Talk:President of the United States

Presidential Turkey Pardon

Ronald Reagan wasn't the first president to pardon a turkey. According to the link it was George H.W. Bush. The giveaway was that Reagan was no longer president by Thanksgiving 1989... 82.25.74.67 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, good catch, I've fixed it. Happy Thanksgiving!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, good job. BTW, I changed the source link slightly so that it now opens directly to the page referring to Bush 41. SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar revision

"Obama signing legislation at the Resolute desk." Could this be changed to something a bit more formal and respectful, EG President Obama signing...

It's not disrespectful, it's normal style for Wikipedia articles - for the most part, we dispense with titles and first names. See WP:SURNAME.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronouns

There are several places in this article where the presidential office is masculinized through the use of pronouns (i.e. "each modern president... is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of [his] party..."). It would be much more appropriate to use gender-neutral pronouns (i.e. "each modern president... is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of [their] party..."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.21.159 (talk • contribs)

Not an issue. There have been no female presidents (and we'll have to wait 'til at least 2016 before one's elected), so using 'his' is fine because we know each president has been a dude. Hot Stop talk-contribs 12:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hot Stop. Additionally, "their" is a plural pronoun and so is not an appropriate substitute for singular pronouns like "he", "his" or "him". SMP0328. (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Presidential elections with an incumbent

Presidential elections since 1936 with an incumbent 1936 Roosevelt 523 Landon 8 Incumbent [116] 1940 Roosevelt 449 Willkie 82 Incumbent [117] 1944 Roosevelt 432 Dewey 99 Incumbent [117] 1948 Truman 303 Dewey 189 Incumbent [117] 1956 Eisenhower 457 Stevenson 73 Incumbent [117] 1964 Johnson 486 Goldwater 52 Incumbent [117] 1972 Nixon 520 McGovern 17 Incumbent [117] 1976 Carter 297 Ford 240 Challenger [117] 1980 Reagan 489 Carter 49 Challenger [117] 1984 Reagan 525 Mondale 13 Incumbent [117] 1992 Clinton 370 GHW Bush 168 Challenger [117] 1996 Clinton 379 Dole 159 Incumbent [117] 2004 GW Bush 286 Kerry 252 Incumbent [118]

I could be wrong but I think there are some errors in this table.

1. 1 1976 incumbent was Gerald Ford, challenger was Jimmy Carter
2. 2 1980 incumbent was Jimmy Carter, challenger was Ronald Regan
3. 3 1992 incumbent was GHW Bush, challenger was William Clinton

P.S. Very nicely written article.

150.125.191.84 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Paul Lewis

Origin section of President of USA - more background info.

Although "President of the United States" article describes roots of USA Head of state office form early years of USA, it can also be traced back to colonial times. More recent event one was Albany Congress, on which Benjamin Franklin opted for creation of Union and single executive called President-General appointed by King, "who would be responsible for Indian relations, military preparedness, and execution of laws regulating various trade and financial activities". This function is very similar tho the military governor office introduced by British King to fight American Revolution in 13 Colonies (eg: British general Thomas Gage was military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay Colony). Although in time when French and Indian War erupted, so-called Albany Plan of common government was crucial to defend colonies attacked by French and Indians (Join or Die!) and to protect their interest, but never coined before First Continental Congress. Second such as office can be dated back to 1686, when Joseph Dudley became President of the Council of New England. Dominion on New England (present-day Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey) lived shortly, from 1686 to 1689. This two offices outlined by me, has straight connotations to governor of colony office which mainly, I think, influenced then future office of President of United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelG1986 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

POTUS

I added POTUS to the lead, as an acronym for President of the United States, in parentheses after the official title -- but it was unilaterally deleted in good faith by another editor. I included one interesting ref (by William Safire), but the acronym is very commonly used and there are many other refs/cites that could be used. I won't revert because I never engage in edit wars, but I do think this is an addition that should be discussed by other editors here. Best to all (from a Washingtonian who reads about POTUS all the time!). :) NearTheZoo (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Very collegial response to my reversion - thanks. My view is that these sorts of acronyms don't belong in leads. I suppose I don't have a major problem including them in the body if they are well-sourced. That means something more than just a passing refering to the acronym, a reliable source that says this acronym is used. I realize that my personal experiences, just like NearTheZoo's, aren't what count, but I don't recall seeing POTUS used in the mainstream press (I don't live in D.C.) - maybe it's an insider sort of thing? I'm also not sure what value it has in the article unless it's placed in some context.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23! I also appreciate collegiality among editors!!! Here is an example of a daily CNN White House listing of "POTUS's Schedule." POTUS for the President and FLOTUS for the First Lady have become pretty commonplace, I think -- and if they are acronyms that are used in the press and in other areas (especially in the military, I think, along with SecDef for Secretary of Defense, etc)I think their inclusion adds to the article. (By the way, "SecDef" is included in parentheses after in the wikipedia article lead for "Secretary of Defense.") Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

One quick PS: I did check out Secretary of the Army, Navy, and AF wikipedia articles. There, like the Secretary of Defense article, the acronyms (SECAF, SECNAV, and SA/SECARMY)are included in the leads, in parentheses. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I noticed that POTUS is used by press members. I also noticed that it's used by the White House as part of URLs (heh). I guess, for me, none of that is enough to include it as an acronym for the president in the lead. It seems almost like a shorthand code name (again by insiders).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the consistency argument, but just because other articles do it doesn't make it correct (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK--one more note, and then I'll bow out and leave the decision to you and other editors. I think the other articles include the acronyms because it is good information in the article (for example, that SECAF is the official designation for Secretary of the Air Force), so I'm citing them not only as a matter of consistency, but also as good models. Here are a few examples of places that POTUS is listed/used as an acronym for the office: Library of Congress records; Department of Defense Dictionary; here and here as just a couple of examples of dictionary listings, including Merriam-Webster (listed as an "Encyclopedia Brittanica company); and the Foreign Service Institute briefing guide. Again -- I'll step back from this discussion now and leave it to you and other editors. But I do think POTUS is a widely-used acronym and including it here (in the same way that SECDEF and the other official acronyms are included in the leads of the other articles) enhances the article. My two cents (or--with all my notes--almost a quarter?). :) Best wishes to all, NearTheZoo (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you have to bow out; your opinion is as important as any other editor's. However, I do agree that we both should let others comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)