Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

message: Please achieve consensus before re-adding material. 
Section quoted a single book published in the early 2020s ranking presidents’ “racism”. 
In addition to the…usual…nature of the section, it suffered from recentism.
It marked Lincoln as a “white supremacist”. It is…a highly unusual position, and one especially associated with a particular ideology that was most popular in 2020-2021. It is definitely something that will remain to be seen, whether there is still a serious historian ranking presidents by “racism” number in 30 years. Oxenfording (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur, the “racist rankings” should be deleted, it’s quite obscene. Nate Rybner 02:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: adding my $0.02 here, this list is silly especially as it lists certain presidents in multiple categories.  Nixon is both "anti-racist" and "white supremacist."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.26.248.228 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

text: For the record; we achieve consensus before removing material. Saying "I deleted X, you must achieve consensus to question me" is a no. We don't do that here. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Late comment - for the record, we do actually do that here. See WP:BURDEN. That is policy. The burden for including that material (i.e. achieving consensus) has not been met. There isn't a comparable burden required to justify removing it, especially if the cited source is questionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted ‘Racism Ranking’ 

message: Yet another presidential ranking year is here, and yet again Donald Trump ranks below Warren G. Harding. In fact EVERY time historians have been asked they rank Trump beneath Harding. When will it be okay to stop slander Warren and put Trump in the image of the three worst presidents? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's more relevant than Harding's rankings in the 20th century - maybe start with a photo of Trump in the 2018-present subsection until there's consensus? Superb Owl (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if we can get consensus on that I would agree it's appropriate at this time to have a picture and caption of Trump in that section -- Sleyece (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree, Warren Harding was a very good and decent man and President. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  All he ever did was make sweet love to his mistress while his Cabinet raided the Treasury; then he had a stroke. #JusticeforHarding -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: His cabinet did not do that. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Teapot Dome scandal Bkatcher (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: One cabinet member…hardly representative of his cabinet. The most ginned up scandal in American history and a total disgrace that it still affects the reputation of a good and decent man like Warren Harding. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - just one member is very different than the whole cabinet Superb Owl (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Fall guy went to prison, and the rest of them kept all the money. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with removing Harding and adding Trump. Harding, much like Nixon, were embroiled in a scandal but were effective executives nonetheless. Buchanan and Johnson are where they are due to their disastrous handling of the country in the prelude to the Civil War and aftermath, respectively. Trump's handling of COVID and his loss in 2020 is just as egregious and damaging to the Union as Johnson and Buchanans ineffectualness. PaulRKil (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of Buchanan's poor reputation is not based on being ineffectual. He was a Doughface and promoted pro-Southern Democratic policies throughout his term. Other Northern Democrats disliked him, the Southerners considered him a useful ally but "without any firm moral commitment to their cause", and you can guess what other Northerners thought of him. The Doughfaces aimed to achieve "sectional compromise", but both failed to achieve this goal and uninentionally added fuel to the fire of sectional violence. Some historians view Buchanan himself as a traitor. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense of President Harding Movement 

message: This statement is made as a footnote without a citation. It is completely false. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren, were all opposed to slavery. This is categorically an ahistoric falsehood. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it just now - directly contradicts footnote 9 Superb Owl (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: I reverted my edit. This chart is the work of a scholar being cited (not Wikipedia) - I'd have to check the source to see if that is the assertion of that author Superb Owl (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “ All presidents before Lincoln defended slavery.” 

message: Tables (and sections) can also be organized to highlight the most notable information (latest rankings with all the presidents) on the lefthand side with the older polls further to the right. For example, see The Economist Democracy Index. I would support rearranging all tables and sections in reverse chronological order except for the History section, where chronological seems to make more sense. Superb Owl (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showing most recent polls first 

message: There was a weird block quote that added most of the article in an indented format all under the notable survey umbrella. If there was supposed to be one there to make the survey in question differentiate from the title or something, you can add it back but make sure to add a closing tag. Eg224 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird blockquote 

message: The Walton and Smith poll results should be presented in a different format. The "white supremacist" list should be placed in a separate table or box from the other four categories, not as part of the same table, since Walton and Smith are using "white supremacist" to refer to personal beliefs and the other categories to refer to policy. I realize that the footnotes try to explain such anomalous results as Lincoln and Nixon being characterized both as white supremacists and anti-racists, but combining the two axes into a single table may confuse more readers than it helps. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the whole list is too convoluted. The footnotes try, but I think this is worth keeping.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with the recent edits on this. I have thought this aspect of the article is problematic. This has come up before (see Archive #5). Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walton and Smith