Jump to content

Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Presidents by party

If someone search for: how many Democratic or Republican Presidents? in wikipedia you find nothing! no information or statistics, or the user has to count it in table and that is irrational, 70% of list articles have this table like: Oscar winners, Sports individual awards and other. in other way, this is wikipedia and no one can accept or refuse any information, or say that is important or not (please read WP:OWN) , my section doesn't violate any previous discussions nor (any policy or guidelines), so I don't find any reason to remove it --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I like the addition of this information, but I wonder how the information ought to be presented. I invite other editors who watch this page to discuss the following options.
  • As-is: Vertical table its own section with three columns: Party, Presidents, Elections
  • Horiz: Horizontal table its own section with three rows: Party, Presidents, Elections
  • Table: Horizontal table in the header of the main table: Party, Presidents, Elections
  • Scrap: Delete the table as unnecessary
I have included the fourth choice just for completeness, it is my least favorite of the bunch. I invite others to weigh in by listing your choices in order, as I have done in the table below. YBG (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Editor's signature ~~~~
Table Horiz As-is Scrap YBG (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Further discussion

My apologies YBG, I saw Ibrahim.ID's edit & above statement, but not your opening of a discussion on the subject. What I've done, is to remove the newly added table from the bottom of the page, and to take the party of membership numbers and insert them into the table heading of the main list. This brings those numbers to the forefront, and also follows the formatting of numerous lists, including List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives, which is informative here as that table includes people who were members of different political parties during their times in office. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. You were just being bolder than I, and there is no problem with that. My suggestion was to format it as a 3-line, horizontal table rather than using parenthesized numbers. Your plan seems cleaner than mine, and since it follows the pattern in other articles, I see no reason why the protracted discussion should be necessary. I'm fine with this format in general. But I do think there's room for a couple of improvements: First, it would be nice if the line wrap could be avoided. And second, it would be nice if there were just a single footnote. I was going to make that change boldly, but I'm not sure where to put the footnote. Maybe on the Party column header? Or maybe not. YBG (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Header text wrapping is unavoidable with the numbers added (I inserted a forced-break to put the break mid-stream. Regarding the footnotes added with the numbers to the header, perhaps, given the presence of other party affiliation notes in the table, plus the clear party naming and coloring in it, those new notes (presently a, b & c) aren't needed at all. Drdpw (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added a paragraph to this article's introduction about the germination of partisan politics in the U.S. during the 1790s. I have also added a similarly worded subsection to the President of the United States article, and included in it a listing of which political party the 42 post-Washington presidents belong to at the time of their inauguration (here). It's just a start, and could use some further refinement from others. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump picture

Out of ALL the pictures of President Elect Trump, one with his head literally in the clouds with a smug look is chosen? I'm disgusted by this and it should be replaced with something more appropriate. DISGUSTING DISPLAY BY WHOM EVER POSTED THAT PICTURE, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.96.37 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

IP, I raised similar concerns at #Image for the president-elect. JFG recommends we wait until an official one is taken of him, then we change the picture.--Nevé–selbert 10:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
There are positive and negative opinions about this particular picture, and there is consensus to wait for an official portrait before replacing it. See the latest discussion of this perennial suggestion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 38#Trump Photo 2 Rfc. — JFG talk 17:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Although we should question why we have an entry for Trump on this page at all as he is not president yet, suggest it should be removed until he is President. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand the president-elect has been included in this list in previous years. However, because it was the subject of a fair deal of edit warring in the past, a number of editors worked towards a pre-election consensus on inclusion (yes), on presentation (in a separate section with the same column widths) and on formatting (with the result you see). It was a protracted, spirited discussion. To complicate the matter, two separate rows had to be agreed upon - one for Trump and one for Clinton. Those who worked on this process, despite their preferences for one candidate or the other, sought to create the best possible alternative for each candidate. Then, once the election was called, it was just a matter of copying the appropriate wikitext from the talk page to the article itself. As for Trump's picture, the editors involved chose to follow the lead of a Trump-specific article, pending post-inauguration publication of an official photo. This process worked, IMHO, reasonably well in avoiding post-election controversy. If memory serves, the only significant change to the pre-election consensus has been in where and how to present Trump's ground-breaking status as the first President elected without previous service in a government position, civilian or military, federal, state or local. Full disclosure: I was one of those who contributed to the pre-election discussion, and am very grateful to the other editors who participated in it. Wikipedia is better because of the time you spent on it; better than if that discussion had not taken place, and MUCH better than if my suggestions had been accepted without change (YUCK). YBG (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Concur with YBG, thanks for the collaborative spirit. — JFG talk 17:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation YBG although I still think that Trump should be hidden from view until the 21 January but if it is consensus to list people who are not actually presidents OK. MilborneOne (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment next to Truman

What does "(First elected office)" next to Truman mean? -KaJunl (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no such note next to Truman. Drdpw (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The note is used to indicate people that had never held an elected office before becoming president. If it was by Truman it was a mistake, since he had been a US Senator. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Start of terms for Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, and Coolidge

