Talk:United States presidential approval rating

message: As the article correctly notes, Carter's approval ratings bottomed out in June and July 1979. But this was not during the Iran Hostage Crisis, which began in November of that year. As a glance at the graph in the article will show, Carter's approval rating shot up after that crisis.--BenA (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Carter Low-Point ''Not'' During Iran Hostage Crisis

message: The Harris Poll uses the question "How would you rate the overall job President Bush is doing as president, excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor".
Those saying excellent and pretty good are added.
Those saying only fair and poor are added (those saying fair probably too).
The additions are published.
The word approval is never mentionned.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=764
The Zogby Poll uses the question "Overall, how would you rate President Bush's performance on the job?".
Those saying excellent and good are added.
Those saying fair and poor are added.
The additions are published.
The word approval is never mentionned.
http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-Zogbyshort.pdf
--Jean-Francois Landry 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harris and Zogby polls 

message: What about the highest and lowest averages?  AJUK </font>Talk!! 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average aproval 

message: Dudes, I question the authenticity of the record for "second equal lowest" approval rating that apparently the Great Bush holds with 20% approval.  It would appear to be from a batch of vandalous (sp?) edits which also gave President Clinton the record for highest approval rating (95%).  Someone should roll that back.  I'd do it myself but I like seeing it there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.39.31 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism??? 

message: It appears that the 19% approval rating for Bush is an error.  I cannot find a poll anywhere that lists him as being that low.  28% looks like the lowest from a bipartisan polling firm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.143.191 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest Ever 

message: It appears most of the graphs are using the same green/yellow/red color-coding scheme but nowhere in the article (nor in the image description pages themselves) is it explained... Pimlottc (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph legends? 

message: I think it would make sense to put the presidential graphs in chronological order rather than reverse chronological order. Also possibly to stretch them to match the length of their terms.--Natcase (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of presidential graphs

message: Recommend renaming to "Ratings of the President of the United States"; article includes both approval and disapproval ratings and the syntax conforms to the MOS. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Shouldn't all the polls on this page be Gallup? Or at least an aggregate of all available polls? It's cherry-picking otherwise. 210.215.140.180 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: I was looking for an accurate comparison of some of our past presidents, their highest and lowest numbers. But you cannot cherry-pick any poll and expect it to be directly comparable to other polls. I am pretty sure Gallup never tracked the current president at 19. That's a huge swing, and for the purpose of fairness and consistency, they should all be Gallup. So, where do we go about getting the exact numbers to fix the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.102.84 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I fully agree 

message: George W Bush seems to take up an inordinate amount of space with graphs and data tables. This made some sense while he was President, but now that he is out of office, isn't it time to replace this section with the current President? If not today, there should be a point that can be agreed upon some time in the near future. I think that time is now, but I don't want to start some kind of edit war with the anti-Bush/anti-Obama folks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.218.143 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's done. I've given this page a major overhaul. All of the information as far as I can see is current, correct, and cited. I've also removed some original research and unsourced data, and changed the page to only reflect actual data on past Presidents since FDR (or in some cases, since Truman). Jsharpminor (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current President 

message: I notice a lot of changes have been happening to his Lows.  I saw 59, then 58.  I checked Gallup and the 58 was right, but now changed again to 57.  I understand this will change, but so information is verifiable, I really think we are going to change the highs and lows, we should include the reference article.  The average I'm not so worried about because that is simply mathematical (High plus Low divided 2) everything you should show have a link to a reference article. David1982m (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never familiarized myself with Wikifying references, but here it is: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx . Anyone who cares to add the reference may do so. This URL doesn't change; I have it bookmarked in Firefox. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the edit. Timmeh  20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: This page uses the Gallup polls for the high point / low point chart. The chart at the top of the page may use any respectable poll (i.e. a poll of your friends doesn't count). Please feel free to update with these guidelines. Thanks!! Jsharpminor (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Obama's High and Lows 

message: David1982m undid several changes and put back many inaccuracies. The source listed in references is http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-Gallup-Historical-Statistics-Trends.aspx That is what was used for the data. If you want to use other data, please add a reference for it. I thought that there was a consensus that Gallup data should be used for consistency and for the historical perspective of previous administrations. 70.234.217.129 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data and Reference source 

