Talk:President of the United States/Archive 2

message: His name is Harry S Truman not Harry S. Truman!!! "S" is his entire middle name. Rex13a 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks rex, you should add new comments to the bottom.  Also the "S" thing has been discussed thoroughly on the Truman talk page.  I think the discussion reached a consensus to use the period because that's how he signed his name. -Taco325i 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry S Truman 

message: I think it's a travesty there isn't a list of U.S. Presidents on this page. The gallery did a fine job of representing the history of the office and its tenants. Is there any objection to re-creating a copy on this page? Perhaps as a template? Thank you. jengod 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, just went ahead and did it. Template:POTUSgallery -- have fun. :) jengod 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why are portraits of Monroe, Grant, Hayes and Truman not included?--Kalsermar 19:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I hate those jerks! Just kiddin'... Find-and-replace error. Fixed now. Let me know if any other fearless leaders are MIA. jengod 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks perfect now.... thanks for fixing!--Kalsermar 14:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of office-holders

message: For new global study of ancestors of all 43 US Presidents and also showing one global family see Presidential Series as follows:
*Jesus's Presidents , 
*Mohammed's US Presidents , 
*China's US Presidents ,
*India's US Presidents ,
*The Bush Family  
(descent from all Mid East (Persia, Bablylon, Egypt-including Jesus & Mohammed), all Europe, Rome, China,India, etc);
and in mapping ancestors of all US Presidents maps ancestors of all US citizens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.7.106 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestors of US Presidents (all 43)

message: :Today the office is widely emulated all over the world in nations with a presidential system of government.
The article Presidential system lists the countries with a similar system: United States of America, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Chile, & Afghanistan, most states in the Americas. Is this "widely"? Do they all emulate the USA? Do semi-presidential systems count? Isn't it such that many countries emulate the French system? The expression in the article gives the impression that the Americans invented the office of the President, and the rest of the world copies it, even if technically true. --Vuo 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if indeed most of the Americas has emulated the US system as well as Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines etc then I would say yes, it is widespread as most of a continent and some of the most populous countries elsewhere have it and a good percentage of the world's population is governed under a system modelled after the US system. As for your last statement even if technically true, does that not constitute reason to include it, since it is, as you state, true?--Kalsermar 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we're missing with stating that "most of the world emulates the USA" is that the French system (semipresidential) is the model in several countries. Also, there are countries where a monarchy was replaced by a presidency. In these systems, the president's power is different from the U.S. president. Therefore, it's highly misleading to imply that the U.S.-style powers are widespread. The U.S. president is like a president and prime minister combined, and with the power to appoint the cabinet; this is relatively authoritarian and not that widespread, I think. Claiming this is the model for other countries crosses the line from being technically true to untrue. --Vuo 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Emulated"?

message: * Article looks like a factbook article which is not encyclopedic.
* It thus fail Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files & Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information of WP:NOT. Unless this is a list and thus become non-GA material. Lincher 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: I know it has been discussed before but I'll bring it up again nonetheless. Is the Trivia section really of use to the article? I used to think it wasn't that bad but I de believe it is an eyesore that adds very little of use to the article and primarily serves to distract from the encyclopaedic value of the whole thing.--Kalsermar 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected this error.  Also moved trivia to subarticle; there is even a huge :Category:United States Presidential trivia so not really a need to keep all this stuff in the main article.  Kaisershatner 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination) the trivia subarticle has been dispose of, and the content reapplied here.  See discussion for details.  Jerry 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Do we still need all the various facts listed on this page, now that we have the super sexy "Lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States" template? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Deaths
* Assassination attempts have been made on eight other U.S Presidents while in office: 
:-....
:-George W. Bush in 2005 by Vladimir Arutinian
:.......
* Every U.S. President from William Henry Harrison to John F. Kennedy who was elected or re-elected in a year divisible by 20 died in office, many by assassination. Ronald Reagan (elected in 1980) survived an attempt on his life and George W. Bush (elected in 2000) has so far sustained no similar event.
George W. Bush (elected in 2000) has so far sustained no similar event, what does that mean? He hasn't been attempted to assassinate or he hasn't died/wounded from them yet? Or what? Just few lines above it says he has been attempted to assasinate... --62.78.161.144 09:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the distinction between his and Reagan's is Reagan had bodily harm from an attempted killing.  all that happened with Bush is a grenade landed near where he was speaking but did not implode, it's a weak link to it, which is hy it says simmilar.. jj 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incoherent text

