Talk:President of the United States/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

President vs president

Due to the revert, based on the false premise of consensus, i am here to establish consensus that this article is about the office of the "President of the United States".

Which is: A) Proper Noun B) One of the 3 co-equal branches of US Government and should not be treated differently than the opening sentence of the articles: The House of Representatives; The Senate of the United States, The Congress of the United States; and The Supreme Court of the United States. C) the office is defined in Article 2 of the US Constitution and capitalized there D) The grammar rule of lowercase after the does not apply when speaking of the office. The off cited Nixon was president of the United States is not the same as the office of the President of the United States. There president refers to Nixon. Here, President refers to itself and is part of the full title.

So, please can we end this fake claim of consensus and agree that this article's opening sentence is an exception to the rule and should be capitalized? Slywriter (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the office of president of the United States. No argument there. MOS:JOBTITLES states (in the first sentence) that offices are common nouns. This suggests that according to Wikipedia’s manual of style, offices including “president of the United States” are common nouns and should be lowercase. Your suggestion that this should be an exception seems odd, because the MOS is clear that it was written for casss like this. Also, as far as I know, consensus was established on the talk page for MOS:JOBTITLES, but I’m not sure of that... it happened before I began editing Wikipedia regularly. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer: I am unable to find this consensus. And the entire MOSBIO/JOBTITLES is a mess and objections have been raised there by others of the misuse of those policies.

It makes zero sense especially when President of Generic University/ Harvard/Russia/France is capitalized.

Under the logic imposed, all of those need to be lower case as does house, congress, senate, supreme.

MOS:JobTitles uses the word generic. I'd argue it is not a generic position. It is the powers inherent of Art 2.

Slywriter (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

House, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, etc. are not job titles. They are institutions, and as such are proper names. I’m sorry that so many other “President of ...” articles are uppercase, but I (and others) can only change them to match MOS in my (our) free time. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer: I'll refine my point to say, that it is not a job title. It qualifies as an institution, despite being held by only one person. Blanket rules do not encompass the nuance of US government. 3 co-equal branches. Slywriter (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s an interesting opinion. It is not one that is shared by common/leading style guides, including Chicago Manual of Style, which specifically renders “president of the United States” as lowercase in section 8.19 of the seventeenth edition. If you wish to pursue the conversation here with others, please do. I’ll leave it to others to continue the discussion. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer:Just to be clear, I agree that in every single usage of the title on Wikipedia, other than the opening sentence of this page, it should be lower case. Here, it is referring to the Article 2 branch of government, which requires special handling and is not clearly covered in the AP or Chicago style guide. Slywriter (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Drdpw, you have reverted my edit with the comment that it is "not correct". Would you care to explain please, why you consider this so. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wondering the same because it's a simple solution. The MOS people can continue their haphazard crusade, which is barely implemented across major articles. This article can have it's capital P as it rightfully should for the numerous reasons outlined above.

Slywriter (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think something like Cinderella157's approach can work, but it was not done well; a few more words of the lead sentence should be updated to make it clear that it's referring to the office or the title, not the person, and the comment certainly can't be left in a contradictory state. And Slywriter, if you'd approach this in a more productive way, you could help us get there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Old news: [1][2] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like we have 3 or 4 of us that would favor that approach. Give it another try? Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Knock yerself out. I think I'm permanently burned out on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was productive, albeit a little snarky, in the opening of this. I blame that on the note included and the fact that all searches for consensus find that the issue is not well fleshed out and consensus was just someone said so. MOS is clear about Nixon, president of the United States. It's not clear when the the position is itself being described. Slywriter (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative (with a few more words): The office of President of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

But the office is lowercase according to MOS... it says that in the first sentence of the relevant MOS section. Maybe "President of the United States is the title given to the head of state and head of government of the United States of America". Then we're talking about the "title or position in and of itself" from the third bullet point in MOS:JOBTITLES. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Eyer, pls see third dot point at MOS:JOBTITLES. Caps would be correct in the alternative I have given. Also I have tweaked. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that (and update the comment). I appreciate Eyer's work to keep us aligned with JOBTITLES; and yours, Cinderella157. I think taking the opportunity to show a title in a properly capitalized context is a useful part of that. The MOS needs to be seen as active and relevant, not a "haphazard crusade" like Slywriter thinks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Question, though: is the office the head of state? I don't think it is. I think the officeholder is the head of state, but not the office itself. That means that saying The office of President of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America. would be incorrect. Is there a different way of re-wording this, perhaps? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

is the head of state Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer: I believe you are correct, the office is not head of state, head of government, commander in chief, the office holder is. A re-worded sentence such as—The person serving as President of the United States (POTUS) is head of state and head of government of the United States of America. The president ...—would work. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Right. Thanks for the suggestion on that wording. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If president of the United States is capitalised here? then vice president of the United States, should be capitalised at Vice President of the United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sad to see that the lead sentence has been contorted into an unnecessarily confusing mess just to capitalize one word, but there really is a bright line that should not be crossed: factual accuracy. Namely, an office cannot be a head of state. A head of state is a living, breathing person. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm content with either capitalised or de-capitalised. But, If we're gonna be capitalising the intro? then it's best to do it correctly. Therefore, I've tweaked it. "The office of... & ...held by the...", is terrible. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No. "President of the United States" is a title, not a person. A title cannot be the head of anything. No title has ever run a country. Please stop correcting correct things. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change it back to "The president of the United States..."? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No. That would bring us back full circle to what started this discussion. I've reverted your clearly wrong edit and discussion can continue from there as desired. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I reverted the intro back to its status quo, before all this fuss. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with status quo ante (not "status quo", BTW) too, pending a consensus for change. That actually makes some sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Would like to point out, about a year ago (I believe) an Rfc was held for several articles which had 'President of the United States' & 'Vice President of the United States' in their intro. The result of that Rfc was to go with the de-capitalised version - president of the United States & vice president of the United States. Therefore, if -suddenly- attempts are gonna be made to overturn that result? Then I highly recommend another Rfc on the matter be opened. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As stated previously, the MOS, RfC and other previous consensus all cover Richard Nixon, president of the United States; George Bush, president of the United States. No argument those should be lowercase. This article should be styled at the top to accurately reflect it is an article on the office of the President of the United States, which is a subtle but important difference. Slywriter (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you open up a 'new' Rfc on this matter, for this article & the Vice President of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: will you PLEASE stop messing around with the intro & respect WP:BRD. Restore the version that was there, before you raised any concerns. Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: To clarify - the previous Rfc 'might' have only covered the List of... articles, concerning these matters. @Drdpw:, you may have a better memory on this, then I. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No personal memory. Just spent a good faith effort tracking down archives in various places. If there is an RfC that is explicit, please direct me to it.