My correction of the beginning dates of John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge was reverted with the rationale that these were the "wrong dates." Kindly, it is the dates on the table that are wrong. In all of these instances there was a delay between when the previous president died and the vice-president took the oath of office. Tyler took the oath on April 6, 1841: Inauguration of John Tyler. Fillmore took the oath on July 10, 1850: Inauguration of Millard Fillmore. Arthur took the oath on September 20, 1881: Inauguration of Chester A. Arthur. Coolidge took the oath on August 3, 1923: First inauguration of Calvin Coolidge. The American presidency does not work on the basis of The king is dead, long live the king! When the president dies or resigns the vice-president does not become president until the inauguration. Therefore I will revert the list back to the correct dates. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the longstanding dates to the table following your restoration of the earlier reverted edit. Changing these dates.needs discussion and consensus beforehand. Drdpw (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Are there any sources at all that state the VP becomes POTUS immediately on the predecessor's death or resignation and that the oath of office is just a formality? As far as I know, there is not. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The Constitution, Amend. 25, §1. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
And before the 25th, there was Article II, §1, Clause 6. YBG (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This page, on the U.S. Senate website —"Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate)"—uses the date of inauguration for when a VP "succeeded to presidency". These citations from The UVa's Miller Center website appear to state the same: Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, Coolidge. Drdpw (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Per the 25th Amendment, I believe the official dates (pre-inauguration) should be included, with a note that they were inaugurated on a different date than they assumed office. MB298 (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The 25th Amendment says "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." Notice the SHALL BECOME. It does not say the the VP immediately becomes president, and, even if it did, it would be irrelevant because the extraordinary inaugurations in question took place before the ratification of the 25th. Clause 6 of Article 2 states, "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President". One again it says SHALL DEVOLVE, it does not say anything about the VP immediately becoming president. It is also clear from above that US government websites consider that date of inauguration as when the vice-president succeeds to the presidency. Thusly, the only course of action I would support is to remove the pre-inauguration dates and list ONLY the dates of inauguration for Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, and Coolidge. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Consider Chitwood, Oliver P., John Tyler: Champion of the Old South, American Political Biography Press, 1939, pages 202-206: Tyler, first to succeed due to death, believed the taking of the oath to be unnecessary, seeing as sufficient the oath he took as Vice President (the one for members of Congress, binding the taker to support of the Constitution). He agreed to the second oath only to answer any potential doubts. However, Article II does give a unique oath for the president, so he was wise to recite it. It seems clear to me that until that oath is taken, a person is not the president. The dates listed, which correspond to the deaths of the previous president, could remain the same with a footnote indicating them as the date of assumption of presidential duties prior to inauguration, with its date given in the same footnote. Or, the dates could revert again to the actual day of the oath and again be clarified with a footnote. Consider also that William Henry Harrison’s Cabinet referred to Tyler as “Vice President” until he was sworn in, yet immediately following Harrison’s death, a Cabinet clerk went to Tyler’s home to inform him, thereby appearing to indicate the duties of the office were already his to perform.[Same reference] RM2KX (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The oath of office wasn't/isn't required to make one U.S. President. Otherwise, we'd be claiming that the presidency is 'vacant' every 4 yrs for about 2-3 minutes, since the oath isn't taken exactly at Noon EST. What about US Presidents whose first or second terms began on Sundays? Do we change those dates? I think not. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Article II, Section 1, read " Before he enter on the Execution of his Office," not "before he assumes the title of" it. Now we have to ask, specifically, what act or time is it that makes one a president in the case of removal or incapacity? [Amendment 20 specifies the end of a term and the beginning of the next one under normal circumstances, but nothing defines the latter in extraordinary circumstances. Amendment 25 only details who will succeed, not precisely when.] Until we can answer that question, and clarify the aforementioned words "shall become", we have to make certain assumptions for this chart, which I think the original dates do satisfactorily. If we are to take "shall become" to mean simply, "is" then those dates are correct. RM2KX (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
When Inauguration Day is moved forward one day so it does not fall on Sunday a private swearing-in ceremony is held on the Sunday so those dates do not change, but if an inauguration was postponed for whatever reason the term should be listed as beginning at the inauguration. As far as I know, inaugurations have been delayed or postponed three times; John Adams on April 21, 1789, George Washington on April 30, 1789, and William King on March 24, 1853. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A notice has been posted at Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States inviting contributors/watchers to/of that page to participate in this discussion, as the consensus reached here would, out of necessity (for consistency), impact the dates used in that article's table. Hopefully our eventual consensus will be broad based. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The way the U.S. government and all historical sources list it is the way we list it: the VP becomes President immediately. Unless there is a reliable source to the contrary, there's not even grounds for discussion here. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The website of the American Senate lists the Vice Presidents succeeding to the presidency only at the inauguration, not immediately. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Millionsandbillions: You should take this issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents. You'll get better feedback there.--Nevé–selbert 22:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me be more clear: is there any reliable source that gives a start date for any of the presidents you mention that is different from the one we have in this article? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The website of the United States Embassy in Bulgaria uses the date of inauguration for the start dates of Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, and Coolidge. The Encyclopædia Britannica also gives the start date of those four presidents as their inaugurations: Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, Coolidge, scroll down to the "Cabinet of..." sections. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You're suggesting we change the dates here & also at the US Presidents & Vice Presidents bio article infoboxes. I don't think that'll be happening anytime soon. Would look rather strange having James Monroe shown as the fifth President: March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1821; March 5, 1821 – March 4, 1825, for example. According to you, the US presidency has been vacant on many occasions. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the presidents who have inaugurations postponed because of a Sunday have been sworn in privately on the Sunday, the only exceptions being Monroe and Taylor. It may look "rather strange" but, for the sake of accuracy, that is how it should read. It would only effect the infoboxes of a select few presidents and it is certainly not too difficult to correct the problem. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. James Monroe did not ceased to be US President for 24 hrs, from March 4 to March 5, 1821. The oath of office doesn't make the person US President. Otherwise, we all could take the oath & thus all simultaneously be US President. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A citizen can't just read the oath and become president. An American citizen has to win a presidential election or otherwise be in the presidential line of succession for the oath to have legitimacy. It is also tradition (although not required) that a federal judge administer the oath. So the view that the oath does not make someone the president because otherwise "we could all simultaneously be president" is patently absurd and a red herring in regards to this discussion. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Millionsandbillions, a person (president-elect or Vice President, depending on the circumstances) becomes president the moment their predecessor's term ends (le roi est mort, vice le roi), not when they recite the presidential oath. However, each new president must recite the oath before they 'execute the office' or do anything official as president. That's why it's taken in private on day one of the term when Inauguration Day is delayed untill day two. Drdpw (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There are at least two (1, 2) U.S official government websites that say otherwise. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Do either of those sites suggest there is an interregnum if the new President doesn't take the oath instantly at noon? And, as I asked before, are there any reliable sources that give different dates than the ones in this article? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the website of the United States Embassy in Bulgaria gives different dates than the dates used in this article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's another one for ya. Before the new US President takes the oath, the new US Vice President takes an oath, a few minutes earlier. Are we to suggest that for those few minutes, the outing President & incoming Vice President are serving together? I think not. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The previous administrations term ends at 12:00 pm (noon) on Inauguration Day so no the new Vice-President and old President do not serve together as both positions are vacant. All that happens is that there is a Vice-President for a few minutes (seconds?) before there is a President. This goes all the way back to the beginning of the USA when Adams was sworn in as VP nine days before Washington was sworn in as POTUS. Once again, I don't see how this is relevant to the current discussion. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, just like we did for William R. King at the List of Vice Presidents of the United States, I've added little notes next to the assumption of office dates for US Presidents Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Hayes, Arthur & Coolidge. This includes the secondary dates for when the initial swearing in (see Arthur & Coolidge) was considered Constitutionally questionable. If yas like, we can even do the same for Obama, who re-took the oath on January 21, 2009 after he & Chief Justice Roberts flubbed the words. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reformatted the notes added by GoodDay beside the start dates for Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur and Coolidge so as to march the other efn-notes in the table. I also removed the notes GoodDay added to Taylor and Hayes, as there is no question or dispute that each one's term as POTUS began on the appointed day, March 4. The acsession circumstances are different: one set is planned and regular, while the other is unplanned and irregular; one has a definitive end/start date, the other does not. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Months ago, we had these notes here & in the infoboxes of the US Presidents-in-question. But somewhere's along the line, the notes were deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It still does not solve the problem because the wrong dates still are the dates that are given attention first and foremost. The dates of inauguration (the correct dates) can only be seen if a reader looks at the notes. The only way to solve the problem is to remove the current dates from this list and the list of VPs and the articles of the Presidents in question and use the dates that they were inaugurated instead. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should bring this issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics for a broader conversation. Drdpw (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Linking to presidencies and inaugurations

