Talk:President of the United States

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Randy Randalman (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BAMSHKAPOW1.

President vs president

Due to the revert, based on the false premise of consensus, i am here to establish consensus that this article is about the office of the "President of the United States".

Which is: A) Proper Noun B) One of the 3 co-equal branches of US Government and should not be treated differently than the opening sentence of the articles: The House of Representatives; The Senate of the United States, The Congress of the United States; and The Supreme Court of the United States. C) the office is defined in Article 2 of the US Constitution and capitalized there D) The grammar rule of lowercase after the does not apply when speaking of the office. The off cited Nixon was president of the United States is not the same as the office of the President of the United States. There president refers to Nixon. Here, President refers to itself and is part of the full title.

So, please can we end this fake claim of consensus and agree that this article's opening sentence is an exception to the rule and should be capitalized? Slywriter (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the office of president of the United States. No argument there. MOS:JOBTITLES states (in the first sentence) that offices are common nouns. This suggests that according to Wikipedia’s manual of style, offices including “president of the United States” are common nouns and should be lowercase. Your suggestion that this should be an exception seems odd, because the MOS is clear that it was written for casss like this. Also, as far as I know, consensus was established on the talk page for MOS:JOBTITLES, but I’m not sure of that... it happened before I began editing Wikipedia regularly. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer: I am unable to find this consensus. And the entire MOSBIO/JOBTITLES is a mess and objections have been raised there by others of the misuse of those policies.

It makes zero sense especially when President of Generic University/ Harvard/Russia/France is capitalized.

Under the logic imposed, all of those need to be lower case as does house, congress, senate, supreme.

MOS:JobTitles uses the word generic. I'd argue it is not a generic position. It is the powers inherent of Art 2.

Slywriter (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

House, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, etc. are not job titles. They are institutions, and as such are proper names. I’m sorry that so many other “President of ...” articles are uppercase, but I (and others) can only change them to match MOS in my (our) free time. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer: I'll refine my point to say, that it is not a job title. It qualifies as an institution, despite being held by only one person. Blanket rules do not encompass the nuance of US government. 3 co-equal branches. Slywriter (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s an interesting opinion. It is not one that is shared by common/leading style guides, including Chicago Manual of Style, which specifically renders “president of the United States” as lowercase in section 8.19 of the seventeenth edition. If you wish to pursue the conversation here with others, please do. I’ll leave it to others to continue the discussion. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer:Just to be clear, I agree that in every single usage of the title on Wikipedia, other than the opening sentence of this page, it should be lower case. Here, it is referring to the Article 2 branch of government, which requires special handling and is not clearly covered in the AP or Chicago style guide. Slywriter (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Drdpw, you have reverted my edit with the comment that it is "not correct". Would you care to explain please, why you consider this so. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wondering the same because it's a simple solution. The MOS people can continue their haphazard crusade, which is barely implemented across major articles. This article can have it's capital P as it rightfully should for the numerous reasons outlined above.

Slywriter (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think something like Cinderella157's approach can work, but it was not done well; a few more words of the lead sentence should be updated to make it clear that it's referring to the office or the title, not the person, and the comment certainly can't be left in a contradictory state. And Slywriter, if you'd approach this in a more productive way, you could help us get there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Old news: [1][2] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like we have 3 or 4 of us that would favor that approach. Give it another try? Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Knock yerself out. I think I'm permanently burned out on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was productive, albeit a little snarky, in the opening of this. I blame that on the note included and the fact that all searches for consensus find that the issue is not well fleshed out and consensus was just someone said so. MOS is clear about Nixon, president of the United States. It's not clear when the the position is itself being described. Slywriter (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative (with a few more words): The office of President of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