I have made an edit to try and get good language for the lead. Also, found it odd that US Constitution isn't mentioned in lead. Slywriter (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting ticked off, that you're by-passing getting a consensus on the talkpage, via forcing your changes into the article intro. It's disruptive & I wish you'd revert 'now'. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As BRD is not mandatory and other editors are involved in this discussion who can revert the edit if they disagree, I will not revert the edit.

My edit is a good faith attempt to conform to the purported MOS consensus and not disruptive in any way. Such accusations are rude and unnecessary.

Slywriter (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Get a consensus 'here' for the changes you want to make to the intro, first. In this situation, making bold edits is counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither are accusations. Neither is you deciding of your own interpretation of 1RR to justify reversion. Other editors are involved who could have decided the edit was bad and reverted. Nonetheless,

• "The President of the United States" is a proper name and should be captialized.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." This "President of the United States of America" is an individual (and is assumed to be a "he" ...). The article "a" / "the" is an exception to normal usage. There is one and only one "President of the United States of America", and the current one is "The President of the United States of America".

This does not necessarily extend to the "Vice President of the United States of America". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed that the lead say:

The office of President of the United States (POTUS)[B] is defined by Article 2 of the United State Constitition. The office holder is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America.

This conforms to the MOS(which doesn't cover this use case) and states where the power is derived from.

Slywriter (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - as it reads poorly & is appears cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Be honest as least and say you oppose all changes to the lead. It is a factually accurate account of the office and the Constitution is the bedrock of US government. Readers would find that relevant.

Slywriter (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Leave the lead alone. Messing it up, just to get capitalisation into it, is counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems cumbersome... like someone is trying to rework a sentence just for the sake of capitalizing a word. I haven't found any suggestions so far to be any better than the status quo ante that starts with the man or woman who is president being the heads of state and government. Further, when I think of the Constitution's role here, I think of it defining the presidency, not the president. (In fact, the similar article at Encyclopedia Brittanica is called "Presidency of the United States of America" [3]. In Wikipedia, that information is a click (on "executive branch") away. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 15:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you really want to get the constitutional aspect in here, then change the second sentence to something like "Deriving power form Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president directs the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces." —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 15:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This article is in and of itself, about the office|title|position. As it first appears, the title should be fully capitalised accordingly and written in such a way that accommodates this. Preceding it with the definite article (the) causes president to be lowercased. Also, it causes it to refer to something (or someone) specific - arguably the incumbent. The article is about the position and not the incumbent. Simply removing the definite article resolves the matter, though I also amend per the head of state. We don't generally go adding the to other titles (eg book titles etc). Drdpw I am still at a loss as to why you think this is incorrect. Preceding with the office of (more words) appeared to make more people happy but ... Head of state is a position invested in the presidency and exercised by the incumbent - the head of state: a person. I am all for an economy of words. A lot of this discussion (including my own comments) are hyper-pedantic. I don't think that such subtleties serve our readers nor are they likely aware of such distinctions.

In the lead of Vice President of the United States, the titles, vice president and president, are also lowercased because they are preceded by the definite article - even thought the references are to the offices and not the incumbents. We should be comparing apples with apples.

On this proposal, I am neutral, except that it would require further tweaking WRT para 3 of the lead. It is not suitable in and of itself. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: If you trace the archives of the discussions on MOS:JOBTITLE back to about six months ago, you'll see that there has been extensive discussion about how that section has been heavily vandalized by idiots who do not understand how capitalization works in formal written English. The underlying problem is that every editor like myself who actually has the advanced university education to see why lowercasing job titles willy-nilly is inherently wrong is also too busy earning a substantial income to initiate an arbitration to get every responsible editor permanently banned from the encyclopedia. And WP admins have been too incompetent to summarily ban those editors even though such sanctions were clearly justified. So MOS:JOBTITLE really should not be treated as controlling in this discussion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool down, Caesar. "Heavily vandalized by idiots" is not a fair way to characterize the good-faith contributions of those you disagree with. You are not alone in having an "advanced university education", which anyway is not a requirement for understanding English grammar and style issues. Nobody is advocating "lowercasing job titles willy-nilly". I'm glad you're "earning a substantial income", but that's not what stands between the current dispute and an arbitration proceeding that will get all who disagree with you "permanently banned from the encyclopedia". Nor is calling WP admins "too incompetent" likely to advance your case. In fact, nothing you said here is the least bit useful to this conversation, except in letting us know which side you're on. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Or the P can just be capitalized in the first sentence. Head over to the talk page of WP:MOSBIO where it is becoming clear that the lower casing lacks consensus and the conversation is now about clarifying the rules so that P and p get used consistently.