message: This article has weasel words. It has "...is widely considered to be..." In the seccond paragraph. Feedyourfeet 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that weasel words? Is it not a true statement of fact, whether one agrees with it or not?--Kalsermar 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at WP:AWW it has "...is widely considered to be..." listed & because that is not a true statement of fact it should be removed. Feedyourfeet 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i changed it to ...the American President is often described as the most powerful person on earth and he is usually one of the world's best-known public figures. As both statements are factual I hope you will consider removing the tag.--Kalsermar 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah thet soundsd good, Done Feedyourfeet 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: The statement that Herbert Hoover's term ended on March 3, 1933 is particularly uncalled for, since he was requested to act as president on the morning of the 4th; he declined to do so, but because he held that no federal action was necessary, not because he held that FDR was already President. For more, see Talk:Herbert Hoover#March 4, 1933. Septentrionalis 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: March 4, 1933

message: I note that the very first entry in that section states that all of the Presidents have been Christians.  Now, I may be mistaken, but I'm reasonably certain that several of them, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were deists.  Unless the definitions have somehow changed, deists aren't Christians. - Dotdotdotdash 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I readjusted the language.  I did not remove the citation needed because, I'm not sure if that applied to the John McCain remark or the statement as a whole.  Clearly, it is not possible for a decade to suddenly lose the birth of  a President.  If no President it is possible that no President will have been born in the 1930s, the the decade must not have a President now.--Miked84 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Facts

message: On the page it states that 26 of 42 presidents have served in the U.S. military.  However, looking at the List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank only eleven have not served in some capacity in the military.  That would be 31 of the 42.  I'll make the change for now, if there is some problem with the list feel free to change it back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.1.28 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 September 2006  (UTC)
:Several of the presidents with military service were in colonial militias, and not the US military.  At least one (Millard Fillmore) served in the military only after being president. siafu 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the number to 29 since the List of United States Presidents by military service has 13 Presidents with "None" next to them. Jefferson and Fillmore were commanders and I don't think that counts. Pixelface 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Service 

message: One of the points states that no president has ever been an only child, yet I was reading the Gerald Ford page which states that he is the only president ever to hold office as an only child.  Which of these 2 facts is correct? Juveboy 02:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to point that out myself.  I assume the latter is correct because it focuses on Ford while this article could easily overlook that.  However, there is a citation suggesting the former, so who knows? -- the GREAT Gavini 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Gerald Ford was the only child resulting from the union of his mother and father; both had children from later marriages. Franklin Roosevelt was his mother's only child, but had an older half brother from his father's previous marriage, thus was not an only child. The citations link to the official geneologies of Ford and Roosevelt from their libraries' web sites. 24.168.154.52 03:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Facts 

message: Hoover set the record for living the longest as a former president at 31 years and several months.  Since Gerald Ford left office in 1977, doesn't he have to live to mid-2008 to break Hoover's record?  I believe the edit that states Ford broke the record September 8, 2006 is incorrect. Juveboy 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TRIVIA - FORMER PRESIDENTS 

message: Not listed under failed assassination attempts are Theodore Roosevelt, shot in an attempted assasination, and George H. W. Bush, subject of a foiled assassination plot in Kuwait.
:These happened after the President left office. I'm not sure they count. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination attempts 

message: Vandalism sighted on October 7, 2006  12:06  EST  opening paragraph "USA KILL PEOPLE......[vulgarity]  reverted to october 6, 2006
Thanks for doing it. Aquafish talk 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VANDALISM

message: There is significant sexually-related vandalism to this article which I will attempt to clean up.  Perhaps we need to lock it down as vandalism seems to be a recurring problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by shultzc (talk • contribs) .
:Okay, I did a reversion.  (And sorry for accidentally not being logged-in.) Shultzc 06:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Vandalism 

message: I did a major overhaul, adding "history" of the office and restructuring it to move the trivia way down.  There's still too much trivia IMO.  Kaisershatner 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exported trivia to subpage and added link to huge :Category:United States Presidential trivia.  
Kaisershatner 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit

