Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Presidents who died in office


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:27, 30 December 2008.

List of United States Presidents who died in office
I feel that it is at FL quality. -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Though I don't like the fact of this, the Wikipedia community usually speedy oppose lists that have less than 10 entries, calling them "pre-mature". I am just here to tell you that. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 02:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep; at eight items, it's a bit on the edge. Also regarding the article's move, I don't think it needs the "have"; I usually only use "have" when talking about the past in the already past tense, like "he was President at the time; the other guy had already died in office." It would be "that person died in office", not "that person had died in office". Gary King  ( talk ) 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was the right move. Ask Dabomb87 if it was since he knows a bunch about grammar. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, present perfect vs. simple past. Have died sounds better to me because the present perfect is usually used for actions that have happened in the past but the time is unknown, but I will not trust instinct here. I will ask User:Noetica on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also concur that the article may be too small to be eligible, although in this case that is probably a good thing! Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally get what you mean, but should this article be allowed to have a FLC nomination? --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, the nomination should continue, because the 10-item minimum is not an official rule. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you didn't catch it, Noetica thinks it should be "who died" rather than "who have died". However, he said that either one works. I think it should be moved back to "who died", as that was how it was originally. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since both works, I don't really care, as long as it has grammatical sense. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there doesn't seem to be a problem, I will move it back. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support — Chris!  c t 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Dabomb87 has asked to me to come here and comment on the question of tense. Three preliminaries:
 * Both the simple past and the present perfect are correct in syntax and in strict semantics. What's more, N presidents died in office and N presidents have died in office are logically equivalent: each entails the other, and it must be that both are true or both are false.
 * It gets down to subtle considerations of style and assertibility (see below).
 * American and British differ in use of simple past and present perfect; British often insists on the perfect ("I have already eaten breakfast") where many American at least permit simple past ("I already ate breakfast").
 * Now, assertibility. We would not normally assert this: Lincoln has died. Why not? It's true, isn't it? And the sentence is grammatical! Sure. But it would be a strange thing to say, for a couple of reasons: Lincoln is no longer around, to be in any state at all, including the state of having died! It is the present perfect, remember. And then, it was a long time ago. When Kennedy was shot dead, it was quite reasonable for newsreaders to say that evening Kennedy has been shot dead, but it is not reasonable for us now to say that, in almost all contexts we can frame. A special problem arises, though, when we consider presidents in a series. They participate, we might say, in the continued existence through time of the series. In fact, one by one they guarantee the continued existence of that series. So "they", constituting the series, do in a sense remain in existence! This is one consideration that lends the present perfect have died in office some assertibility.
 * As for style, it may seem disrespectful to be so blunt as to say they died in office. There is something "undiplomatic" or harsh about the shorter form. O him? He died!
 * I'd say, therefore, that assertibility and general considerations of style weigh in favour of Presidents who have died in office. However, the fact that this is a clearly American article weighs in the opposite direction, whether Americans sense this directly or not.
 * Given that things are so far quite evenly balanced, a conclusion is hard to reach, until I consider one strange final feature of the two alternatives. Presidents who have died in office is burdened with the connotation that more might die in office than have so far! This dismal and unnecessary tinge is absent from Presidents who died in office. In balance, therefore, that's what I'd recommend: Presidents who died in office. That tips things, for me. But really: either would do.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo  N  oetica! T– 13:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes Reference 1 (about.com) reliable? About.com is generally not considered reliable.
 * Replaced with a new one -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   15:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes Ref 2 http://australianpolitics.com/usa/president/presidents-dead.shtml reliable?
 * Replaced with a new one -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ref 3 needs a  added to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, did I do that right? -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   15:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but I fixed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.