Slywriter (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support using "The office of President of the United States is ..."; I don't have an opinion on the rest of the lead sentence at the moment. Using this construction is not unwieldy, and makes it very clear that the article is about the office as such. Using "The President of the United State is ..." makes it sound like the article is about whoever is currently the US president, and that will confuse some subset of readers (most likely kids and non-native English speakers), at least momentarily. So, just use the clearer wording per WP:Common sense and WP:ENC principles. And yes, it should be capital-P in this context, since this is the article about the office itself and we're treating the unique title as a proper name here. It is not the same kind of usage as "Nixon, while still the president of the United States", which is treatment as a job title and descriptive phrase of a person, but not attached to the name in "impeachment proceedings against President of the United States Richard Nixon ..." form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Too cumbersome looking, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer capitalizing the P and acknowledging that "President of the United States" is a globally unique title that can survive capitalization after a "The". It's the least cumbersome path and gives proper respect to the head of State of a nation. They are not some generic "president". Slywriter (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I too prefer the capitalisation of the P when speaking of both the office and the title. And, the very same should apply to other offices and titles. They are proper nouns, contrary to some erroneous conclusions that they are common nouns and therefore would not warrant capitalisation. I have written to the editors of Wikipedia for further guidance because I am not convinced the measure is the correct one. Where I can I have been reverting them because using the BBC guide (which has been referenced herein) in first instance - like at the beginning of the article for instance - capitalisation is acceptable. There is not much consensus on this matter --72.252.112.182 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Omitting "the" is perfectly valid. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Lede sentence should begin: "The President of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state ..." and thereafter should be construed as the single individual, with care to use past perfect in reference to previous incumbents. The POTUS jargon doesn't need to be in the lede sentence.

Possibly, it should be "The President of the United States of America is the head of state ..." as "President of the United States of America" is the full correct name.

The alternative will be convoluted and at odds with normal use: "The Office of President of the United States of America is the ...". The office name is also a proper name, as is the associated physical room, "The Oval Office". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article is referring to the office, not any individual who is or ever has occupied it, and so the "P" should be capitalized. The best way to do this is "The President of the United States", but I could live with "President of the United States" (no "The") or "The Office of the President of the United States." SMP0328. (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Omitting the "The" gets my vote. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That would make it weird. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead is fine, the way it currently is. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

My !vote is to capitalize the P, but apart from that, yes the lede is fine. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for change in text about superpowers on 22 June 2020

It says in the beginning of the text that the president of the United States has got great power mainly due to America being “the only superpower left in the world”. Now, this isn’t quite right since People’s Republic of China now also counts as a superpower and therefore this fact should be adjusted. 81.232.50.143 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – From the introduction to Potential superpowers:

Currently, only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower. China on the other hand, has been referred to as an emerging superpower, given that Beijing's power is now beyond the classification of a Great Power.

Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Request minor edit to Election section

"Otherwise, the House of Representatives must meet to elect a President using a contingent election procedure in which representatives, voting by state delegation, with each state casting a single vote, choose between the top electoral vote-getters for President."

Should be "...top three electoral vote-getters...", per the Twelfth Amendment. This improves clarity. 107.77.222.216 (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Taken care of. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter tapped by Reagan

There is a paragraph starting "Presidents may use their predecessors as emissaries...". Why not include Carter? He wanted to meet the 52 hostages who had just been released from 444 days of captivity in Iran, and new President Reagan tapped him as special ambassador to allow this because Carter was no longer President . Carlm0404 (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

President or president

@Skcin7:, it was agreed on this article months ago, that we use president instead of President. Seeing as you're the fellow who reversed that with your recent edits. I recommend that you undo your changes. Note how your changes have taken this article out of sync with the Vice President of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know a consensus was declared regarding this issue. Nonetheless, for now the capitalization of "President" should not be done until there is a consensus one way or the other. SMP0328. (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's "President" with a capital P. That's what the word is and how it is spelled, with a capital P, according to the well defined, long 100+ years established consensus of the English language. Vice President is spelled with a capital V and a capital P, Senator is spelled with a capital S, and Congressman/Congresswoman is spelled with a capital C. Proper grammar and English isn't really negotiable. Are we doing to it the correct way or the wrong way? It is absolutely embarrassing to see "President of the United States" spelled with a lowercase p. Skcin7

It's not a black or white an issue Skcin7, please read MOS:JOBTITLES concerning when it is proper to capitalize president and when it is not. Drdpw (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In short: capitalized when word unmodified, denoting a title; but uncapitalized when modified or reworded, denoting an office. Drdpw (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Took me awhile to undo Skcin7's changes. If I missed any? please be my guest. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To fill in User:Skcin7 on what's going on: We're having an ongoing train wreck on MOS:JOBTITLES because there is a vogue in certain American academic circles to follow certain bizarre trends which began overseas a few decades ago, like writing job titles in lowercase. I suspect that this trend began because of certain overseas countries' mismanagement and underfunding of their educational systems (meaning there is no point in following their misguided example), but have been unable to access research university libraries this year to verify that hypothesis. In the meantime, this article will have to conform to the mess in MOS:JOBTITLES for the time being. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Political affiliation

To avoid mistakes in editing, added a parenthetic reference to Grover Cleveland after "43 persons have been sworn into the office of president". Some editors (myself included) might notice that 43 + 1 ≠ 45, the number of the current incumbent. I realized my momentary error before making the invalid "correction", so I thought the insertion was necessary. Opusaug (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's 44 individuals sworn in as president, unless we're not including Pierce, who affirmed his oath. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

43 or 44 individuals sworn in as prez?