message: Some idiot deleted the whole article on 3 November 2006 and replace it with the words "TJ Heimlich is the president" or similar nonsense. I've reinstated the previous version. Martan 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Vandalism

message: There is some dispute over the relationship between the terms "citizen by birth" and "natural-born."
*This must not be confused with the fact that US law recognizes certain citizens born overseas as being citizens by birth, irrespective of the theoretical argument over whether said citizens by birth are also "natural-born" in the Constitutional sense.
*the 14th Amendment does not define citizens by birth as citizens born in the US, that is a faulty reading of English. The phrases "all jets are aircraft" and "all aircraft are jets" are not equivalent. Were the Amendment to read "Citizens by birth are persons born in the US," then it would constitute a definition and would exclude foreign-born persons from citizenship at birth. But the Amendment states merely that persons born in the US obtain citizenship by birth, meaning that a consequence of birth on US soil is citizenship, not that this is the only circumstance leading that result. Similarly, the law may state that all single mothers are entitled to receive welfare, but that does not make "single mother" the definition of "welfare recipient," because one can qualify by other means.
*Current US Statutes, which are unchallenged, explicitely state that persons born overseas can be citizens by birth under certain circumstances. This is a universally accepted concept known to anyone with legal expertise, and reflects the consensus of Constitutional interpretation, which is that the 14th Amendment in no ways limits citizenship by birth to persons born in the US. 
*As has been stated, there are indeed two basic kinds of citizenship, citizenship "by birth" and citizenship "by law" (although technically all citizenship is by law, be it Constitutional law or otherwise). Being born in and of itself is not really a means, otherwise all human beings would be US citizens, but rather the term denotes a class of citizenship, which is the kind obtained at birth as opposed to the kind obtained after birth. Even citizenship by birth is citizenship by law, but we conveniently use the shorthand distinction of "by birth" and "by law" as a form of legal jargon. The kind of citizenship that the law calls "citizenship by birth," is further subdivided by the means one becomes entitled to it. There are two well-known and well-established causes of citizenship by birth: jus soli ("law of soil," i.e., born on US soil) and jus sanguinis ("law of blood," i.e., one's parentage). A person who is born overseas can sometimes obtain citizenship by birth jus sanguinis, under very limited circumstances that don't usually benefit more than the first-generation born overseas, due to certain compelling reasons why said individual is likely to have strong ties and loyalties to the US, such as having both parents born in the US, being the child of a foreign diplomat or military officer, etc. The exact requirements are listed in the relevant sections of US Code. 
*A person who is born a US citizen by virtue of jus sanguinis cannot be a naturalized US citizen, the two kinds of citizenship are mutually exclusive. A person born overseas cannot be both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen. Naturalized citizens are only those persons who obtain their US citizenship some time after birth and after having been already born either stateless or with a foreign citizenship. Naturalized citizenship is one of the two kinds of citizenship, and stands in contrast to the other kind, which is citizenship by birth. Citizenship by birth can be obtained in two forms, jus soli and jus sanguinis. 
*While academic disagreement may exist with regard to whether all citizens by birth are also natural-born citizens, or whether only citizens by birth on US soil are natural-born, vs. citizens by birth who are born overseas, the burden rests upon those trying to prove that there exists an actual difference between the concept of citizen by birth and natural-born citizen, and the historical precedent dictates that citizens by birth overseas can and have run for the office of president, and have in all cases, controversy or not, ultimately been deemed to qualify. The simple fact is that foreigners who become US citizens after they are born are defined "naturalized" citizens; therefore, it follows that, if we remain consistent with the terminology, persons who are US citizens at the moment of birth are all "natural-born," irrespective of where they were born.
*Regardless of what opinion is ultimately reached by users here, the final version should make a clear distinction between the controversy of equating "citizenship by birth" with "natural-born" citizen, and the irrefutable fact that persons may be born overseas and still be citizens by birth, which are NOT naturalized citizens, and any reference to the 14th Amendment to prove otherwise only shows both a lack of understanding of English grammar and a lack of understanding of accepted legal principles and statutes. In the former instance, the article should state only that "according to some legal theories, it is possible that citizens by birth who are born overseas might not be 'natural-born' as required by the Constitution, and are potentially disqualified from seeking the presidency," but this should not be stated as fact, and it goes against the consensus of legal opinion.
::--Supersexyspacemonkey 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question is, why is this section more on the nature of citizenship than on the actual requirements. I understand that the definition of a natural citizen is important to the qualifications, but I think this would be best served by a short summary and a "more info" blurb. --Carl (talk|contribs) 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirements to Hold Office 

message: Shouldn't there be an official white house photo of John kennedy? It's a bit strange that Eisenhower has a color official photo and kennedy doesn't.Borisblue 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kennedy photo?