message: Even the Microsoft page that you reference doesn't say that. It says the sum of ALL then data points divided by the NUMBER of data points is the average. Bush 43 would be several points higher if you just took the High and Low and divided by 2. Bush 41 would be lower. Unless you can find a source (preferably, Gallup) for these averages, they should be set back to '--' or 'N/A'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.217.129 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DavidM, you're wrong. I've spent enough time fixing your mistakes, I would appreciate it if you would stop conflicting with what the consensus is saying. I've reverted your edits twice now, and I'm not doing it a third time because I don't want to be accused of getting into an edit war. Any Wikians with more experience in these matters, please advise me on what to do! This is the first time that I've been contradicted when editing an article, and while I think I'm right, I don't want to go to war over it and start being seen as a disruptive editor. I will continue to update the article, but I disagree strongly with the latest rash of edits and I think they should all be undone, but not by me any more. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, in response to 70.234.217.129 : I can agree with including Obama and FDR's incomplete statistics. That, at least, is based on available data. Some of these other edits clearly are not. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FDR's Gallup numbers are forever incomplete as Gallup didn't start polling until the middle of his presidency. I would be fine with omitting FDR completely (first choice since Gallup doesn't list them) or using third party archives of what they were (second choice), but High and Low should be *'ed and average omitted as it is meaning less without a complete dataset. Obama is different. The dataset is complete, it just changes daily. High and Low are easy to pull when it changes. The average would have to be recalculated daily as Gallup doesn't do that for us and we do not know how they weight individual data points when they do calculate them. Obama's average should be omitted (first choice) or recalculated daily (distant second choice). But under no circumstance should we manufacture an average using High and Low as the full dataset. 70.234.217.129 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Just for grins I downloaded the raw data for Obama from Gallup. As of today (assuming equal weight for each data point), Obama's average approval is 62.059 (62.1). If we want to use that, fine. But if it isn't updated every day, it is inaccurate and shouldn't be there. 70.234.217.129 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: David, thank you for responding! It's good to see things like that...before this last post, I was quite honestly worried. But I'd like to mention something to you: If you do something to a page, then someone goes and undoes it, don't put it back -- that is highly frowned upon in Wikipedia style. You'll notice that I mentioned that I'm stepping back. However, as far as inaccurate averages go... they really have no place in the article, unless you can source the numbers, not just how you calculate them. There's no need to link us to math books, we all know how averages work. Can you find an average out there somewhere, that is based on the Gallup polls? Jsharpminor (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, I can agree at least for the FDR average, but you need to have it sourced. If you can find it sourced from the Gallup numbers, then feel free to source it. Otherwise, I am going to remove both averages on 13 August 2009 at 0000 UTC. If any other editors object to this, please let me know about it in the next 49.75 hours. Also, there needs to be a source on the Obama average unless it too is to be removed.Jsharpminor (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: DavidM, you should also look at the references for the article, that's why they're there. I specifically direct you to [page], which is currently cited as link #12 on the article main page -- it is also referenced right by FDR's numbers. I do not know why Gallup does not include these numbers on their publicly available data pages; I can guess, though, that it's because they don't want people to assume that the numbers are complete when in fact they are not. (Sound familiar?) ;-) Jsharpminor (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Obama term average does appear to be sourced to Gallup. I am not sure how often it is updated. It isn't daily like the other numbers. I've been watching the source and it looks to be weekly or bi-weekly. The number is correct, but should probably be cited as through a certain date. The most current information on the page is through August 9th. I would assume that all averages on there would also include data to that date, though it is not explicitly stated as such. If the reference for Obama was cited as being as of a certain date, I think it should stay. FDR should be removed or the dates noted as not being complete. This applies to high and low only. Average is meaningless with incomplete data. Thank you for doing this. I've been staying out of edits. I don't want or need to explain again how the third horse behind a tie for first IS NOT SECOND!!! 70.234.210.65 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again I have given the article a major factual overhaul. I would like to thank especially 70.234.210.65 and 70.234.217.129 for their valuable input. I would also like to insist that anyone who disagrees with what has been discussed and decided on this talk page, please come here and dispute it before changing the page back to suit your whims. There is enough work to do in reverting the disruptive edits without having to worry about undoing edits by well-meaning but willfully uninformed editors. Thanks all! :-) Jsharpminor (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Aaaand, tada!!! Check out my new FAQ! Please edit it or change it as is necessary. Hopefully, this might give a few of the more misinformed people a basic primer on statistics? Maybe that's just wishful thinking... "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." (i.e. "you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.") :-) Cheers! Jsharpminor (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a source for FDR?  JSharpminor, I understand your reasoning for the change, but do you have source indicating that?  Also, to connect with that I have search Gallup High and low for those figures for FDR and I cannot find them, but rights, if FDR does not have a source reference he shouldn't be included.  From what I understand according to Wikipedia rules everything must have a source not ORIGINAL WORK as it stands your statement about FDR is original work until a source is found (a Gallup source), however, his Highs and lows are original work because there is no source for them at this time.  I wonder if FDR should be removed from the list for that reason.  As for Obama that source I put shows his term average that is likely to be changing as time goes on, it looks like they update it everyday.  The source should be displayed, so we can update it as time goes on. Your thoughts? Diamond Dave 15:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DavidM, welcome to Wikipedia. Right next to FDR's numbers is a little number in parentheses that points to the bottom of the page. Looking at the corresponding reference, you see where FDR's numbers are sourced from Gallup data -- but not on the Gallup web site itself. This page is under dispute, but there is a consensus. I have been nice, I am now going to tell you frankly -- stop your disruptive editing or you will most likely be facing a block. Read the FAQ -- just because the work is not sourced on the sections of the Gallup website that non-paying non-members like yourself do not have access to does not mean that the information is inaccurate. I am putting those numbers back. Davidm, please do not edit this page any further without discussing it first on the talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, David1982m, please read the FAQ that I put at the top of this page with you in mind. I really don't like that I'm starting to sound aggravated, but you're really starting to become aggravating by going against what other editors are saying. I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful, but it's obvious that you don't understand some of the finer points of statistics and Wikipedia. You'll find people much more agreeable if you can just listen to them before undoing their work. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: JSharpminor, what consensus, it's only you.  I'm trying to be cooperative.  Non-paying non-members, what the hell do you mean by that?      You're the only editor making comments about these changes and maybe one. Secondly I didn't realize that was a valid source, it was honest mistake.  I don't know why you have to be so rude about this and then go to lengths of blocking my access.  You're not being nice at all.  Your attitude is rude.  I have debated edits with others before and come to reasonable consensus, but you really take the cake.  Now, you act like this article sole properly.  I'm really what is wrong with you? You are the only unreasonable editor I have met.   02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average approval is NOT 'High plus Low divided by 2' 