Who's the other individual not sworn in as president. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

44 individuals have been sworn in as POTUS; As this concerns the above stated issue, George Washington plus 43 others have been sworn in as POTUS. Drdpw (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it's since GW. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I reworded that sentence so that it can give the total number of people sworn-in (44). SMP0328. (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have simplified the wording to "Since Washington, every U.S. president has been affiliated with a political party at the time of assuming office." The total number of people sworn-in is beside the point here (and addressed elsewhere). Drdpw (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

President of USA

So... I'm in Norway and watching the news it was announced that Joe Biden won the presidency... Pls update and credit me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.63.247 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – Joe Biden will not become president until Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021. Drdpw (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Presidential Podiums" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Presidential Podiums. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#Presidential Podiums until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed re-organization

Hi all -- following WP:BOLD, I attempted to significantly improve the structure of this article in two ways. Both of them have been reverted with a request that I discuss them here. First, the second half of the article wasn't organized very well, with things like compensation, residence, etc. all being top-level sections. This made for difficult reading, and some things were plainly repeated (post-presidency staffing) and needed to be cleaned up. I attempted to organize them to improve hierarchical structure, by grouping things like salary / residence / protection together.

Second, I attempted to re-organize the "powers and duties" section based on functional roles of the modern presidency. Many elements weren't captured under the former structure, which was focused very mechanically on constitutional provisions including an Article I / Article II distinction. For example, while there were (and are) many words devoted to the mechanics of the Presentment Clause, there wasn't enough explanation about WHY the power to veto bills puts the president in the middle of the legislative process. Common roles of the presidency that would be familiar to political scientists -- like the power to set the agenda, and the president's role as leader of the party -- were missing or not well-highlighted, and there was nothing about the president's role as a global leader. The words "head of state" weren't even used in the substantive body of the article. Meanwhile, although there is a separate "powers of the president" article, it isn't very well-organized. My attempt would have generally improved all of this with an eye to informing the casual reader – or the foreign one – seeking to understand the modern presidency in less jargon-y terms. In fairness, people might quibble (for example) with whether "regulations" belongs under legislative or executive, but at least the new framework would call out that major power of the modern presidency and enable that discussion.

Even after my edits, the article still would need a lot of work. There is nothing, for example, on the history and development of the presidency, including the constitutional convention or the historical periods where the presidency was stronger or weaker, or how the modern "imperial presidency" has evolved. Instead, the "origin" section has several paragraphs about the lead-up to the constitutional convention, which may or may not even be relevant to the presidency specifically, as opposed to the formation of the government as a whole.

Having been twice reverted, and not sure how to proceed, I request advice on next steps for my edits to be accepted. Thanks! Dss16 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Best way to proceed is to bring your proposed changes here (this talkpage), instead of implementing them. Getting a consensus is best. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:GoodDay on this one. Most of the changes appear okay to me, but when you're making such drastic changes to an article on such an important topic, you need to first warn everyone what you're up to first. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! It appears my reorganization of the former "powers and duties" section was ultimately (and quickly) accepted by the user who had reverted it, so that's great. However, my proposed edits to the second half of the article – re-organizing the "Tenure" through "Post-presidency" material – are still outstanding. The idea is to structure it similarly to the second half of Vice President of the United States. Those were reverted by @JMonahanYale: with a request to discuss here. How do I know when it is acceptable for me to go ahead and implement the changes?

Also, I would like to restructure the "origin" section (per my comment above) to be more of a "history and development" section, again similar to the article on the vice presidency. This would potentially involve removing a lot of the pre-1787 material currently present, and sketching instead a brief history of the presidency based around its strong beginnings, weakness through much of the 19th century, and growth of the imperial presidency in the 20th century. I'm not aware of any existing article that covers this material (which is frankly surprising), but either way, including something brief here seems appropriate. I assume most of this would already be standard high-school-level U.S. history material.

At some point, it might also be appropriate to add a "views on the presidency" section that would house the existing "criticism" material, plus eventually multiple views on whether the modern presidency is too powerful or not. Thanks for considering! Dss16 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You're not heeding the advice given. You shouldn't be making massive changes to this article, unless you first get a consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand. I thought I had achieved this -- I proposed these changes here, and nobody objected. What else is needed? Is there a formal process that is required? If so, how do I start it? Dss16 (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody announced their support for those changes, either. We'll see what the others have to say. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all -- my re-organization and addition work have reached a reasonable pause point. Ideally, future additions would include a paragraph or two about how the presidency developed at the constitutional convention, and more development of some of the executive powers and leadership roles. Although the article is longer, it's probably still fine for a topic of this significance. A few initial areas for streamlining might include reducing the pre-1787 origins material and moving the detailed mechanics of the Presentment Clause to a note. The table of contents is also longer, but deciding whether/how to shrink it is challenging, because most items feel like they would be important or interesting to a reader. Either way, I think it's better. Dss16 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2020

This website contains false information regarding the 2020 election. It states that Joe Biden will be sworn in on Jan 21, 2021. Where it is possible it is not official And as so, this is causing people to believe that it is official. Such information should be permitted after January 6th when we will have an official answer of the next president of the United States. In addition, this website says Donald Trump is president from 2017-2021, which again we don't know yet and it is a disgrace that such false information is being shared on the web. Janderson63 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Declined @Janderson63:Your commentary is completely inappropriate and a sign that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia but instead push a political point. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM before making any further replies.

Reliable Sources have reported that the Electoral College has met in each of the 50 states (plus DC) and have cast their votes for Joseph Biden. While many things can happen between now and January 21, the reality is Joseph Biden is scheduled to take the oath of office at noon that day. Should Reliable Sources report differently, this article will be updated.