message: I notice this done many times here. We need to decide on capitalization. Normally, the only time president should be capitalized is when it is used as a title. For instance, "The president only serves a four year term, though he can be elected twice," and "President Bush only serves a four year term, though he can be elected twice." I see this over and over. We need to standardize this. Capital letters always, or only when grammatically correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd gallagher (talk • contribs) . 14:52, November 25, 2006 (UTC)
:See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital Letters

message: I cut this section out of the article and reproduced it below; seems relatively trivial considering the overall scope of the article.  If freemasonry is to be discussed in this article at all, I think it should be much briefer.  Perhaps this would be better addressed in a separate sub-article?  schi talk 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masonic-American presidents

message: Again, someone typed some personal attack on the article. It is deleted. I suggest we should lock the page to prevent more problems. 71.146.129.148 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'd like to know where I could find information on the rights/privelegs of ex-presidents such as their entitlement to still be reffered to as 'Mr President' and the intelligence that they are given/allowed access to. Algebra man 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex-Presidents 

message: I am studying all American Flags; What has eloded me is the history of the flag of the American President?? (This my first post; I apoligise if I've done anything wrong)BritVic (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the American Presidental Flag 

message: Someone changed Incumbent to Incompetent, again. 
Which, funny as it is and possibly true, is not in keeping with making an objective encyclopedia page. 
This article really has to be protected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.116.95.69 (talk) 02:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
Someone deleted the page and made it about Saddam Hussein.  I am going to delete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.143.58 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Vandalism 

message: There is some good info, but there seems to be nothing on the life (while in office) of a president.  There is no mention of the presidential anthem, Hail to the Chief. Jason McHuff 06:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, it needs some work

message: Due to the large amount of vandalism of various degrees by new users and unregistered IP addresses, I believe it would save us a lot of trouble to semi-protect this article. --Admiral06 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that it gets vandalized fairly often, I don't think the level of vandalism on this page has yet reached the point where that kind of restriction is really required.  It's not like we're spending all of our time reverting vandalism.  Until it reaches an oppressive level, I would keep this article open for everyone to edit.--Aervanath 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, after keeping this page on my watch list for a few more days, I see Admiral06's point.  I'll post it on WP:RFP. --Aervanath 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect 

message: In the list of officeholders accompanied by pictures/paintings, I would think that Presidents such as Bill Clinton should have their full first names used (i.e "William" in this case). How do people feel about this? Blaiseball 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should do this only when American usage does; James Madison, but Jimmy Carter; never Stephen Grover Cleveland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I can see points on both sides.  I think it's best to go like this: just follow the White HousePast Presidents page.  If you follow the link, you'll see that Jimmy Carter is listed as just that, whereas Bill Clinton is actually listed as William J. Clinton.  If you Google their respective presidential libraries, you will see that the libraries follow the same convention. Though it may seem inconsistent in terms of listing full names/nicknames, it is consistent with regards to how they actually want to thought of.--Aervanath 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Names of Former Presidents? 

message: Question moved to the Reference Desk.  This isn't really the place for this sort of discussion, and you'll probably get a better answer there. -- Vary | Talk 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: I'm not sure about this, but I thought that originally the presidential term ended in March.  I'm not sure about the exact day, but the article makes no mention of this. Im.a.lumberjack 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, you're right, see List of United States presidential inaugurations.  But next time, just look it up yourself, ok?--Aervanath 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been pointed out to me (twice) that my responses above seem to be somewhat "churlish".  My apologies.  In the future, I shall point inquiries of this nature to the Wikipedia Reference Desk.  --Aervanath 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sure your responses to this user were with good intentions, but this seems like a harsh attitude to take for a legitimate question.  If you don't like to look up things for people, simply don't.  The question was not posed TO YOU.  If somebody doesn't know how to, have the time to, or want to look it up themselves, why can't they just post the question on a talk page? There are plenty of other editors who would be more than happy to answer such a question.  Jerry lavoie 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential term 