Upon further thought, I think we should return the links to each presidency article (not redirect) to the list table, mainly because it is extremely likely that a large contingent of our readers will only make it three quarters into the article and move elsewhere without seeing the {{US Presidential Administrations}} template, at the page footer. This means we link President Obama's presidency as "44" but leave say Fillmore's presidency unlinked (since the link to his presidency is a link to a section of his article, and not a separate one). Also, I think it would be a neat idea to link the start and end dates on the table to each president's inauguration, i.e. linking January 20, 2009 as "January 20, 2009". Any thoughts?--Nevé–selbert 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that you've mentioned the Presidency article series. Might I recommend changing those article titles to Administration articles. Example: Move Presidency of Barack Obama to Obama Administration. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The terms aren't synonymous:
An article titled Obama Administration would be equivalent to these articles: May Ministry & 29th Canadian Ministry
The Presidency of Barack Obama article is equivalent to these: Premiership of Theresa May & Premiership of Justin Trudeau
Perhaps someone could create an Obama Administration (Obama cabinet and personnel) article; that, in IMO, would be preferable to the title change you're recommending. Drdpw (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Image

I want to suggest a change to the image used for Andrew Jackson. It is very unflattering as it is from very near his death. I believe it is the only actual photograph (daguerreotype) of him, but a painting would suffice. I think all the other presidents are appropriately represented, but not Mr. Jackson. I would suggest instead the first image appearing on Jackson's personal Wikipedia page. RM2KX (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, repeating answer A7 above, "It is recommended that the same picture from the president's individual article infobox be used on this list..." In this case, it is not being used, and that picture appears to be public domain. RM2KX (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

E.g. links like http://www.history.com/presidents/chester-a-arthur .--fireattack (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, fireattack.  Fixed.--Nevé–selbert 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

John Tyler

A similar discussion is taking place at List of Vice Presidents of the United States (on the talk page here YBG (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)). Should we change the guideline of this article & mention that Tyler latter served as a member of the Confederate Provisional Congress? GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Only if you are listing Jefferson Davis as a Confederate president, I would think. Aren't confederacy offices an entirely different subject? RM2KX (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Davis was never US President, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. I overlooked the point of your question, "should we change the guideline of this article," since it now includes a list of only "U.S. federal offices" held after the presidency. I don't believe the guideline should change, I think Confederate offices are a different subject. RM2KX (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done · Earlier today I inserted a note in the post-presidency section about Tyler's service to the CSA. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I did a few tweaks. PS - Hopefully somebody more ambitious then I, will create the articles Confederate House of Representatives & Confederate Senate. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Tweaks look fine GoodDay. Another option would be to expand these existing articles: Congress of the Confederate States, First Confederate Congress, and Second Confederate Congress. Drdpw (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone make the appropriate edits