As it is, the language is neutral and reflective of consensus among editors. Slywriter (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Article says he'll be sworn in on January 20, 2021. That you've mixed up the date, may be telling. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

"Joe Biden becoming president on January 21st is incorrect. There was voter fraud clear as daylight that is being dealt with." 23.240.150.249 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Biden becoming president on January 21 is indeed incorrect. He becomes president on January 20. As for the rest, you're incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 15 Januaray 2021

Minor typographical corrections in the sub-section titled "Removal": none have been convinced by the Senate . none have been convicted by the Senate. (correct the spelling of convicted and delete the spare space before the full-stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberd21 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed – Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Mention of Joe Biden

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

---

A discussion is occurring as to whether or not the President-elect, Joe Biden should be mentioned at all.

Proposed Text:

On November 7, 2020 Joe Biden was declared the president-elect of the United States. He will be the 46th president of the United States and inaugurated on January 20, 2021.

Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 (from GoodDay): Joe Biden was elected president on November 3, 2020. He will assume office on January 20, 2021.

Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Should Joe Biden being Pres. elect be mentioned on the page? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Should be mentioned in the intro, in the same paragraph as Donal Trump being current president. Garuda28 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Joe Biden has been added to the article as president-elect. Drdpw (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This isn't an election page or list page. We can replace Trump with Biden, on January 20, 2021. There's no hurry. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Psychologically, the media making the declaration is important but legally no President-elect will exist until Congress certifies the Electoral College. Then or Jan 20 would be the times to include him. Slywriter (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: @Garuda28: @GoodDay:. There seems to be disagreements. Should we stick to what is currently in the article? Create an RFC? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 00:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to an RfC. It seems like a pretty huge omission not to include this information. Garuda28 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The election has been called by major news outlets. That does not determine the outcome of the election, even if sources treat it as such. I oppose calling Biden the president-elect until the Electoral College has officially made him the president-elect, which I believe is scheduled to occur next month. There is little need or justification to presume the EC will do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pointless. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not the news. Not the victory lap for a campaign. Joe Biden will presumptively becomes President of the United States on Jan 20,2021. Anything prior to that is trivia, recentism, news and crystalball. The country and world will survive without this singular unnecessary mention. Slywriter (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's denying that Biden has been elected US president. There's just no need to mention it in this article. On January 20, 2021 we'll replace Trump with Biden. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying that a page about the president should not include any information about any president-elect? There are many sources using that term, does Wikipedia not want to refect that or is this simply the wrong place to mention that information? Did this page call Trump the president-elect four years ago? 74.131.76.216 (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Good question. How did we do it then? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Neither Biden nor Trump has actually been elected President of the United States, according to this very article. I quote the first paragraph of this article: 'Voters selected presidential electors of the Electoral College who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020, to elect the new president and vice president.' So really the proposed text should be the following:

On November 7, 2020 Joe Biden was projected to be the president-elect of the United States. If selected by the electoral college on December 14, 2020, he would be the 46th president of the United States and inaugurated on January 20, 2021.

73.168.5.183 (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Electoral College (on December 14) having to vote for president & vice president. As well as a joint session of Congress (January 6) being required to certify those votes. GoodDay (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Include. Waiting for the electoral college imposes a higher standard of rigor than any other article on Wikipedia (policy would normally say every major news outlet saying something is by far reliable enough for us to do so as well), and in fact is a greater standard than US law. Some US laws refer to the "president-elect", and do not define it according to the electoral college. See for example the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which determines the president-elect by the word of the head of a government agency.

Also, FWIW: the website of that agency refers to the "president-elect" as early as November 4th, 2020, so presumably they're determining this based on either media calls, their own internal projections of state results, or a combination of both. Loki (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes per reasoning by Loki GMPX1234 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

Include to clearly restate my initial argument. Garuda28 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Supposed Joe Biden dies tomorrow, whose the President-elect?? Suppose the Electoral College goes rogue, whose the president-elect?? Just because the media uses the term here and now does not meant its accurate. The exact problem is that people twist this encyclopedia into a newspaper and therefore do not rely accurate information to the readers. Joe Biden is the presumptive president-elect from a factual standpoint. And 4 years ago, this article did mention Trump with several qualifiers to reflect that he was not legally the president-elect by the terms of the United States Constitution. Slywriter (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to refer you to @LokiTheLiar:'s sources, which indicate that, according to federal law, the president-elect is considered the apparent winner of the general election, and can be declared before the electoral college meets. The senarios you list above are, frankly, beyond unrealistic and don't provide any real argument for not including basically notable and widely sourced information. If one of those unlikely scenarios occurs, we update the article appropriately. Garuda28 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President."

notice the word 'apparent', which is wiggle room in the law because its allocating funds for a purpose fully knowing that some other outcome is possible. Such nuance doesn't exist in writing "President-elect of the United States of America"

If anything, use the language of 4 years ago(numerous caveats) or include the word "apparent/ presumptive" at least then a reader is getting an accurate picture of the us presidency pending certification of results and the meeting of the electoral college. Slywriter (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering what the language was 4 years ago, it was:

At that time, Donald Trump, having won the 2016 presidential election, is scheduled to be inaugurated as the nation's 45th president.

Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And the statement back in 2016 is also factually incorrect, since it dates from a month before the electoral college vote on 19 December 2016, and should have been

At that time, Donald Trump, having been projected to win the 2016 presidential election, is scheduled to be inaugurated as the nation's 45th president if he is chosen by the electoral college on December 19, 2016.