message: I haven't changed the article, but it should be noted that in Canada William McKinley is thought to be mainly Scots. (The Mac/Mc difference between Scots and Irish that Americans believe to be the case is thought of as an Americocentric, bigoted, anti-Scots, Ireland-at-all-costs urban legend.) --Charlene 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: William McKinley

message: Maybe a list of wars, and the (futue) Presidents who served in them. I know many were in WWII, and none where in Vietnam etc. - Matthew238 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wars

message: The article isn't right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ.  Clinton was impeached ... or is there something regarding his impeachment that is factually incorrect?  You need to be more specific regarding your claim. --Mike Beidler 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What they said.  Although popular usage means "removal from office," impeachment is simply a formal accusation of wrongdoing.  The private-citizen equivalent is indictment; a grand jury determines whether there's enough evidence to proceed to trial, but that does not mean that the defendant will be found guilty. -- A. 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton wasn't impeached. 

message: The article states that the maximum number of years a single person can save as President is 10 years (minus 1 day).  While for all practical purposes, this is mostly true, I think that it actually would be possible to serve 12 years (minus 2 days), just not consecutively.  Here's how it could happen:
#President Adar dies or otherwise leaves office just after the end of his second year.
#Vice President Bartlet takes over and completes the remaining 2 years of President Adar's term.
#President Bartlet runs for re-election and wins, serving a complete 4 year term.
#President Bartlet runs for his second term and loses.  (Or he opts not to run at this time.)
#A member of his own party, Clark runs for President and selects Bartlet as his running mate.  (This could either happen in the same year, or maybe 4, 8, 12 years later.)
#Clark wins the election, becoming President, and Bartlet becomes Vice President again.
#President Clark also dies or leaves office just after the end of his second year.
#Vice President Bartlet becomes President again, serving the remaining 2 years of President Clark's term.
#President Bartlet runs for re-election and wins, serving a second 4 year term.
Granted, Bartlet would start to look a little suspicious if he managed to succeed not one but two Presidents who died in office, but theoretically, this would still be possible, though highly unlikely.  Can any constitutional scholars come up with a reason why this wouldn't work?  (And is it obvious from my name-choices that I watch too much TV?) Lurlock 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean you can't be elected more than twice. The rule has only been in place since the Eisenhower administration, however. --Chr.K. (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: One could make that argument. However, the Presidential candidate pretty much selects the VP candidate.  You think any of them would pick a former president as a VP?  What interest would a former President have in the VP position? Schoop (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that makes it merely practically very unlikely, not theoretically impossible.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten-year limit? 

message: I was thinking about adding a discussion of Rutherford Hayes and the 1876 election.  As you may recall, Hayes was essentially appointed to the Presidency by a special bipartisan Electoral Committee in exchange for agreeing to make some concessions to the repatriated Confederacy (see Compromise of 1877).  I was originally going to add it under "Unelected Presidents," but since he was chosen by the Electoral College, he's not really "unelected."  Plus, of course, that threatens to open another can of worms.  Any thoughts on where / whether to include this? -- A. 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary at all. Under Elections, it mentions that Rutherford B. Hayes didn't win the popular vote, and links to the article about the 1876 election, which in turn links to Compromise of 1877. I think that's sufficient. Dan0 00 23:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  If somebody wants to know, they can find it. -- A. 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraudulency

message: The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted), at least 35 years of age, of Caucasian descent, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.
this cannot be correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.254.241.6 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 29 March 2007  (UTC)
:Well, most of it is - except for the "Caucausian" bit, which was vandalism, and which has now been fixed. - Eron Talk 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, (i was the anon above), had to create an account but got tied up. ZeroWashu 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucasian requirement lines

message: Hey. I'm working on a cricket article and looking for a source to quote for John Adams's view that since cricket club leaders could be called presidents, so could the head of the republic. I seem to remember it in McCullough's book, but that was a library book that I don't have handy. Can anyone site a reference for me? Thanks.--Eva bd 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adams and Cricket Presidents

