Talk:The Imperial Presidency

Untitled

This article needs a rewrite to get back to the NPOV needed, while the subject matter may be in debate or not, the phrasing and structure of the article does not convey a neutral point of view on the matter in question, this becoming more apparent during the sections listing certain years, with the final section reading more like an op-ed than an article found in an encyclopedia.

This article is supposed to be about a book, instead it starts to read like it IS the book, with no listing of criticisms, reception from the public at time of publishing, and having a notes section that is comprised of 72 references to the book that the article is supposed to be about, without reference to other outside sources of information about the book in question. Granted, the book was published long before the advent of the Internet so finding 3rd-party web sites referencing this work will be difficult, but 72 self-references is a bit much.

68.2.34.10 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Comments of User:68.2.34.10

The author of this book did have a point of view and this is true of most authors. This is especially true of controversial subjects and books such as this one. I hope that anyone with some knowledge of the subject would read the book and offer their insights as to the strengths and weaknesses of the book.

The 72 references establish that the article is based on the book and not on the opinions of the article's writer. If there are passages in the book that should have been included in the summary or were misrepresented in the summary then the references should be helpful in correcting these errors.

Id447 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User: Id447

The point of view of the author of the work is all well and good, but this is Wikipedia, where an NPOV is a big part of what makes up each article (at least in initial spirit pre-vandals, etc), and I'm just not seeing how having such a direct translation and outline that comes almost straight from the book (and thusly, the author's POV) is gonna hold with that. Granted, this is gonna mean some folks are going to need to get themselves a copy (all references to the book require you to have a dead-tree format handy to reference, thankfully a 2004 edition has been published by Houghton-Mifflin, else getting references to check up on would be much more difficult) and actually sit down and read it to be able to cross-reference, which probably would help to establish a more neutral perspective on this particular article. 68.230.117.77 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Poorly Written

This article needs to be rewritten. The grammar is quite poor and it does not flow very well. It further makes absurd claims and implications without references within Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.248.117 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

History is "argument without end"

From Dutch historian Pieter Geyl

In Geyl's view, there never can be a definitive account for all ages because every age has a different view of the past. For Geyl the best that historians could do was to critically examine their beliefs and urge their readers to do likewise. Geyl felt that history was a progress of "argument without end", but did not feel that this meant that an "anything goes" interpretation of history was acceptable.

Of interest to me is, if some of the historical facts written about in the Imperial Presidency make some people uncomfortable, would they be able to admit to it? Or would those people see that as a POV?

Is either "The Imperial Presidency" book or the article, factually incorrect? Are the facts either misrepresented or used to mislead? Are minor or unimportant historical facts used unfairly or over-emphasized? Have important facts been excluded? Is this book or article relevant today? These are the type of questions I ask when reading a history book.

From Wikipedia:Controversial articles

Describe the controversy

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

Id447 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a well-written article about a book; rather, it is a summary of the book with a decidedly one-sided point of view. This is not to say that it is factually inaccurate; however, the tone, voice, and content is not at all encyclopedic, but rather appears as a persuasive essay, not least in the proposed solutions page, which appears to be adopted entirely from the book itself. This would be a fine political pamphlet, but Wikipedia is not home to pamphleteers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.31.92 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Can we merge this with a similar article of Imperial Presidency?--Levineps (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear User 76.125.31.92

Perhaps you would like to improve this article rather than complaining bitterly? Have you read The Imperial Presidency? If you had, you might come to the conclusion that the author of this political book had definite ideas that those who disagree might find "one-sided". If you find a books that suits your political beliefs, I hope you will write an article in Wikipedia on it and show me how it should be done.

If the tone, voice or content needs to be changed, then as an editor you should do so without distorting the message of the author. Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that this article is a "political pamphlet". What are the necessary element for an article to be classified as a "political pamphlet"? Who has decided that "Wikipedia is not home to pamphleteers"?

Its been over 6 months since the following templates have been used on this article.