73.168.5.183 (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am curious as to whether or not the decision made here should determine whether or not to mention Kamala on Vice President of the United States Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the prior practice. And I also agree that what we come to here should also apply to the VP – the arguments would be exactly the same. Garuda28 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude for now. The proposed "declared" text is weasely, and the simple sentence isn't a neutral description of what's been going on. I suggest we either build out the content to indicate that Trump is contesting the result in court, or leave this out entirely as recentism for now. The latter is my preference, given the broad scope of this article. R2 (bleep) 17:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I am open for any wording. What would you suggest the sentence would be? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said, my preference is to remove it for now. R2 (bleep) 00:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Do to fatigue from editors constantly putting Biden in the lead? I worded a better version of the president-elect & inserted into the article. Check it out & feel free to revert. PS: Also done the same for Harris at the Vice President of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Seems like someone has already reverted it. I will mention it in the propose text Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If others are fine with the wording then I'll self-revert. Slywriter (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Now back to what should it say. I believe the facts are:

1. Joe Biden has been declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election by reputable media sources. Such sources do refer to him as "President-elect"

2. The GSA empowered by law to declare the apparent winner as "President-elect" for transition funding purposes has declined to do so at this time.

3. The esoteric Electoral College meets Dec 16 to actually vote on the President.

4. Congress certifies the Electoral College on Jan 6

5. Joe Biden's opponent President Trump has refused to concede the election and has launched legal challenges.

6. No state has certified the results of the 2020 General Election.

and the burning question is...

is using the wikilinked phrase "President-elect" sufficient to satisfy giving the reader accurate information (option 1)? Leave the "current" imprecise text(option 2) or provide a more detailed explanation?

I think option 1 with some caveat of apparent, presumed or declared by media would be best to avoid a further kerfuffle on what is the best way to describe Trump's position especially since all of these are interim words with a lifespan of a monthSlywriter (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude for now. As per R2; I presume, it can be helpful to note based on what he suggested, I mean: "we either build out the content to indicate that Trump is contesting the result in court, or leave this out entirely as recentism for now..." Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include as "President-elect". -- Valjean (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• While I'm not necessarily opposed to excluding a mention of Joe Biden from this article until he takes office in January, a related question would be whether we should include a Wiki link to the President-elect of the United States article in this article.--TommyBoy (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I support this. It belongs in the See Also section. R2 (bleep) 18:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have gone ahead and added a Wiki link to the "See Also" section of this article.--TommyBoy (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Exclude: the lead is supposed to be a summary of what's in the rest of the article. It doesn't look like Joe Biden was mentioned in the rest of the article, and it doesn't really look like adding him would fit. As a result, it would be best to exclude him from the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include: this is missing context for readers, particularly non-American readers who may be confused at why we are listing somebody (Trump) who did not win the most recent presidential election. In my country, for instance, the winner of a national election assumes highest office immediately. It is therefore an omission to not mention Biden. Come January, the change that needs be made is that Trump's name will no longer be needed and the image can be replaced with Biden. Of course, we should only be referring to Biden as the president-elect in the time being. — Bilorv (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include; this has always been the practice after an election is called in reliable sources, and no credible sources indicate that the outcome is in any doubt. I would absolutely oppose any sort of disclaimer or WP:WEASEL words - Biden is the president-elect by the common usage of the term and is universally referred to as such in reliable sources. Since no credible source is disputing this, describing him otherwise or attributing it would be POV, since it would be casting doubt on an uncontentious statement of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Many here should know. Not having Biden mentioned in this article, until he takes office (or Harris mentioned in the Vice President of the United States article, until she takes office), is not in anyway, a suggestion that Biden/Harris haven't won the 2020 election. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude – We can wait until Biden's inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• As a matter of precedent, I notice that Trump's name was added to the lead of this article almost immediately after the 2016 election.[5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References

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

In view of the RFC decision. I've updated the Vice President of the United States, to include Kamala Harris. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding time expression to page

In several edits I made on December 9, I added the expression {{#ifexpr:{{#time: xNU }}>1611161999| to several places in the article which will have to be changed on inauguration day. The template means that before inauguration, the page will remain the same, but after inauguration the page will automatically change (perhaps only after a purge) to show Joe Biden as president and Donald Trump as a former president. The number 1611161999 refers to the time 16:59:59 UTC (11:59:59 EST) on January 20, 2021, so after that time i.e. 12:00 EST the page will change. The advantage I believe with this is it allows editors to plan the page ahead of an expected necessary change, and thus won't be rushed after noon of January 20, thus leading to errors. It would also allow photos of Biden and Trump to be chosen beforehand if there is controversy (as it happens there is a discussion at Joe Biden about what image to use.
I was reverted by Drdpw, but as far as I can tell, their only explanation is the edit wasn't necessary. I don't believe that this on it's own is a good enough reason to revert an edit, as often edits aren't necessary per se, but are still beneficial and helpful, so I invite Drdpw to expand on why they think the page shouldn't have this syntax. --TedEdwards 00:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

My full edit summary stated: "No need to add all the hidden post-2021 inauguration details so far in advance, it all can be handled after 12:00 EST on the day of." However, if others view having the information with the auto-syntax as beneficial and helpful now, I would not oppose it being reinserted. Drdpw (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose such syntax since it will be irrelevant post-Biden inauguration; and we can't possibly know what could happen between January and now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I'm not suggesting we keep the syntax forever, it can and will be removed some point after the inauguration, but will still allow the page to be updated automatically and correctly at 12:00. And we can know what would happen between January and now (and in any case the syntax could be updated). --TedEdwards 15:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: that looks useful. Go ahead! Vikram Vincent 17:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: As there was not a consensus to restore the hidden syntax a month ago it was not done, and there's no point in doing so at this time, with the ceremony now less than 70 hours away. Drdpw (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unnecessary technohappy supercomplication. This isn't the Times Square ball descending on New Year's. EEng 01:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Commander-in-chief section links

I think the links to countries that the US has invaded in the past century should link to the conflict, not the country itself. For instance, Panama -> United States invasion of Panama, Grenada -> United States invasion of Grenada, etc. This doesn't need to be done to the links to the various wars. Ch3wy (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