message: Just a question: when will President Obama's Gallup chart be updated? It only covers to July 27, 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.68.126 (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be updated whenever a Wikian (like yourself) cares to go through the effort of updating it. ;-) Jsharpminor (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating President's chart 

message: Timmeh, I went in and cleaned up the references for the list. The only reason the Roper Center reference was there was because it showed Gallup data for FDR. You removed FDR, so now the best reference for the whole table is Gallup's page for historical data on past presidents. There is a consensus here to only use Gallup data for comparisons. Why is the Roper Center a better reference for Gallup data than Gallup itself? That was the edit I made. You undid it commenting "unexplained removal of sources". Did you even bother to look at the reference I put in and compare it to the one that was removed?
JSharpMinor, I feel your pain. 70.234.210.65 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, in fact your edit was correct. Looking at it closer, I see that Gallup does indeed have all the data in the table, except Obama's. Please accept my apologies. However, if you had explained your removal in an edit summary, this mixup likely would not have happened. Timmeh  20:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm, no foul. This turns out to be a very contentious page, though it is so extremely factual that there should be no controversy. I should have commented on the change, but it seemed so non-controversial, I didn't. I don't know why, but this page seems to attract editors that want to change and/or slant the content. It is what it is. Thank you for changing it back. 70.234.210.65 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, politics-related articles are often the subject of a lot of controversy. Actually, the activity on this page is nothing compared to what United States presidential election, 2008 was like during the months surrounding the event. That page had to be semi-protected several times because of vandalism. Timmeh  21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for list 

