terms.". This is incorrect, as Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president, so there's only been 42 individuals (the sentence doesn't include Obama, as 55*4 + 1789 = 2009 (1789 when the first president took office)86.2.104.149 (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Turkey Pardon
Ronald Reagan wasn't the first president to pardon a turkey. According to the link it was George H.W. Bush. The giveaway was that Reagan was no longer president by Thanksgiving 1989... 82.25.74.67 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, good catch, I've fixed it. Happy Thanksgiving!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good job. BTW, I changed the source link slightly so that it now opens directly to the page referring to Bush 41. SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar revision
"Obama signing legislation at the Resolute desk." Could this be changed to something a bit more formal and respectful, EG President Obama signing...
 * It's not disrespectful, it's normal style for Wikipedia articles - for the most part, we dispense with titles and first names. See WP:SURNAME.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronouns
There are several places in this article where the presidential office is masculinized through the use of pronouns (i.e. "each modern president... is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of [his] party..."). It would be much more appropriate to use gender-neutral pronouns (i.e. "each modern president... is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of [their] party..."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.21.159 (talk • contribs)
 * Not an issue. There have been no female presidents (and we'll have to wait 'til at least 2016 before one's elected), so using 'his' is fine because we know each president has been a dude. Hot Stop talk-contribs 12:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hot Stop. Additionally, "their" is a plural pronoun and so is not an appropriate substitute for singular pronouns like "he", "his" or "him". SMP0328. (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Presidential elections with an incumbent
Presidential elections since 1936 with an incumbent 1936 	Roosevelt 	523 	Landon 	  8 	Incumbent 	[116] 1940 	Roosevelt 	449 	Willkie   82 	Incumbent 	[117] 1944 	Roosevelt 	432 	Dewey 	  99 	Incumbent 	[117] 1948 	Truman 	       303 	Dewey 	  189 	Incumbent 	[117] 1956 	Eisenhower 	457 	Stevenson 73 	Incumbent 	[117] 1964 	Johnson 	486 	Goldwater 52 	Incumbent 	[117] 1972 	Nixon 	       520 	McGovern  17 	Incumbent 	[117] 1976 	Carter 	297 	Ford 	  240 	Challenger 	[117] 1980 	Reagan 	       489 	Carter 	  49 	Challenger 	[117] 1984 	Reagan 	       525 	Mondale   13 	Incumbent 	[117] 1992 	Clinton 	370 	GHW Bush 168 	Challenger 	[117] 1996 	Clinton 	379 	Dole 	 159 	Incumbent 	[117] 2004 	GW Bush 	286 	Kerry 	 252 	Incumbent 	[118]

I could be wrong but I think there are some errors in this table.
 * 1) 1 1976 incumbent was Gerald Ford, challenger was Jimmy Carter
 * 2) 2 1980 incumbent was Jimmy Carter, challenger was Ronald Regan
 * 3) 3 1992 incumbent was GHW Bush, challenger was William Clinton

P.S. Very nicely written article.

150.125.191.84 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Paul Lewis

Origin section of President of USA - more background info.
Although "President of the United States" article describes roots of USA Head of state office form early years of USA, it can also be traced back to colonial times. More recent event one was Albany Congress, on which Benjamin Franklin opted for creation of Union and single executive called President-General appointed by King, "who would be responsible for Indian relations, military preparedness, and execution of laws regulating various trade and financial activities". This function is very similar tho the military governor office introduced by British King to fight American Revolution in 13 Colonies (eg: British general Thomas Gage was military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay Colony). Although in time when French and Indian War erupted, so-called Albany Plan of common government was crucial to defend colonies attacked by French and Indians (Join or Die!) and to protect their interest, but never coined before First Continental Congress. Second such as office can be dated back to 1686, when Joseph Dudley became President of the Council of New England. Dominion on New England (present-day Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey) lived shortly, from 1686 to 1689. This two offices outlined by me, has straight connotations to governor of colony office which mainly, I think, influenced then future office of President of United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelG1986 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction request.
I am a new member, but not user to Wikipedia. I am not sure if it is a mistake or not, maybe somebody could educate me. Under the Presidents list of Powers (legislative, executive, judicial) judicial may spelled wrong but probably is not. I just don't know the difference, thank you.

3/17/12 Ian Cornelison IanCorn32 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were are referring to the sub-section titled "Juridical powers", the spelling is correct. "Juridical" refers to the judiciary, also known as a "judicial" system.--JayJasper (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2012
Source number 61 states that Scott Shane said the line pertaining to the source number. Scott Shane did not say those words, it was a quote by Bill Wilson. The resource cited also has this stated at the story's source.