Trump will be sworn-in in like 9 minutes. Would appreciate if an editor would remove the pres-elect box and put Trump in. CatcherStorm talk 16:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They'll be made at Noon EST, which is 17:00 Wikipedia time. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And when Noon EST comes, someone will make the edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Former presidents

When was there the largest number of living former presidents ? Hektor (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hektor: 1861–62 (Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan); 1993–94 (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr); 2001–04 (Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton). MB298 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So we will be back to that figure soon. Hektor (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Another 8 days. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Provided none of them dies (and hopefully no one will). Drdpw (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Bush 41 is quite feeble. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
A reminder that one can always consult Living Presidents of the United States for current information. Hoof Hearted (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean? "The most recently serving president to die was Ronald Reagan (served 1981 to 1989) on June 5, 2004 (aged 93 years, 120 days)." Ronald Reagan did not die while serving? Should this be fixed?Thingmaker (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thingmaker, grammar is correct, though it does sound kind of awkward. It simply means - A) a person who served before him died more recently, and B) all 39 dead presidents served before him (conversely, no one who has served more recently then him has died). Hope that helps. I think all the gubernatorial "list of" articles phrase it this way as well. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Just means, all his successors are still living. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama photo

Why was Obama's photo reverted to his first term portrait? Asking because Bush's portrait is his second term portrait. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Obama's second term portrait should be used and it should not be cropped. The uncropped version of Trump's portrait (File:Donald_Trump_President-elect_portrait.jpg) should also be used. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That Trump photo (colorized from the black-and-white inaugural invitation) is under discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump President-elect portrait.jpg, and a different direct color version at File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg doesn't have the usual author and White House disclaimer in the EXIF. You might want to hold off until the provenance of this photo is established. --Closeapple (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that the photograph is not in the public domain. Does that mean though that the cropped version being used in this article, being a derivative, is also not in the public domain and should be removed? Should the free images that was in use until just days before the inauguration be reinstated? -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, I think people are misusing the term "official portrait": I believe there's usually only one work that is the "official portrait" for each president, and it's usually during the end of their terms, not the beginning. The portrait being used by the White House website, or press material from time to time, is an official portrait in that it's a portrait that comes from an official source, but we shouldn't be led into a discussion about how we need "the official portrait" in the list: That work won't exist for a couple years at least. What you're seeing from the White House is lots of official, portrait photos, one of which the White House may be using in several places because it thinks that photo is the best current portrait at the time; and sometimes different portrait photos are used in different official works during the same time period. --Closeapple (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(First elected office)

In my personal opinion, this should not be in the column of "Presidency," as "Prior Position" seems to be the appropriate column. Washingtonediter (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and actually I'm not sure it is relevant at all. The listing of Donald Trump's prior position as chairman of a company would imply he held no elective office before that, if Note [b] referred only to such positions. The phrase "unless otherwise noted" in Note [b] creates the relevance of the addition "(First elected office)" to that column, but again only if [b] refers only to elective office. RM2KX (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
In agreement & FWIW, Trump was not the first US President to have not held a prior elected office. See Washington, Taylor, Grant, Arthur, Taft, Hoover & Eisenhower. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The "Prior Position" only shows the immediate prior position. So a 'first slected office' designator does provide additional information, namely that the subject held [b]no[/b] elected office earlier either. Sejtam (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Expand the 'Prior position' column inclusion criteria, to include all previous offices. I still oppose having such info added to the 'Presidency' column. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that expanding the column to include all previous offices would make the list too large as some presidents have had a lot of positions prior to becoming president. What is your opinion on having the info added to the prior position column instead as in this old revision? Would that be acceptable? -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Having the info added to the prior position column, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done. The info is now in the prior position column. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing/deleted list

I seem to recall there being a list of each US president's namesake or general name patterns (e.g. most common names, longest name, most repeated letter, various patterns like that) but can't seem to find it. Was this page deleted for some reason? 134340Goat (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

134340Goat, Yes, it was deleted. Here's a link to the Afd dicussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States by name. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Drdpw Thanks for letting me know. Out of curiosity, is there an archive page of its last edit prior to deletion? 134340Goat (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
No archive page; see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Access to deleted pages. Drdpw (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm, shame. Thanks for letting me know, then. 134340Goat (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Request:

Someone should place the place/state of birth, to obtain a clear idea onto whom is an English desdendant, whom of germanic origin, whom a france descendent and whom a spanish descendent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.240.2 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly how does state of birth relate to ancestry? MB298 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
See List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth for place/state of birth. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Post-inauguration tweaks

First off, congratulations on your new president. I wish America well on its future ahead. Now, I made a few tweaks you may be interested in:

The peaceful transfer of power has now been completed, and that in and of itself is admirable in such an unstable world. God bless America.--Nevé–selbert 17:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevé, I've changed the column heading back to election, the word "mandate" is not used in American political discourse, "election" is. Drdpw (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, how about "ratified"? Trump was indeed ratified as U.S. president in 2016 and his inauguration sealed that ratification completely. "Election" is just too narrow a term since it only applies to the general election, excluding his formal confirmation as president in the Electoral College then inauguration thereafter.--Nevé–selbert 01:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Election works just fine, it applies to both the general election (currently in November) and to the meeting of the electoral college (currently in December). It does not, however, apply to the inauguration - but that year (e.g., 2017) is not included in the column. In US politics, "ratified" is used for constitutional amendments but never for the selection of office holders. I will shortly restore your bold change. YBG (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. @YBG: Is the word "mandate" really unused in day-to-day American political discourse? I find this pretty hard to believe.--Nevé–selbert 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a bit black & white before, let me clarify, it's not used as a synonym for election. The term is used when discussing the authority to govern, "the mandate of the people", but not for the election of the office holder. Drdpw (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Mandate here is used to refer to a decisive election that validates the winner's policy plans. It is not used of a close election, except when the winner is trying to minimize the closeness of the election.
I think it would be best to remove the inauguration links from this column. What about using them to wikilink the dates in the Presidency column? That would take care of the 1st inaugurations. If you really want the 2nd ones (and FDR's 3rd and 4th), that column could be change to something like "April 30, 1789 // - // March 4, 1793 // and // March 4, 1793 // - // March 4, 1897" and the like. It would be best to leave the "to" dates unwikilinked, except for links to the resignation and deaths sitting presidents and vice presidents. YBG (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that rather ambitious proposal needs further thought. Have been WP:BOLD and changed "Election" to "Elected", as a quick compromise.--Nevé–selbert 23:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you YBG about removing the inauguration links from the "Election" ("Elected") column, as the numbers and the linked to years apply to the elections only, and not to the ensuing inaugurations. I also don't like hidden links in general. I've toyed around placing the inaugural date links in a few different places, and after doing so, think your suggested location,connecting a link to the inauguration (first inauguration) to the start date in the presidency date column, to be the best of several possibilities. I've gone ahead and made the change, and like the link clarity. Having the links where you put them Nevé could work, if the number & year sequence were reversed (plus removing the "()" from around the years) and if the column header were changed to an abbreviation, such as "E & I" with an explanation stating that it means election and inauguration. This idea came to mind as I was implementing the other, so I stuck with that one, though either may work. Drdpw (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, and I have restored the previous revision of the article. The 58th presidential election gave way for the 58th presidential inauguration, so it makes absolute sense to link "58" to the inauguration since the inauguration was the 58th one America has orchestrated. Date linking is discouraged per WP:DATELINK, and the only dates that should be linked are those that were not precipitated by an election but rather a death or a resignation. This needs further community input.--Nevé–selbert 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to take a second look at that section Nevé, as I believe you're misreading it. That section discourages linking dates, as in "Barack Obama ceased being President of the United States at noon on January 20, 2017." It says nothing (discouraging or otherwise) about connecting month-day-and-year-dates in articles to pertinent articles connected with that date and which enhances the reader's understanding of the the subject. Also, I would ask you to consider reverting the bold edits that you've made to this article over the past few days, as they certainly did not have consensus. There should have been more community input before you put the inaugural links behind the election numbers and changed the name of the Election column. You're making more than tweaks here. Drdpw (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: The 58th election was not followed by the 58th inauguration, but by the 67th by my count. The 1st through 14th elections were followed by the 1st through 14th inaugurations, but the 15th election was followed by the 16th inauguration because the 15th, the inauguration of John Tyler followed the death of William Henry Harrison. Nine presidents have been inaugurated without an election, after four assassinations ((Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley & Kennedy), four natural deaths (Harrison, Taylor, Harding, FDR), and one resignation (Nixon). For these and other reasons, I encourage you to self-revert this change. YBG (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Those inaugurations you mention were unofficial and are exempt from the official count. The inauguration of Donald Trump was officially billed as the "58th Presidential Inauguration". Hence, the current revision of the article is both correct and harmless.--Nevé–selbert 09:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed "Elected" back to the usual noun "Election" as the former just seemed odd upon further reflection. Would have preferred "Mandate", but I guess that term is far too politicized in American political discourse . Oh, well.--Nevé–selbert 02:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. As far as "mandate" goes, perhaps it is "politicized", but I'd prefer to simply say that the word has slightly different nuances in our two nations divided by a common language. Mandate (politics) seems to cover both senses. Also, I note that in the link you provide, it appears that the ordinal number is never used with the unmodified noun "inauguration" but only with the phrases "inaugural committee", "inaugural ceremony", and "quadrennial presidential inauguration". So modified, the ordinals make sense. But without those qualifying phrases, the ordinals would be inaccurate. YBG (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Googled 58th inauguration, and the results were dominated by Donald Trump. The same goes for President Obama with 57th inauguration and 56th inauguration and so on and so forth with most of the others in recent history.--Nevé–selbert 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed those article links from the assumption of office dates for the accidental presidents. Don't see any need for them, as they're already in other parts of the article. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I have modified the Election column heading in order to reflect your addition of inauguration links, changing it to Election and Inauguration, but used the abbreviation "E & I" in order to conserve horizontal space & avoid wrapping. I have also brought the inauguration links out from hiding behind the numbers, which were originally there to denote the number of presidential elections, but which now also denote the number of regularly scheduled inaugurations (ie. those marking the start of a 4-year presidential term). Drdpw (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Recommend also adding the inauguration links to Tyler 1841, Fillmore 1850, A. Johnson 1865, Arthur 1881, T. Roosevelt 1901, Coolidge 1923, Truman 1945, L. Johnson 1963 & Ford 1974 in those same places. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Drdpw I think the election years should be put back in the Election and Inauguration column. I suggest either 1788–89 Election or Election (1788–89). I think it's helpful to have the election years in the Election and Inauguration column so you can easily tell what years the elections were without having to hover over the link. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I made a few tweaks, restoring the years. Changed column title to simply "Term" while adding an extra footnote.--Nevé–selbert 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good; the note beside the column heading explains the year links quite well. Drdpw (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks .--Nevé–selbert 15:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nixon's resignation