message: Six of the eight top 4 lists in the article showed data already completely presented in the sortable table. I've integrated the remaining data in an expanded version of that table and deleted the lists. You can sort by "Highest approval" to see the presidents with the "Highest approval ratings" list combined with the "Lowest maximum approval rating during the President's time in office" list. Sort by "Lowest approval" to see the deleted "Lowest approval rating" list combined with "Highest minimum approval rating during the President's time in office". Sort by "Average approval" to see the "Highest average approval rating" combined with "Lowest average approval rating". As a bonus, presidents who consistently scored B- or C+ while at work now also show up.
Agreeing with 70.234.210.65 that Roosevelt's highs and lows should be included, I've returned him to the table. Since in the given reference Gallup is holding back on an average for him, I didn't include that (I've seen 66% on two sites). The dates were taking a lot of space, so I have reduced them to the first day of the polling. Most polls took 3 to 5 days, so there really is little information lost.
I would like to expand the "average approval" into a separate table, showing best and worst terms and best and worst years from scattered Gallup publications (most from the volumes "The Gallup poll: Public Opinion 200X; unfortunately, these are only partially accessible through google books). However, I lack some yearly averages as well as the average for Truman's first term. Gallup's method to calculate averages is not obvious to me, so I can't calculate it from the data at Roper. Perhaps someone has a good (single) source for these averages?  Afasmit (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant data

message: Would it be at all possible for whoever does the graphs here to insert a grid on the Obama one. Right now its damn near impossible to line up the data with the gauge on the side. Thanks. 121.218.222.95 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Grid

message: I've created a newer, more recent graph for the President's approval rating, but how do I get it onto Wikipedia? Thanks, 76.205.80.98 (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the graph to go to the image's page. Click on "Upload a new version of this file" on that page and follow the instructions. Afasmit (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Obama Gallup Graph 

message: All the graphs are the same, except the one of Obama? Okay, the graph is not finished, but the past part needs to be the same as the other graphs for comparison. Crown1776 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has Obama a different graph? 

message: Where does Polls per Month column come from. I can't find it sourced anywhere. Assuming it is accurate (which doesn't appear to be the case - it's a daily tracking poll, the most recent past president was tracked the same way but it lists 2.9 as opposed to 29 for the current president), where do the numbers come from? And even if they are accurate and can be sourced, what significance does this number have? 76.233.113.124 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The polls per month is simply the number of Gallup polls divided by the number of months a president has been in office. The Gallup data is already sourced with each president and we don't need a source for doing divisions. 76.233.113.124's unawareness that daily polling only started with Obama's presidency supports the relevance of including a measure of polling frequency; again, the highs and lows are bound to be more extreme if one polls every day than, say, twice every three months, as was done for Truman. Afasmit (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls per Month 

message: I don't think there's much that can be done, but I would be curious to know if there's a source out there shows the full fractional difference between Clinton and Johnson.  I can imagine its not exactly 5.1 for each of them.  Does anyone know of a source that shows the full rating for Johnson and Clinton that show the next few fractions that would show their differences?  --Diamond Dave (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson-Clinton Tie? 

message: Looking at the graphs today, it struck me that the presentation might be better if all the graphs were drawn on the same scale, to make eyeball comparison of the slope of the approval-level line more valid. Since FDR is not included, an eight-year scale would seem appropriate. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with that, although it seems as if it might be more work than it's worth. I don't if many people visit this page, but the comparisons are interesting and having a set scale seems appropriate. Dave Dial (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs 

message: Why is Obama's plot different? 
We need the same green-red plot, same orientation, just have some graphics person make one
We need to be able to compare presidents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.160.62 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is Obama plot different? 

message: Have there been no new polls? Since I haven't seen any new statistics for quite some time, I was wondering if the polls are no longer being done or if no one is updating this page with the most current polls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.1.128 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated all the polls with the current numbers today, but I'm not going to do that every day. There seems to be lots of editting when there are big changes, but Obama's numbers have been fairly steady in the mid 40's for awhile now. 99.111.226.99 (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RECENT, the article shouldn't be maintained every day. Per WP:DATED,  can/should be used to make its currency status clear. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Anyone Still Maintaining this Page? 

