Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Categories for laws signed by Presidents

This is a thought I've had for a while. Is this project against categories being created for U.S. Presidents who have signed laws during their presidencies? A hypothetical category could be "Legislation signed by Barack Obama" or "Acts signed by Barack Obama". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Turned this into an Rfc in case people hadn't seen this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Question: Would you provide a brief neutral summary of any previous conflict over this issue? I'm unfamiliar with the situation, and would like to understand more. BusterD (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't think there was a conflict over this type of issue. But I'm basically asking if articles about U.S. federal legislation should be categorized by the respective President that signed the bill into law. For instance, laws signed by Barack Obama could be categorized under "Legislation signed by Barack Obama" or "Acts signed by Barack Obama". Or by some other naming format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of broader context I'm inclined to agree this seems an obvious sort of categorization. Such approvals define somewhat the office holders' tenure and performance. I'm not seeing an argument against it, but would be happy to be better informed. BusterD (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this seems like a pretty uncontroversial change. WP:BEBOLD, if you see the niche. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We could divide the main cats into a container category by what year the law was signed by which president. I think "Legislation signed by Barack Obama" as an example is probably the best way to name such categories. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with the subject matter of legislation being signed by Presidents. It seems a monumental task as there are many Presidents and a lot of legislation. You would have to find reliable sources for each President. You would have to categorize each type of legislation signed and the dates of signing. Best of luck to you. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This Rfc can be closed as there is consensus for my proposal for categorization. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the point of presidential rankings?

The introduction for pretty much every Wikipedia page for a U.S. president cites a "survey of historians and scholars" that ranks the presidents.

• Why? Are these surveys really notable enough to be in the introduction of every president? I'm not a trained historian, but it seems kind of silly to me to "rank" presidents who lived in completely different eras and did completely different things in completely different contexts. Do historians really find these numbers useful?
• What should be done when rankings change? There's an ongoing dispute on the Andrew Jackson page about how to address the decline in Jackson's rankings. Is the point of the rankings to describe the current academic consensus, or to take a historiographical approach that charts a president's rankings over time?
• These rankings seem ripe for systemic bias. How do we address that? For example, Andrew Jackson played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States, and the academic communities that formed in the resulting whites-only America are still mostly white. It strikes me as biased to describe Jackson's performance as "favorable" because a bunch of white academics ranked him high in "public persuasion," especially when he was persuading people toward racist policies and surveys of Black academics have ranked him as an "institutionally racist" "white supremacist." How can we better address this bias without making the introductions too bulky?

In my opinion, the best solution is to remove these rankings from all of the POTUS introductions and move them to the corresponding "Historical reputation" sections. FinnV3 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it above all else is used to demonstrate how high (or low) regard they're held in, though admittedly does take from a limited sample size. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically why. I have no strong opinion on whether they need to be in all the presidential lead sections, but the only reason why this is being brought up now is because FinnV3 was upset to see it mentioned that Andrew Jackson was ranked highly compared to other U.S. presidents. He tried to argue that he wasn't, but he had to concede when he was shown irrefutable evidence that he was. Now he is just trying to change the rules. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Chill dude, what "rules" are you referring to? I don't think #22 really counts as "ranked highly compared to other U.S. presidents," especially when he's ranked sixth-to-last in "pursued equal justice for all." FinnV3 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson

I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That probably was cryptic... why do we care about that? This RM involves about 50 state funeral articles, including at least one that is related to this WP. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

GAR notice

Zachary Taylor has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Links to White House biographies

I'd like several opinions on whether or not our POTUS bios should link to the White House site. After I noticed User:Rjensen removing the link from several bios, I asked him to pause and discuss. We've discussed, but haven't agreed yet. YoPienso (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yopienso and I agree they are very short and superficial and of mediocre quality. I argue they were not written or endorsed by any White House official. Instead they were prepared by a private group the White House Historical Association. It raises millions of $$$$ for preserving & restoring the White House building and furniture and does not sponsor the study of the presidential administrations. Most are out of date--for example see the surprisingly favorable treatment of Andrew Johnson--who today is seen as guilty of about the very worst presidency: "Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents. Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics. Johnson was no match for them. . . . Radical Republicans in Congress moved vigorously to change Johnson’s program. They gained the support of northerners who were dismayed to see Southerners keeping many prewar leaders and imposing many prewar restrictions upon Negroes." [see online (No scholar uses "Negroes" in the last half century) Wikipedia readers who rely on them for term papers will do poorly. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As Rjensen says, we agree on our opinion of the White House biographies. Because they're outdated, he thinks Wikipedia shouldn't link to them. Because they're the official White House biographies, I think we should--and let the reader beware.

I do not endorse using them as sources for any Wikipedia article.

Here's a new proposal: link to them, but include a caveat that they're outdated. (In fact, even though what Rjensen points out is true, the book they're taken from was most recently copyrighted in 2009. Not ancient. But I'd guess only the copyright was renewed without any update of contents. Online archives show they haven't changed since Dubya's term. There may be older archives I haven't found. YoPienso (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

it's odd to recommend bad sources--as if it's the reader's job to recognize just which parts are ok and which parts are bad. That will fool lots of students. Those who do link to them will waste study time while missing the really good sources. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

To repeat what I said on your talk page, linking doesn't necessarily confer an endorsement (or recommendation).

Per WP:ELOFFICIAL:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.

The White House website meets those criteria.

YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

On all presidents before Biden, say Abe Lincoln, the material is ABOUT Lincoln but of course was not written or controlled by the Lincoln Admin. (only the Biden bio is controlled by the coresponsing Biden officials.) Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, User:Rjensen, it looks like nobody's home. We can leave this until/if someone chimes in. YoPienso (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. bye. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sally Hemings as mistress

A thought crossed my mind after coming upon Category:Mistresses of United States presidents: Would Sally Hemings qualify for that category? Of course it's a sensitive subject what with her having been enslaved by him at the time, but I'm not sure that would disqualify her. The other possible disqualification I can think of is that their relationship began while Jefferson was already widowed, but I see an implication on mistress (lover) that Catherine the Great's post-widowhood affairs could count, so perhaps this could too. I won't add Hemings to the category without consensus because I do think it's questionable and wouldn't want her misplaced, but I think it's at least worth considering. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need a discussion for that - I simply added the cat. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure I had the definition right first, but if you agree then that's already something. Thank you for the feedback. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to make this a big debate, but I've reverted that because a mistress would be a woman someone begins a romantic/sexual relationship with while married to (or at least already involved with) another person. As far as I know, Sally was Thomas's only non-platonic relationship after Martha died, so adding that category for her is misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)