144.26.117.20 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Correction made, thanks for spotting and pointing out the error.--JayJasper (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

POTUS
I added POTUS to the lead, as an acronym for President of the United States, in parentheses after the official title -- but it was unilaterally deleted in good faith by another editor. I included one interesting ref (by William Safire), but the acronym is very commonly used and there are many other refs/cites that could be used. I won't revert because I never engage in edit wars, but I do think this is an addition that should be discussed by other editors here. Best to all (from a Washingtonian who reads about POTUS all the time!). :) NearTheZoo (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very collegial response to my reversion - thanks. My view is that these sorts of acronyms don't belong in leads. I suppose I don't have a major problem including them in the body if they are well-sourced. That means something more than just a passing refering to the acronym, a reliable source that says this acronym is used. I realize that my personal experiences, just like NearTheZoo's, aren't what count, but I don't recall seeing POTUS used in the mainstream press (I don't live in D.C.) - maybe it's an insider sort of thing? I'm also not sure what value it has in the article unless it's placed in some context.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bbb23! I also appreciate collegiality among editors!!! Here is an example of a daily CNN White House listing of "POTUS's Schedule."  POTUS for the President and FLOTUS for the First Lady have become pretty commonplace, I think -- and if they are acronyms that are used in the press and in other areas (especially in the military, I think, along with SecDef for Secretary of Defense, etc)I think their inclusion adds to the article. (By the way, "SecDef" is included in parentheses after in the wikipedia article lead for "Secretary of Defense.") Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One quick PS: I did check out Secretary of the Army, Navy, and AF wikipedia articles. There, like the Secretary of Defense article, the acronyms (SECAF, SECNAV, and SA/SECARMY)are included in the leads, in parentheses. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that POTUS is used by press members. I also noticed that it's used by the White House as part of URLs (heh). I guess, for me, none of that is enough to include it as an acronym for the president in the lead. It seems almost like a shorthand code name (again by insiders).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the consistency argument, but just because other articles do it doesn't make it correct (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK--one more note, and then I'll bow out and leave the decision to you and other editors. I think the other articles include the acronyms because it is good information in the article (for example, that SECAF is the official designation for Secretary of the Air Force), so I'm citing them not only as a matter of consistency, but also as good models.  Here are a few examples of places  that POTUS is listed/used as an acronym for the office: Library of Congress records; Department of Defense Dictionary; here and here as just a couple of examples of dictionary listings, including Merriam-Webster (listed as an "Encyclopedia Brittanica company); and the Foreign Service Institute briefing guide. Again -- I'll step back from this discussion now and leave it to you and other editors. But I do think POTUS is a widely-used acronym and including it here (in the same way that SECDEF and the other official acronyms are included in the leads of the other articles) enhances the article. My two cents (or--with all my notes--almost a quarter?). :)  Best wishes to all, NearTheZoo (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you have to bow out; your opinion is as important as any other editor's. However, I do agree that we both should let others comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I for one thinks that the POTUS acronym should be included in the article lead within parentheses, firstly because it really is common in political talk (and to some extent even in popular fiction), and secondly because it also is a genuine “inside term”, just as much as SECDEF and DEPSECDEF are used in DoD contexts. RicJac (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Bbb23's point. It is another name by which the office is known, and it is used widely enough that it should be mentioned. The lead, especially its first sentence, is exactly where other names go in Wikipedia articles, not the body. From Manual of Style/Lead section: "[S]ignificant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." That POTUS is a significant alternative name is beyond doubt. It is commonly used in news reports and popular culture, even being used as the name of a band. The first hatnote at the article notes that POTUS redirects here, and suggests P.O.T.U.S. (Sirius XM) for people who were looking for the satellite radio station. That P.O.T.U.S stands for Politics of the United States, which is clearly a take off on the more commonly known POTUS. -Rrius (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

When did the office of President of the United States become active?
Anybody know? --Pawyilee (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Bulleted list item

Edit request on 17 June 2012
CPI values appear to be wrong. For example, 2001 should be $498,344 per web site cited.