message: His most recent low is 40% but someone keeps removing it.  If you want proof here it is. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/obamas-gallup-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-40 06:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does someone keep removing his Obama's most recent lows?

message: I was wondering why the updates on this stopped in January 2011.  
Also, why do all of the other presidents have an easy to read Red/Yellow/Green chart and Obama gets something different?
KVP5533 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more updates? 

message: This edit caught my eye. The edit changed the "Approve" figure for President Obama for the period of Jan 31 - Feb 12, 2014 from 47.3% to 42.9%.
The supporting source cited in the article for these figures does not appear to give any information about this. It does say that the RCP average for President Obama for the period of Mar 14 to Apr 7 was "Approve" 43.2% and "Disapprove" 52.6%. 
The table in the article has a third column, "+/-", and the supporting source cited appears to give no information about this (it gives information about the difference between the "Approve" and "disapprove" figures). In any case, it is not clear to me what information this column is intended to contain -- it's apparently intended as an increase/decrease figure, but it's not clear to me whether it is intended to show the change in the "Approve", the change in the "Disapprove" figure, or something else. I would guess that it is intended to show the change in the "spread" figure given in the cited supporting source but not shown in the article.
I see that the particular supporting source linked is not a date-stable source -- the page linked by the URL in the cite changes week by week. I see the following in a stable snapshot version of the currently cited source and in an older version of that source:
snapshot date	period     	approve	disapprove	spread	+/- in spread
2014-03-14   	2/27 - 3/12	43.0   	52.9      	-9.9  	- 0.4
2014-03-01   	2/4 - 2/27 	43.0   	52.5      	-9.5  	not checked
I have not updated the RCP Average info in the article, though, because I'm not sure of the intended meaning of the "+/-" column in the table.
I took a look at the second row of the table (Rasmussen Reports), and see that it agrees with the info in the cited source for 14 Feb, and is out of date with the latesT info  for 3 April. I don't see any relationship between the -1% figure reported in the "+/-" column there and any info contained in the source cited.
I took a look at the third row of the table (Gallup), and see that it reports info for February 10-12 which is not supported by the cited source currently available (the source has been updated). I haven't gone back to dig out an older version of the source. I haven't updated the table data for this row, and I wouldn't know what to put in the "+/-" column.
Could someone else please look at this? If I've somehow badly misunderstood what the article was intended to communicate here re the "+/-" table column, could someone please improve the presentation clarity here? Also, it looks to me as if the table is badly in need of updating. I would have spent more time on this, but I'm presently cursed with very balky internet connectivity. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama confusion and dated info 

message: I think that the dates presented in the table at Historical comparison section is really confusing, especially for those that does not adopt the format MM/DD/YY. I suggest to just use full month name instead of the month number (as specified in MOS:DATERANGE). 116.12.221.66 (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing date format in Historical comparison table 

message: Can someone please add a 'Party' column to the table, just like there is on most other US Presidents lists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodem (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please add a 'Party' column to the table, just like there is on most other US Presidents lists? 

message: The historical comparison of high and low Gallup numbers is somewhat distorted by the huge increase in polls over time. Roosevelt had one every few months, Bush II had one every week, Obama, like Trump now, had one released every day. This of course leads to wider extremes (if you try a poll 7 times in a presidents worst week rather than once, your likely to get at least once a lower approval number, same for the other end). I tried to indicate that a few years back by having a column with number of polls per year (or 4 year, or something), but that was removed nearly instantly (probably for the catch all reason of OR). Yesterday, User:Geraldbean changed the numbers for Obama to a new list of non-overlapping weekly averages, rather than the daily overlapping 3-day averages that we've been displaying for 8 years. Not surprisingly, this reduced the bottom and top numbers. Besides the lower frequency, averaging over 7 days will further smooth the edges. I'm okay with that, as the data can be sourced and it's impossible to get truly comparable data for all presidents. Perhaps people disagree though. It also emphasizes the need for a description of the numbers with each row, including for Trump which still are daily reports of 3-day averages. Afasmit (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW Obama's daily rolling 3-day averages are currently still used as a reference, if we want to keep the stepwise weekly averages this reference should be. Afasmit (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Gallup numbers to use