message: Intresting BBC article about the holders of this title - before George Washington --195.56.14.113 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: April Fools.  See Urban Legends Reference Page for more details.  You may also want to explore web sites and news reports arguing that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, that aliens landed in Rosewell in the 1940s, 9/11 was a CIA or Israeli conspiracy, and that Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas are illegally occupied by the USA.  History can be fun when you suspend your critical thinking skills. 64.31.89.137 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an April Fool. See President of the Continental Congress. However since this is covered by another article, and this article links to it, I don't thonk we need a list of presidents before Washington, because apart from the similar name the two offices have nothing in common. One is head of the executive branch, the other was speaker of the legislative branch, and the had different powers and responsibilities, so a list of office-holders does not belong here. Richard75 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm what about the presidents before the Presidents? :) 

message: I was surprised to see this here while browsing this morning... this section makes up about a third of the length of the article, but is mainly a collection of long lists. Half the facts aren't really notable; anything that is important can be converted into prose or put into a more appropriate article. Even better, just delete most/all of the section. Is there any reason all those lists need to be there? Comrade Tux 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, they should be put into a separate article.  Far too much info; you're right. Jmlk17 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[President of the United States#Presidential statistics|Presidential statistics]]? 

message: Don't you think this article should include more information about the actual duties and responsibilities of the President? I do.
Eenyminy 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it probably should. See the discussion above - Comrade Tux 00:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Info Please 

message: Anyone notice in the second paragraph of the article it states 
"The current president is still Stephen Colbert."?
 Then later in the same paragraph it says G.W.B. is the current president. And Stephen Colbert  has never been president. ???
Eenyminy 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit was vandalism. It's been removed since. Comrade Tux 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion Session

message: The heading structure in most of this article needs to be changed. Really, "general description"? What's that supposed to mean? Anyway, most of the prose currently under "general description" could be re-structured into "election and term of office" and "privileges of office", along with a new "duties" section to elaborate on that (which is REALLY needed). "Life after the presidency" could be integrated into some other section or left alone. "Presidential statistics" and "other facts" are sprawling lists and shouldn't even be there; "office-holders" could be left alone or deleted and have list of Presidents of the United States linked. If there are no objections after a while, I'm going to be bold and do it myself. Comrade Tux 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been two days. Normally, I would wait a bit longer, but there don't seem to be too many regular contributors to this article. I'm going to go ahead and make those changes now - if there are any problems, feel free to fix them. Comrade Tux 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm working on it. It'll take a while though, as it'll probably amount to a re-write of most of the article. I'll stick parts in when they're done. Comrade Tux 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-structure 

message: Until about March 12, this article had a section on the powers of the presidency, which seemed to be removed by accident in one of the vandalism shuffles.  Is there any reason why this section should not be reinstated? --Robert Merkel 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had no idea it was removed. Didn't find this article until about mid-April... found the section in the history, put it back. Comrade Tux 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did the powers section get removed 

message: I don't see anything in the trivia about the fact that George W. Bush is the worst ever president.  That's pretty important to add.  After all he has killed more people than any other president and spent more money than all other presidents combined.  How more irresponsible can you get? Gonezales 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't see it because that would be one of the most severe violations of the neutral point of view policy I've ever seen. - auburnpilot talk 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is a neutral point of view - someone has to be best, and someone has to be worst.  It is a lot harder to pick who is best than it is to pick who is worst. The funny thing is that other than having a hard time linking Iraq to terrorism, the presidents biggest concern is what type of legacy (he) is going to leave. Gonezales 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, it's not really relevant to this article. You may be interesting in Criticism of George W. Bush, where a properly sourced statement along the lines of "Jimmy Carter believes GWB is the worst president in history" would be appropriate. However, we cannot flat out say "GWB is the worst president" because one man's opinion doesn't make it so. Put it this way, millions of people around the world believe Santa Clause exists, but their belief doesn't make it true. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No other president that I know of has ever been openly criticised in many places as the worst ever.  Doesn't that mean something?  And by the way, Jimmy Carter didn't 'believe it', he said it and said later that he was maybe being careless or misinterpreted.  Didn't Rolling Stones put him on the cover as the worst ever? Gonezales 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See historical rankings of United States presidents - he's usually ranked in the middle towards the bottom. He isn't rated as the worst president ever, despite what he's done... Comrade Tux 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Gonzales, do you mind explaining what authority Rolling Stone magazine has over _anything_ that is not related to pop music? If Rolling Stone magazine is your authority on all things political, then maybe you should consider not ever editing any politically-related Wikipedia entry. 192.80.61.168 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if it has changed, it's still an opinion - Republicans are always going to think he was great. Hardly NPOV... and it's not relevant in this article anyway. This is about the OFFICE, not who thinks who was the best/worst/etc. The trivia section should be gone, anyway, once any notable points are integrated into the article. Comrade Tux 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a forum, everyone. Comrade Tux 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Gonezales - someone has to be best, and someone has to be worst.  That might be true if there were some objective, rational measure of such a thing.   I doubt very much that such a beast exists, because "best" and "worst" are such loaded, objective, ill-defined - and in this context, meaningless - terms.  --  JackofOz 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst president ever 