Wristshot0 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. A find of CPI or even just consumer turns up zilch. I'm not going to read the whole article looking for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.— cyberpower Chat Offline  00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Idea for addition re presidential income
Presidents now earn substantial royalties from the books they write, far exceeding their official salaries. This ought to be mentioned in order to avoid the implication that presidents must actually live on their salaries. It would also be good to mention that their investments/savings are put in a blind trust - even though this is standard for high-ranking political leaders in the US, it's not necessarily a well-known fact, and readers of this article may find it interesting and relevant. (I am not a serious editor, obviously - just throwing this out there in case anybody's interested) 71.236.242.147 (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Style alteration
Right now, the Style section under President Obama's image says "Mr. President" and "His Excellency". While a female has never been elected President, would it not be a good idea to put "Mr./Madame President" and "His/Her Excellency"? Just a thought, we wanna be politically correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.121.1 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we do not have to be politically correct. We should consider making this change only once a woman becomes President. SMP0328. (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A reference to add
Under Administrative powers, the first sentence does not have a reference (the quoted passage is not in the whitehouse.gov link following) and I would like to provide one to add here. Usually, I would add this myself, but the source I propose is an online Constitution Guide created by The Heritage Foundation, where I work. Below is the sentence as it exists and the code for the citation:


 * The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government and is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

If it seems reasonable to add this as a source, please could someone add it into the section? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a link to the text of the constitution at Cornell's Legal Information Institute site. I think your source might be better used to support specific interpretations of that clause, perhaps in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since you probably know the source better than I, please suggest a good location. Joja  lozzo  16:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Link for Jimmy Carter
Under ceremonial roles, Jimmy Carter is mentioned, but there is no hyperlink. Could this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.59.171 (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--JayJasper (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a very mild problem with "Incumbent" under the President's picture. This should be changed to President. While the office is an elected one the fellow or lady should be identified by the office held. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.230.47 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Electoral College
The image used in the electoral college section is outdated. The electoral votes per state are for 2008, we should add 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.96.248 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ . TJRC (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates
Why are the coordinates somewhere in the Middle East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.253.27 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand why there are coordinates in this type of article. I've removed them. Maybe someone else understands the rationale for having them, but this is an article about a person. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 216.165.253.27 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

POTUS fad/meme
The use of the term "POTUS" (and the term FLOTUS, which gave rise to it) is funny, but just a reference to a recent meme stemming from Michelle Obama's use of the term. It seems like a very trivial fad to recognize in the first sentence of such a serious entry. I recommend that it be removed outright.

24.21.101.252 (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! POTUS has been used as an acronym since, at least, the Nixon administration.  There is nothing faddish or meme-like about it; it is simply an acronym.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, indeed. In his 2004 book The Right Word in the Right Place at the Right Time, William F. Buckley, who served as one of Nixon's speechwriters, describes the use of, and possibly the genesis of, that acronym during the Nixon administration.  See   He refers to FLOTUS as well—pre-Michelle Obama, obviously, given that the book was published four years before Obama took office. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That "See also"
It needs to have a lot of crap removed, there's practically a hundred links down there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.12.26 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the links seem to be tied to a template and are not visible, and thus not removable, from the edit screen. I wonder if we could make the list collapsible so it dosen't take up so much space?--NextUSprez (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012
"Incumbent" to "President" because he has now locked in another 4 years.

98.207.92.213 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Incumbent merely means person in office.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   07:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"POTUS"
I am questioning the legibility of the acronym (or initialism) POTUS, partly because one of the "of"s makes its in and not the other, but this only applies if we include "of America" to it, as is most likely not the case. Shouldn't it be "PotUSoA" or "PUSA", or at least "PotUS" or "PUS"? Do we really need it there anyway, it is not like people can't figure out that as a (possible) shorthand for the term/title/name/phrase anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:B9ED:F2DC:718F:567C (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The "POTUS" acronym has historical precedent - it's not just something an editor came up with. I'm not particularly well-versed in the history of the US, but I recall seeing the term on documents from the Eisonhower era, and most definitely in the Nixon era. I'm assuming "America" is excluded because it was intended as a shorthand for governmental memorandums, I think - at least until it was appropriated by the press, and subsequently US society at large. Psychonavigation (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial sentence
The initial sentence should include either a parenthetical explanation or an explanatory footnote noting the basis for shortening the title to simply "the President"—used throughout this article—and abbreviating it to POTUS.

The scholarly authority for shortening does need explanation and is not self-evident, as there are other national leaders who have lengthy titles that are not shortened.

I propose:

The President of the United States of America (generally shortened to the President   and sometimes abbreviated POTUS ) is the head of state and head of government of the United States.