I've changed the link back & reverted the redirect of the linked article. What's important is the resignation itself, which occurred just before Noon EST on August 9, 1974. Not the resignation address, with occurred on the evening of August 8, 1974. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Same difference, really. Resigned does not automatically mean leave office. David Cameron resigned on 24 June 2016 and did not leave office for two weeks.--Nevé–selbert 16:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It's important that we concentrate on the resignation itself. Ford became US President on August 9, 1974 upon Nixon's resignation. Not on August 8, 1974 upon Nixon's address. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
That's being a tad pedantic. The (Resigned from office) is situated beneath the date in President Nixon's column not Ford's.--Nevé–selbert 16:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The actual resignation marks the end of the Nixon presidency, just like the deaths of W. Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, F. Roosevelt & Kennedy ended their presidencies. On the assumption that we aren't going to agree on this, it's likely best we sit back & allow others to chime in. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Link should be to the resignation rather then to the speech announcing it. The important event is RN's resignation - which occurred on 8/9/74, the date he signed + dated his letter of resignation & conveyed it to SoS Kissinger, and most importantly, the date it became effective - not his speech the night before announcing his intention to resign. Drdpw (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The wikilink should not be the speech. When users click on that wikilink they are expecting to find info about the resignation itself, not the speech announcing it. Even though the redirect goes to the page on the Watergate scandal it links to the specific section called "Final investigations and resignation" which is a more relevant target than the speech. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If a doctor declared that a a sitting President had terminal cancer and had 7 days to live and then died 6 days later, his term would end upon his death, not upon the doctor's prognosis. In the same way, Nixon's term did not end with his speech but when he left office a day later. YBG (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't that logic technically apply to the assassinations of James A. Garfield and William McKinley, with regard to prognosis? Unlike Lincoln and Kennedy, Presidents Garfield and McKinley didn't die the same day. I guess the perfect compromise would be to link Resignation of Richard Nixon to the relevant subsection at Watergate scandal, and add a footnote to this list mentioning that Nixon announced he would resign a day earlier, so as not to confuse readers that he resigned abruptly. And, with respect to presidents Garfield and McKinley, we also add a footnote noting that their assassinations took time to fully take effect.--Nevé–selbert 16:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
A footnote should also be added to Lincoln then too as he was shot on April 14 but didn't die until a day later. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, within 24 hrs but all the same, so I guess that makes it only JFK who died on the same day of his assassination, very interesting.--Nevé–selbert 17:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done: Added footnotes pertaining to all assassinated presidents apart from JFK, plus Richard Nixon with his resignation.--Nevé–selbert 18:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have undone the notes you added, as they are unnecessary. There's no need for those pedantic notes.Drdpw (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Er, yes there is a need. A reader should not be misled to believe a president died or resigned on a different date.--Nevé–selbert 19:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There was no misinformation needing correction. Drdpw (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Drdpw, that those assassination notes aren't necessary. Until Lincoln, Garfield & McKinley died, the acts committed by Booth, Guiteau & Czologz were assassination attempts. The deeds didn't become assassinations until the victims died. At the very least, if the notes are kept, the word assassinated should be replaced with the word shot. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Especially w/Garfield, his shooting could/should be classified as an assassination attempt, as his subsequent death was due more to medical malpractice then it was to the GSW. Drdpw (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've tweaked the notes, to clarify this. However, I wouldn't object if the notes are entirely deleted. Seeing as the respective linked assassination articles, already have the information-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but Neve-selbert, citing WP:DONTREVERT, countermanded me when I removed them earlier. Drdpw (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The article being under a 1RR restriction, also limits reverts per individual. IMHO, your revert should've remained however, per WP:BRD. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these footnotes are totally unnecessary and serve only to clutter the {{efn}} section. The president's term continues until death occurs or a resignation takes effect. It might be a different story if a dying president lingered for months and an acting president actually took significant actions, but thankfully that has not occurred. How do we go about achieving a consensus on this issue? YBG (talk)
Alright, I understand the above concerns. However I remain of the opinion that the information is still useful. Hence, my adjustment of the small text in italics.--Nevé–selbert 15:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the link to the events surrounding Nixon's resignation. This linkage is more informative, accurate and clear then linkage to the resignation speech. Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Assassinations

I have restored the showing of the links as Assassinated for Lincoln, Garfield & McKinley, since the previous notes had been removed. Again, the individuals weren't considered assassinated, until their deaths. Let's not confuse our readers, folks. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why the links now indicate the date on which they were shot, since they had not been assassinated on the same day unlike JFK.--Nevé–selbert 18:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarified, as they were assassination attempts until the victims died. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
GoodDay, I have changed the text back to how they had been a number of months ago, back to (Died in office). Best compromise, I reckon.--Nevé–selbert 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

Trump's dates for "prior office" as chairman of Trump Organization should say until present. A date range from 1971 - 2007 suggests that he gave up the position in 2007 82.131.111.226 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: He is no longer the chairman and president of The Trump Organization. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove "Living former presidents" section

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.