45 presidents but really there are only 44

I think Cleveland had 2 terms but not in a row and should be fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kara236 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Cleveland did indeed serve 2 non-consecutive terms; where in the article is this fact misstated? Drdpw (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It says at the end of the first section Donald Trump is the 45th and incumbent president of the United States. He assumed office on January 20, 2017. but Donald Trump is really the 44th president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kara236 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

He's the 44th individual, but the 45th president, due to the fact that Cleveland is counted 'twice'. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether we agree or not, that's how the world counts them so that's how Wikipedia counts them. The world refers to Bush43, not Bush42 (to distinguish him from his father, Bush41), and there have been two presidents since Bush43. 43+2=45, QED. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a fringe theory that the resignation of Nixon was invalid so that would also affect the numbers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is the author of such a theory? Emperor Vorgon from the planet Bizzarro? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

---

I propose to merge President-elect of the United States into President of the United States. There seems to be no other country that has a separate article about a president-elect or a prime minister-designate. Interstellarity (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The reason no other country needs a separate article is because no other representative democracy has a presidential system combined with long transition periods plus a relatively large federal executive branch of 5 million employees managed by 4,000 political appointees. In countries with parliaments and prime ministers, the opposition usually maintains a shadow government that is prepared to take over quickly if they become the governing majority. And most other countries with presidential systems either have smaller federal governments or have a much smaller number of political appointees at the very top as distinguished from career civil servants. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose: No. Not only are they are not synonymous designations, but the President-elect is an individual who is nearly - if not equally - of high priority as the sitting President. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the two roles are distinct and notable in their own right. Sure, that might not be the case elsewhere, but that doesn't really matter.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I concur with Coolcaesar completely. That I know of, no other country holds a 2 month plus transition period; America having a 2 month transition period and having to appoint 4000+ political appointees means this office is notable. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 23:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per previous. The presidential transition in the US is different than any other transition, and that includes the office of president-elect. It deserves its own article. Rainclaw7 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Coolcaesar. @Interstellarity: WP:OSE (or in this case, arguably that other stuff doesn't exist) is not an argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, for the reasons above. "President-elect" is culturally and legally distinct from "President." For example, the Twentieth Amendment uses both terms in different contexts. SMP0328. (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand the reasons behind the opposition and that there is consensus that this article should not be merged with the article. Any editor is free to close this discussion since the next people that will reply will say the same thing. Thank you for your input. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

References - edit request

Please update source 6. Jimmy Carter's library address has changed, so it now redirects to a Japanese online pharmaceutical store.

Here is an archive.org link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190401080838/http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/campdavid/letters/

please delete this request when done. Thank you. (I don't have editing privileges).

Deleted Reference. A title in an info box does not need three sources. Slywriter (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"The power of the presidency has grown substantially since its formation" claim

I just noticed that the claim that "the power of the presidency has grown substantially since its formation, as has the power of the federal government as a whole" is based on a journal article published in 1908. Considering that the source was published more than 100 years ago, would it not be suitable to review that claim using a more current source? Has the presidency's power continued to grow since 1908, and at what rate? One could also argue that the claim about the power of the federal government as a whole is not very relevant in this context, at least not in the lede of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaldeFakta68 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we must find a better reference than what was written a century ago, although I do think that their power has increased PyroFloe (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden or Joseph R. Biden

There has been some back and forth on naming convention. I'd suggest we stick to one and be consistent on the page. -- Tawker (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WhiteHouse.gov styles as Joe Biden providing support for the approach. My prior edit was simply an attempt to be consistent on the page. https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/ -- Tawker (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaugural holder

Seen this term used for "First Holder" for US representative or governor. I believe that inaugural holder is the correct or more precise term. Motion to debate the use of inaugural vs first? Primus01 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaugural is a very confusing choice of word for reasons that must surely be obvious. First is plain and clear. EEng 17:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• George Washington was sworn in at the inaugural inauguration as the inaugural President of the United States. I love english. And support change to "first" Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (2)

Mingyu9740 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's change profile picture to File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013.jpg

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline error regarding Grover Cleveland

In the visual timeline showing presidential terms, Grover Cleveland's first term is erroneously shown as part of Benjamin Harrison's administration. Currently it shows Benjamin Harrison as having two terms, one as a Democrat and the next as a Republican, and it shows Cleveland as a one-term president. Holidayruin (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It was broken when Biden was added. I dont know enough about the code to fix it though. Slywriter (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed, and comment added to the timeline code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

Can we add an additional field to the timeline table with the cumulative number of years that each political party controlled the presidency? I know it's visually represented but to have it actually spelled out would be beneficial to readers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Donald Trump is no longer president please change it to Joe Bidden Rickipedia21 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Joe biden will not become president until Jan 20 2021 Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden isn't actually USA President, and instead was duped into incriminating himself, as if to proceed with the perception of due process to become President, but only convincing enough for Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and others to not realize until it's too late. It seems that the editors of the Wikipedia article also were convinced of the propaganda attempt as well. Is Wikipedia ever going to implement quality assurance to not allow propaganda sources to be used for citing what is true and what is lie so that instead of lies are truths, truths are lies, we can restore truths are truths, lies are lies publishing information so it's easier for everyone to depend on Wikipedia? Jasonkhanlar (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Joe Biden sworn in several minutes ago. Please change the incumbent on the page from Donald Trump to Joe Biden ASAP. 2603:9000:6505:52E1:1594:61E0:15C7:FC4C (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — Czello 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden inaugurated

Joe Biden was just inaugurated, and is now the current president of the United States. This page needs to be updated. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — Czello 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden is pres

Change the page. Why is everyone making this so difficult???? Why are you censoring stuff Drdpw? Dom Zero (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — Czello 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Donald J. Trump (age 74) is a living former president. 71.73.89.207 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — Czello 17:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please edit to reflect new incumbent.