message: Since there was no discussion on the talk page that seemed to relate directly to the "needs updating" tag and the charts and graphs appear both current and formatted the same as the prior presidents I'm removing the tag.  In December/January the coloring of the graph was definitely different and the numbers were a little out of date.  That no longer appears to be the case.  aremisasling (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "needs updating" tag 

message: Hello,
I just was reading that Gallup plans to stop doing daily tracking and instead do it weekly starting next week.  We should figure out how to reformat the page when this happens- keep including Rasmussen etc. Thanks
Benwitt (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallup 

message: Why did you remove a poll from Ipsos Reuters for no reason?
Fully sourced and everything.
182.239.169.174 (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benwitt removes poll from Ipsos Reuters 

message: Looks like some people are changing President Trump's "Highest Approval Rating" to 85% when the source only shows the highest at 45%. I've seen a few edits back and forth, especially with some recent news articles about the 2020 elections coming up. 
Is it possible to request that row be locked, or at least require email-verified users for a bit of security on it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heirr (talk • contribs) 06:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of Trump's Highest Approval Rating in the Table 

message: It lists Trump's highest approval as 44% and lowest at 35% with a margin of 11%. 44-35 = 9 NOT 11. All good, just figured I'd better say this before anyone else sees it and uses it directly.
2600:1700:8C40:64B0:7062:5D57:9CCD:33D0 (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  44 minus 35 is not 11, it's 9 

message: There's a tag on the article requesting the dates in this table be converted from MM/DD/YY to YYYY-MM-DD due to the former being easy to misinterpret. I've just done the conversion with an algorithm and checked it against the previous version for accuracy, so this should be complete now. (Note that if there were any typos or other inaccuracies in the original data then these will still exist. I have made no attempt to check this side of things.) If someone could review it then we could perhaps look at removing the article tag.
2001:44B8:17F:7100:F871:982B:60C5:8B67 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format in 'Historical Comparison' section 

message: There has been a vandalism campaign on this article since the house impeached. Locking the article would likely be the best course of action.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BCA0:773:CBA:47FC:30FF:3E25 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is vandalism ongoing, as of 28 March 2020. 2001:569:BD89:A00:E576:52E6:DB6C:3D64 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and can we please take the talk about Rasmussen being biased. They were accurate in most of their polls of Obama. Mentioning it makes the article sound anti-Trump.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:D1F7:1E90:280D:FBFD (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting locking this article. 

message: Can the table be colored by value?
See Talk:Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_3#Heat_map and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_178#Is_it_possible_to_color_table_cells_by_value_to_produce_a_heatmap%3F — Omegatron (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat map 

message: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a newspaper or provide political analysis and inform its readers about current affairs. The spotlight in this article is on President Trump’s approval, rather than a general focus on general approval ratings throughout different presidencies.
Moreover, even if it is appropriate to include, to some extent, polling about the current presidency, the extravagant table presenting current polls should definitely be removed.
2.53.16.120 (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure not encyclopedic  

message: Someone has vandalised the article to say Trump's highest approval rating was 60% approval. Perhaps this page should be protected. 113.196.51.134 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism RE Trump  

message: Shouldn't those two mean the same?  I mean the lowest disapproval should be the point where the least amount of people disapprove of the president, and highest approval should also be the point at which the most amount of people approve of the president, meaning that those two would be the same, in theory, as the more people who approve, the less people do not approve, meaning disapprove.  Am I reading that wrong?
--Bray (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Necessarily. You can have a poll done and say the results are 60% approve, but the vast majority, if not all, of polls are not binary. So even though you have 60% approve, maybe 5% have no opinion and 35% disapprove. The same is true for the reverse where you have 60% disapprove, 5% no opinion, and 35% approve. JJN1991 (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest approval == Lowest Disapproval, right? (Re: [[United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Approval_at_the_beginning_of_the_presidency|Approval at the beginning of the presidency]]) 

message: I am just wondering should we start listing approval rating by Race for the president such as the approval rating by White Americans, Hispanic, Black, and Asian. They have polls by each group. It should be added. such as https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bidens-hispanic-approval-rating-is-now-the-same-as-trumps-was-two-years-ago/ La lopi (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval rating by Race