Talk:Executive (government)

Law Top‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A summary of this article appears in Law.

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Is this still an educational assignment? (sorry very lazy)

citations needed?

it might be helpful to have some citations in this section and perhaps mention or link to some scholars work on executives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.151.252 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Clean up

This article needs to be cleaned up. There are numerous grammatical errors, a few of which I've changed, but I don't have time to do them all. This is a really important article and should be of the highest standard! Boliviainfoforum 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Relations section is poor

The first sentence of both paragraphs don't make sense. Additionally, labelling foreign relations as only "symbolically" important is crazy in the current world. Also, it's no surprise that a Foreign Relations budget is 0.7% of the total budget. Of course it is as they aren't a "spending" department like Education, Health Care, Military etc...Oplossing is duidelijk 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information

The local executive is usually supervised by [Here] As mentioned above ??? This sentence seems to be missing a piece marked with [Here]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.79.238 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The article was vandalized at 15:13, October 22, 2007 but only partially reverted resulting in a block of type being removed from the article. I have restored the section back to its prior version. Unfortunately this article has been vandalized and reverted numerous times since. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where are the items of the executive 41.242.66.236 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need answers now 41.242.66.236 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed premature reference to president

I removed the incongruous sentence "The president controls the armed forces and military." from the introductory paragraph because it presupposes a presidential system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmetCaulfield (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

…Thank You: very nice articleDavid George DeLancey (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Hierarchy of the US Government

Can someone more qualified than me make a list or flow chart or the Executive Branches hierarchy structure in the US? For example where do Governors fit into the mix in relation to the President? Mayor? Etc...

Perhaps make a flow chart of another government as a secondary example...

I guess I haven't looked yet, but maybe these are already pages in Wikipedia? Rmkreeg (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American perspective

The intro to this article heads straight to define the subject in national rather than global terms. I suggest the perspective be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.19.186 (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the US boilerplate from the page to help correct this problem but it still has considerable problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otonabee (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement the entire article suggests that a if the executive also makes laws this is despotic or undemocratic. This view is totally opposed to many democratic systems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.175.40 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor citations

The citations on this page are terrible and all except for one point to the same site, reference.com. They do not sufficiently verify the information on this page (some of which doesn't even need verification, or appears to be original research that I think can't be verified directly). I'm not going to look through the history, but my guess is that the page used to have a {{unreferenced}} template and somebody tried to help by looking at various sentences and throwing key terms into reference.com thinking "well, it's relevant" or "look at the giant entry this one has! That information can't not be here!"

But there's a problem with both of those ideas.

To "it's relevant": Just providing a relevant source doesn't prove anything. Example: Feta cheese is the official cheese of Nascar. Feta Cheese, www.dictionary.reference.com

To "this one has a big entry": Well, that's usually because IT'S MIRRORED CONTENT FROM WIKIPEDIA.

I have removed citations to reference.com that only contained mirrored content from Wikipedia (or in a few cases, no content at all), and I call into question the pertinence of the two I left.Exp HP (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collective Executive

The lack of a collective executive, similar to that found in Switzerland, hurts the article. I don't know how to word it or I would add it.

Article title/meaning: Executive branch?

I'm familiar with the term Executive branch, and wondering if the article, and perhaps the title, would benefit from a clearer distinction between the terms executive and executive branch. Shanata (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"administration"

Does "administration" refer to the executive? If so it should probably be mentioned in the lead. Rob984 (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-presidential systems

This article should explain which are the roles of head of state and head of government in a hybrid system like this. --B.Lameira (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn - Colonestarrice (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Executive (government) → Executive
Executive → Executive (disambiguation)

– I think there is not much explanation needed; the executive branch is by far more important and notable than any article listed on the "Executive" disambiguation page. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as a simple Wikipedia pageview will show you, that is not true. In addition, that article is in horrible condition, I had to try and read it severl times as it really is very badly written (and tagged as such). You'll also notice, it isn't the "Executive branch" which in fact is Federal government of the United States#Executive branch (which I'm assuming you meant going by your edit history). --Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, "executive branch" is a synonym for "executive" and this not just within the U.S. Federal government. "a simple Wikipedia pageview will show you, that is not true" - Could you clarify that please. But yes your right, the article is indeed terrible and this is the first step in making it better. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This pageviews analysis using entries from the dab page. Also I think the first step to make in making the article better, is actually making the article better... --Gonnym (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So nowadays Wikipedia article views determine a subject's importance? Colonestarrice (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose totally wrong In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, very comprehensive Colonestarrice (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Pageviews notwithstanding, I am not convinced that any of the subjects are, in the words of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" over the others (emphasis added). True, an executive branch of a government is notable, but an executive with senior managerial responsibility in a business or another organization also has comparable notability and educational value. IMO, the difference in enduring notability/educational value between the two subjects is not exponentially substantial enough to warrant a primary topic. An executive branch may have principal relevance/notability/educational value for a specific group of people, especially those into politics and government, but not necessarily to a general audience, who may interact as equally in the realms of business and organizations. For example, I bet you could find articles making the argument that the decisions made by an executive at Facebook or Google have as much influence on the world's population and behavior as that of the executive branch of the United States. The Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal comes to my mind, where the (non)actions of a business executive might have influenced who got elected as the current executive of the U.S. The OP would need overwhelming proof without a reasonable doubt to convince me otherwise. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely no primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Executive structure

Is the way executive plan 102.89.45.47 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government

Definition of government 102.89.23.49 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]