as well as the "Subsequent public service". This article is a list of presidents, and that should be just it. The living former presidents can be mentioned in form of text in the lead section. Holy Goo (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave that decision to others. But, whatever is decided here, should also apply to the List of Vice Presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the living former presidents, IMO, the table is a bit redundant and unnecessary. Simply listing the names in the section's paragraph of prose ("Currently there are five living former presidents: ...") would suffice, as detail about those individuals is in the table just above. Regarding the tables detailing subsequent service, those IMO provide unique, germane, and useful information. Additionally, those tables were added to the page as the result of a merge, and 7 titles redirect to that section. Drdpw (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Get rid of the "Living former presidents" section completely. It's not at all relevant to this list and fails WP:OFFTOPIC. An internal link to Living Presidents of the United States would suffice and does not need to be included anywhere in the body of this article as it is already included in Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. It is my opinion that the "Subsequent public service" is also not needed on this page but, seeing as it being here is the result of a merge, unfortunately can not be removed without losing the information entirely. So, I reluctantly think that the "Subsequent public service" should be kept here or, failing that, have the List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency article recreated. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the "living presidents" section should go, however I would suggest adding a touch of color to the main table for living presidents, and perhaps another one for the incumbent. That should be a very pale background. — JFG talk 19:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I totally disagree with adding color to the living presidents on the table. The birth year and death year is already included in the table for every president under the President column. A reader can easily see that every president from Carter to Trump (with the exception of Reagan) is still alive from the information already included in the article. To add color to the living presidents would thus be completely redundant. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

So far we seem to have a consensus that the list of living presidents should go. I will remove it and add the Living Presidents of the United States article as a link under "See also". If anyone wishes to mention the living former presidents as text in the lead, feel free to do it. Now we need to agree on what we should do with the "Subsequent public service" section. Holy Goo (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC) What about an article called Subsequent public service of former U.S. Presidents? Holy Goo (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles with similar titles to the one you've stated have been merged with and redirect to this article. Unsure that they merit being split off as stand alone lists. Drdpw (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to remove that info, then do the same at the List of Vic Presidents article. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I don't think I can, or should, remove content from another article based on a consensus here. Feel free to remove it yourself then, it's none of my business. Holy Goo (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You can mirror this discussion to that article, if you want. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel inclined to agree that such a section is unnecessary. We should link to Living Presidents of the United States in the WP:SEEALSO section, and leave it at that.--Nevé–selbert 21:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drdpw: Most editors here believe such a section or subsection is unnecessary. As Holy Goo has suggested above, if you feel such information is indeed really necessary, feel free to add it to the lead section.--Nevé–selbert 21:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Neve-Selbert, please do not revert constructive edits of others who are engaging in this discussion. Drdpw (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Er, forgive me, but how many constructive edits have you reverted during a discussion?--Nevé–selbert 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

So that I don't get wore out, trying to align the List of Veeps article content, with this article's content. Let's hold off on the edit warring of this topic :) GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

JFG Don't you think it should be placed in the lead section? It makes much more sense to me. Holy Goo (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This might well make sense indeed. What do our fellow editors think? (Note my recent copyedit of the prose.) — JFG talk 22:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
First, please remember that consensus is not built by the number of yays v. nays in a discussion. Second, The subsection you're objecting to is only an attempted compromise after the editor who opened this discussion unilaterally declared the discussion over with a consensus to delete the section in its entirety. The discussion was not done. Drdpw (talk)
You seriously need to stop acting like a policeman on this article. Read WP:OWN.--Nevé–selbert 22:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Neve-selbert Your accusations of "erratic despotism" and "acting as a policeman" towards Drdpw are out of line. Please strike them and let's return to WP:CIVIL discussion. — JFG talk 22:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, @JFG: I withdraw the first remark but I see no good reason to withdraw the latter.--Nevé–selbert 23:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
JFG I think the accusations are fair, considering that the user in question is literally edit warring and refusing to accept consensus. Holy Goo (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Accusations of edit-warring or not hearing (substantiated or not) must still be levied politely. Decorum and courtesy matter a lot in this project. — JFG talk 22:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither erratic despot nor policeman, just a fool trying to find middle ground but getting slapped down for trying. I believe that the prose paragraph in the old living presidents section should not be discarded, and that Holy goo jumped the gun in declaring consensus and implementing his proposal to delete. As I am apparently the only one not wanting to delete the whole section, prose & table (which I agree should go) I'll refrain from further comments & input on this, w/apologies for letting this get stuck in my craw. Drdpw (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

@Drdpw: We agreed that the section should go, not just the table. You'd still be free to mention the living presidents as a prose, but you'd have to put it in the lead, and not in its own section. Holy Goo (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, while there was consensus to delete the table, there wasn't consensus about the prose paragraph; consensus on that is only now emerging. It's sad that it took a great deal of heated back-and-forth for it to emerge. Drdpw (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drdpw: No, let me repeat: The consensus was that the section should be deleted. You then re-created the section. Holy Goo (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drdpw: You are not the only one not wanting to delete the whole section, I for one agree to keep the information in prose form. I have edited your version and I am neutral over where it should be placed (stay here or move to lead). — JFG talk 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Recommend that the article (I'll do the same at the Veep related article) be restored to status-quo version & then allow all parties to work out the details of proposed changes. I'd say 24hrs, should be enough time. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

GoodDay, you should NOT have restored the List of living Presidents section with the table, as it was already decided that they should be removed. The debate was about where the prose should be, and the user Drdpw accepted that it could be in the lead, since he edited the prose there right before you reverted everything. Everything is ok now. Holy Goo (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Don't forget changes at Veep related article. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have condensed the detail in the lead section, here. Living presidents are already noted in the table, i.e. "Born 1946" etc.--Nevé–selbert 13:13, 11 February 2017 (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.