Joseph R. Biden has been sworn in, and should be counted as the Incumbent, especially since Donald J Trump's page was edited to reflect the end of his rule.

 Already done — Czello 17:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just a quick thanks to all the people who took the time to let us know Biden had been inaugurated. We hadn't noticed. EEng 02:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I suspect a caching issue may have occur. Wikipedia:Purge - Purging the cache may have avoided some of this confusion. Rmhermen (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Table in the Timelines of the Presidents

I noticed that the table is all jumbled up with no organization of the names. Should we arrange this according to their accession date from most recent to the least recent? Or should we do this alphabetically? PyroFloe (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Party		#	Name(s)
	Republican	19	Chester A. Arthur, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, James A. Garfield, Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, Herbert Hoover, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Donald Trump
	Democratic	15	Joe Biden, James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, Grover Cleveland, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama, Franklin Pierce, James K. Polk, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Martin Van Buren, and Woodrow Wilson
	Democratic-Republican	4	John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe
	Whig	4	Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and John Tyler
	Federalist	1	John Adams
	National Union	1	Andrew Johnson
	None	1	George Washington

The names are ordered alphabetically by last name. Drdpw (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Chronological order, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not jumbled, it's alphabetical by last name as Drdpw says. Since it's a table broken up by party not chronology, and since the order is given in the following timeline itself, I think it should stay as is. Sudonymous (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The table should most definitely be in CHRONOLIGICAL order. Alphabetical does no reader any good. Wikipedia is not a library, after all ;P.

Also, Grover Cleveland gets two listings.. regardless of how silly it seems, the Presidents of the United States all get numbers, and because he served as number 22 and 24, the official number of Presidents will eternally be (at least) one number higher than the number of men who held the title. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with having the names organised alphabetically. That being said, having a chronological order for presidents wouldn't be bad either. In brief, this isn't too big of an issue. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretations in "Eligibility"

All qualifications to be a President are in the Constitution.

"Legal requirements for presidential candidates have remained the same since the year Washington accepted the presidency. As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older."

Library of Congress / qualifications.

The article lists opinions based on original interpretation of the "Impeachment" and "Insurrection" calsues.

Please keep the article correct and with reliable citations. Original interpretations are not appropriate, especially today when students may be studying this article. --Frobozz1 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Frobozz1:, what content exactly do you have an issue with? (Perhaps you could frame this like an edit request; "change X to Y"). This is how the "Eligibility" section currently reads;

Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least 35 years old;
• be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.

A person who meets the above qualifications would, however, still be disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:

• The Twenty-second Amendment prohibits the election of a person to a third term as president. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, that person can be elected president only once.
• Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding federal office, including that of president.
• Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the election of any person as president who swore an oath to support the Constitution and later rebelled against the United States. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.

Sources

So if you could point out the unsourced opinions, that would be helpful. - wolf 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference 4 does not exist, and no official source agrees with the opinion.

Reference 5 does not say what this claims it does. The very last sentante makes it clear, the positions disqualified are officers, and members of Congress. No source claims this disqualification applies to the President’s seat.

The. Constitution is not in error when it specifically includes the words “President” and “civil officer” in Article II. In any case the best possible thing that can be argued is that it is untried law. The opinion here implies a broad assumption not suggested in the reference 5.

An officer, in all cases, is tenured. In all cases, they are created under Article II “Appointments Clause.” That is settled law. Bradshaw v. Valeo Frobozz1 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It is my belief legal interpretation should be done by courts specializing in statutory interpretation. Is Wiki a place where arbitrary opinions run wild? The words "including the President" need a citation.

The 22nd Amendment has the word "President" directly in it. There is no question. This article is in stark contrast with the rest of Wikipedia, including the Impeachment article, the Impeachment in the United States article, the Officer under the United States article. Suddenly viewers arrive here and have a personal interpretation of constitutional law.

Please replace the entire eligibility section that is not included in a reliable source, with the reliable source found in the Library of Congress.

The 22nd Amendment is obviously fine, it says the words directly in it.

I hope quality citations come into play soon. People - students even - may be looking here.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Frobozz1: technically speaking, reference [4] seems to be working ok, but that said, you seem convinced, based on additional issues, that the "Eligibility" section is broken, and given the importance and sense of urgency you have attached here, I'm wondering why you don't just fix it yourself? - wolf 04:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it is protected, I can not edit it.

I recommend it echo the article which it links to, which directly contradicts this opinion.

• Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding federal office, including that of president.

Thank you.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Frobozz1: It seems you are looking for an edit request. To do so, use the template {{edit extended-protected}}, and request an edit in the "change X to Y" format. - wolf 23:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Image of Jackson

I added an image of a Jackson $20 bill in the eligibility subsection with the caption "President Jackson, born on British territory to immigrant parents, depicted on sovereign currency". This was reverted with the summary "Washington was also born on British territory FWIW. Anyway, POINTY caption". For consensus, I can change the caption to "President Jackson, born to immigrant parents, depicted on sovereign currency". Both captions are strictly factual.

WP:POINTY is a guideline that discourages "enforc[ing] a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed". The revert is a misapplication of WP:POINTY.

The article for "natural-born citizen" discusses Jackson as the son of immigrants. His image is relevant to this subsection on eligibility. —Jade Ten (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Discusses" is a bit of an overstatement. It mentions Jackson exactly twice. Once in a list regarding a frivolous legal case, second here: "Every president to date was either a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or born in the United States; of the former group, all except one had two parents with citizenship in what would become the U.S. (Andrew Jackson)." "POINTY" as it seemed to me like trying to use Wikipedia to prove a point. I don't think that his image is relevant, as his eligibility was never questioned: he was a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)