message: Due to the "winner-take-all" system in place for presidential elections, there have been many instances where the Electoral College winner failed to win a majority or even a plurality of the overall popular vote, as most recently occurred in the 2000 election. This has recently occurred three times in a row, in the 2000 election as well as the 1992 and 1996 elections.
This is incorret. Only four times has the winner of the presidential election lost the popular vote.
:Oops, I think the word "even" is misleading there - in both 1992 and 1996 Clinton won a plurality, but not a majority. Gore had the plurality in 2000. Comrade Tux 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election 

message: I don't see a reference to the president's power to commute (as used on Scooter Libby). What gives a president this power? (and should that be in the article?)
Felixcatuk 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power to commute? 

message: :This section heading was added by anonymous user:218.102.76.136 with no further comment. After seeing this, I added a reference to POTUS in the lead, when user:Southern Texas disagreed with the change and removed the reference. I wanted to take it to talk to see what everyone else thinks. I would point out that SCOTUS uses its respective acronym in the lead, and FLOTUS further down the page. The term POTUS draws 1,050,000 Google hits. I certainly think its notable, as it's widely used. Can anyone else provide some feedback? --YbborTalk 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why this is at all necessary. Its just putting an abbreviation. It adds no information and is unencyclopedic. We don't need to be putting abbreviations in the lead of any article. It adds nothing.--Southern Texas 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly seems to add information to me. In fact this article from the New York Times seems to fufil the criteria for notability for the term to have its own article (perhaps POTUS (phrase), akin to Democrat Party (phrase)?), surely a mention in this page wouldn't be too unreasonable. Let me ask you this: would you agree that the term is notable? --YbborTalk 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ybbor that the acronym POTUS is very well-known, at least among anyone who has undertaken at least a little study of American political science or the institution of the Presidency.  There is even a book by a former White House speechwriter called POTUS Speaks. Also, if I recall correctly, many technothriller novels frequently depict federal officials using the term POTUS to refer to the President (because the acronym is so well-known among current and former employees of the federal government of the United States).  Omitting POTUS from the lead of this article would be nearly as asinine as omitting UC from the lead of the article on the University of California. --Coolcaesar 09:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there are readers who've never heard of the acronym, and so I think it would be appropriate to mention it in the lead. It is used fairly often in the media, after all, and the redirect might be insufficient in some cases. A side note, Google isn't a very good measuring stick; this article is one of the highest hits for "POTUS" yet the phrase is not in its text at any point - instead it matches "President of the United States" to "POTUS". There are likely other pages like this as well. Comrade Tux 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the acronym back in the lead. --YbborTalk 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no one mentions POTUS 

message: The biography for Gerald Rudolff Ford who raised Gerald Ford and for whom Ford legally changed his name has been nominated for deletion as being non-notable.  You can make your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford. Americasroof 05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford]]

message: "However, debates in Congress have been raised concerning this decision. Following the increase in terrorism and threats to the president in general since 1997, lifetime protection is being reconsidered."  <---This statement needs to have a cited source, becuase it sounds like hearsay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.78.74 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret Service protection

message: The Senate does not ratify treaties.  The Senate grants its consent with a 2/3 vote, and then the President ratifies it.  This is not a meaningless distinction; the treaty is not in effect without Presidential ratification, and the President is not required to ratify a treaty even if the Senate votes its consent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.92.119 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty Ratification