Now that the section has been deleted (assuming it will be deleted at the Veep related article, as well), will we be deleting the former governors & former lieutenant governors sections from the List of Governors & Lieutenant Governors articles? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Subsequent public service"

Now, let's decide what we should do with this section. I propose the creation of its own article, which would be named: Subsequent public service of former U.S. Presidents. Cheers Holy Goo (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Only if a Subsequent public service of former U.S. Vice Presidents article, is also created. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Whatever. Why the obsession with the Vice Presidents? Holy Goo (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The two articles should be the same in structure, as the individual who holds the vice presidency can succeed to the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll make the changes in the vice presidents articles after we finish discussing. Holy Goo (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Seven titles redirect to this section as the result of moves & mergers over the years. That's easy enough to change, but why reverse this movement toward consolidation? Difficult for me to see a good reason why such a small list should be split off as stand alone list. The information is germane to the other info included on the page (namely pre-presidency positions), and is more prominent here then it would be on a separate page. Drdpw (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The list should be removed simply because it is totally off topic. Their subsequent service is not at all related to the topic. As a stand alone list, it can be expanded, if that's the case. I don't think size matters much. Holy Goo (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep - I don't see any pressing need to split off this rather short piece of information, especially considering its history of being merged here. We have more than enough lists of United States presidents slicing and dicing presidential trivia already. Now, to Holy Goo's argument that this information is totally off-topic: then why include the presidents' prior position in the list at all? If readers are interested in what those people have done before the presidency, they are also legitimately interested to see what they have done afterwards. Because that would be unwieldy in the main table, I support the addition in this small appendix table. Note that I demoted the section to level 3 to give it less weight than the main list. — JFG talk 06:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Neve-selbert reverted it to level 2, so we must discuss that change too. I just gave my rationale for demoting it to level 3. What are the arguments to keep it at level 2? — JFG talk 06:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks neater keeping it at Level 2, with respect to the TOC and the separation of topics on the article.--Nevé–selbert 12:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If the "Subsequent public service" section is retained here it should remain at Level 2. Moving it back to Level 3 would require the restoration of the "Living former presidents" section. Discussing whether the "Subsequent public service" section should be at Level 2 or Level 3 just seems to be a roundabout way of debating whether a shorter "Living former presidents" section without the table should be included in the article as in this revision. The current living presidents should not be listed in this article at all; whether in a section that contains a table, a section that only contains a short amount of prose, being mentioned in the lede, or having an internal link in the "See also" section. An internal link to Living Presidents of the United States already exists at Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents, which is included in this article; that is good enough. What reason would necessitate keeping a short "Living former presidents" section in this article that violates WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:REDUNDANT? Remember JFG, per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The burden does not rest on those who want that section removed, it is on those who want to keep it, even in a truncated form. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe you're misapplying "ONUS" which speaks to adding new material to an article NOT to material already in an article that some wish to remove. The burden, when it comes to removing verifiable information from an article, is on those who wish its removal. Drdpw (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove - Per WP:OFFTOPIC there is no reason to keep a bunch of unrelated info on this article. Restore the List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency article and leave a link in Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. The rationale that we "have more than enough lists of US presidents" is moot because this is not a WP:PAPER encyclopedia. Info about the vice presidents could go in a subsection of List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency or have their own article called List of former United States vice presidents who ran for office after leaving the vice presidency -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The section is not OFFTOPIC, nor is it "a bunch of unrelated info". The very presence of a "Prior office" column in the table attests to its being on-topic and related. As that column has been deemed to be providing relevant and interesting information, then too must this one. Conversely, I suppose, if the Subsequent Public Service section is truly off-topic and unrelated to the list of presidents, then so is the Prior office column (a point I note Millionsandbillions, that you made near the end of this discussion awhile back). If this page presents readers with information about the pre-presidency public service presidents, why shouldn't it present post-presidency information as well? Drdpw (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drdpw and JFG: The thing is that the existence of a prior office column doesn't contain fundamental information. The list would not be any less complete without it. Look, the entire article should have only one list, which is the list of Presidents of the United States. That's just it. It cannot have zero lists and it cannot have 2 or more lists, like now. Holy Goo (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point and position Holy Goo. However, I am reluctant to have the post presidency material be moved away from this page, as it provides relevant and interesting information. Now, if the Prior office column were removed (for the reason you state above and because there are multiple articles providing those details: List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held, List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience, List of Presidents of the United States by military service, and List of presidents of the United States by military rank), I might think differently. What are your thoughts on that? Drdpw (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
To be honest I don't think the prior office column should be removed because of tradition. The column has been there for a very long time. Here are a few alternatives I can think of: 1) Try to fit the post presidency material somewhere in the table. 2) Put the material in one of those lists you mentioned. Holy Goo (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Tradition? That's a poor reason, one that holds no weight. The Previous office column has been part of the page's main table since November 6, 2012, so what? The key question here is do the tables in the subsequent service section provide relevant and interesting information? My answer to that question is yes. BTW, the Living former presidents table had been part of this page since May 12, 2011. By the tradition standard I guess it should be restored. Cheers.Drdpw (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Move to List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held. Such WP:TRIVIA would fit rather nicely there.--Nevé–selbert 20:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The section is not trivial; at least no more trivial than the information contained in the prior office column. I view both as equally relevant and interesting. Drdpw (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

The table that contains former presidents unsuccessful bids for office is incomplete. George Bush's attempt at reelection is not included.

After Herbert Hoover add: 199.115.23.217 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It says "after leaving the presidency", so attempts at office while president aren't a part of that list. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States/Archive_9&oldid=1145214825"