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2009)"

"This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources. (November 2009)"

"This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (November 2009)"

I find no basis for these templates and I am removing them. If anyone wishes to improve this article rather than complain, I hope they do so!

--Id447 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User 76.125.31.92 is correct and all of those templates were aptly applied to this article. Just because no one has corrected those problems with the way the article is written does not mean those problems do not exist. Those templates should be there. By the way, I agree with what the article is saying, but the article is quite clearly written in the wrong tone (like a personal reflection or essay) and is not neutral. It also uses only a single source and there is no way you can argue with that - it is fact, and it is also fact that the neutrality of the article is disputed, as I say it is not neutral, therefore it is disputed. You should not have removed the templates, because the templates are all correct, and you cannot deny that. Alexkumar (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in exposing Wikipedia readers to an in-depth view of the imperial aspects of the U.S. Presidency, I would be glad to work with them on this article. If they want to turn this article into a discussion of the pros and cons of U.S. Presidents, count me out.

If anyone thinks that the templates help the reader of this article or add value, then please explain it to me. Unfortunately, with Wikipedia, neutrality has become a subjective value. Clearly the book "The Imperial Presidency" was not written with a neutral point of view. Among American readers, any passage that put their Presidents in a poor light will be controversial. An honest representation of the book "The Imperial Presidency" will be considered by Americans as controversial. If a summary of a controversial books does not contain controversial passages, then the summary fails to communicate the content of the book.

Id447 (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people object to "The Imperial Presidency". If you are one of these people then read WP:CENSOR

<blockquote\>Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.<blockquote\>

If the article on "The Imperial Presidency" contain falsehoods, half-truths, or facts out of context, please correct these errors.

Id447 (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can find a passage in this article that shows bias or lack of neutrality on the subject of the use of imperial powers by U.S. Presidents, please point it out in this discussion page. Failure to point this out may result in the removal of the template concerning neutrality.

Id447 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

POV, primary sources, rewrite tags

Wow. I come here to point out that this article reads like a condensed version of the book, rather than an encyclopedic article, only to find an IP raising the same concerns five years ago. This is a great book, and it deserves better treatment here. Where's the discussion of its impact? The c. 2005 reprint with an additional chapter on the presidencies since the first edition? As such, the article makes constant inappropriate references to the book itself (a primary source), so it's no surprise that the article echoes the book's POV instead of presenting a neutral one. This isn't a political fight. I love this book, and I think its arguments are compelling and deserve a wider audience. But this isn't the way to do it, and Wikipedia isn't the place to do it.

It's probably going to take a complete rewrite or something close to it. I suggest A People's History of the United States as a good example of how this article should look in terms of structure. It's perfectly appropriate to give an overview of the book's main arguments, but not to go into the exhaustive treatment used here. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@BDD: I've reworked the lead, and added "background" and "reception" sections. Would you be interested in revising the #Synopsis section? Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it! I'm not sure how helpful I'll be, though. My copy of the book was a casualty of many pre-move downsizes I've experienced over the past 10 years. Even so, targeted WP:TNT may be the best approach for that section. The images of the presidents are unnecessary, and the article really only needs a few of the major examples Schlesinger cites. The #Synopsis section should probably look more like its current #Problems and solutions subsection. And we need to make clear that a lot of what we say throughout the article is a summary of Schlesinger's views, not things we're saying in Wikipedia voice. -- BDD (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't object to the WP:TNT approach, I can pull together a reasonable synopsis based on the aspects of the book that the reviewers found worth noting. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

BDD, I wrote a brief synopsis based on the aspects highlighted by the various book reviews. I think the language now reflects that it's presenting the book's POV, not Wikipedia's. If you think any of the article needs expanding, please go for it. (I also dumped all of the self-refs, book summary doesn't need refs; also dumped the photos.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic! I promise I'll take another look, but at a glance, that's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks again. -- BDD (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason that Wikipedia politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Id447 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

SCOTUS cases 1866, 1867

Can we get some links to the cases referenced? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)