But the office is lowercase according to MOS... it says that in the first sentence of the relevant MOS section. Maybe "President of the United States is the title given to the head of state and head of government of the United States of America". Then we're talking about the "title or position in and of itself" from the third bullet point in MOS:JOBTITLES. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Eyer, pls see third dot point at MOS:JOBTITLES. Caps would be correct in the alternative I have given. Also I have tweaked. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that (and update the comment). I appreciate Eyer's work to keep us aligned with JOBTITLES; and yours, Cinderella157. I think taking the opportunity to show a title in a properly capitalized context is a useful part of that. The MOS needs to be seen as active and relevant, not a "haphazard crusade" like Slywriter thinks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Question, though: is the office the head of state? I don't think it is. I think the officeholder is the head of state, but not the office itself. That means that saying The office of President of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America. would be incorrect. Is there a different way of re-wording this, perhaps? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

is the head of state Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer: I believe you are correct, the office is not head of state, head of government, commander in chief, the office holder is. A re-worded sentence such as—The person serving as President of the United States (POTUS) is head of state and head of government of the United States of America. The president ...—would work. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Right. Thanks for the suggestion on that wording. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If president of the United States is capitalised here? then vice president of the United States, should be capitalised at Vice President of the United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sad to see that the lead sentence has been contorted into an unnecessarily confusing mess just to capitalize one word, but there really is a bright line that should not be crossed: factual accuracy. Namely, an office cannot be a head of state. A head of state is a living, breathing person. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm content with either capitalised or de-capitalised. But, If we're gonna be capitalising the intro? then it's best to do it correctly. Therefore, I've tweaked it. "The office of... & ...held by the...", is terrible. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No. "President of the United States" is a title, not a person. A title cannot be the head of anything. No title has ever run a country. Please stop correcting correct things. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change it back to "The president of the United States..."? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No. That would bring us back full circle to what started this discussion. I've reverted your clearly wrong edit and discussion can continue from there as desired. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I reverted the intro back to its status quo, before all this fuss. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with status quo ante (not "status quo", BTW) too, pending a consensus for change. That actually makes some sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Would like to point out, about a year ago (I believe) an Rfc was held for several articles which had 'President of the United States' & 'Vice President of the United States' in their intro. The result of that Rfc was to go with the de-capitalised version - president of the United States & vice president of the United States. Therefore, if -suddenly- attempts are gonna be made to overturn that result? Then I highly recommend another Rfc on the matter be opened. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As stated previously, the MOS, RfC and other previous consensus all cover Richard Nixon, president of the United States; George Bush, president of the United States. No argument those should be lowercase. This article should be styled at the top to accurately reflect it is an article on the office of the President of the United States, which is a subtle but important difference. Slywriter (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you open up a 'new' Rfc on this matter, for this article & the Vice President of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: will you PLEASE stop messing around with the intro & respect WP:BRD. Restore the version that was there, before you raised any concerns. Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: To clarify - the previous Rfc 'might' have only covered the List of... articles, concerning these matters. @Drdpw:, you may have a better memory on this, then I. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No personal memory. Just spent a good faith effort tracking down archives in various places. If there is an RfC that is explicit, please direct me to it.

I have made an edit to try and get good language for the lead. Also, found it odd that US Constitution isn't mentioned in lead. Slywriter (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting ticked off, that you're by-passing getting a consensus on the talkpage, via forcing your changes into the article intro. It's disruptive & I wish you'd revert 'now'. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As BRD is not mandatory and other editors are involved in this discussion who can revert the edit if they disagree, I will not revert the edit.

My edit is a good faith attempt to conform to the purported MOS consensus and not disruptive in any way. Such accusations are rude and unnecessary.

Slywriter (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Get a consensus 'here' for the changes you want to make to the intro, first. In this situation, making bold edits is counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither are accusations. Neither is you deciding of your own interpretation of 1RR to justify reversion. Other editors are involved who could have decided the edit was bad and reverted. Nonetheless,

• "The President of the United States" is a proper name and should be captialized.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." This "President of the United States of America" is an individual (and is assumed to be a "he" ...). The article "a" / "the" is an exception to normal usage. There is one and only one "President of the United States of America", and the current one is "The President of the United States of America".

This does not necessarily extend to the "Vice President of the United States of America". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed that the lead say:

The office of President of the United States (POTUS)[B] is defined by Article 2 of the United State Constitition. The office holder is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America.

This conforms to the MOS(which doesn't cover this use case) and states where the power is derived from.

Slywriter (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - as it reads poorly & is appears cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Be honest as least and say you oppose all changes to the lead. It is a factually accurate account of the office and the Constitution is the bedrock of US government. Readers would find that relevant.

Slywriter (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Leave the lead alone. Messing it up, just to get capitalisation into it, is counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems cumbersome... like someone is trying to rework a sentence just for the sake of capitalizing a word. I haven't found any suggestions so far to be any better than the status quo ante that starts with the man or woman who is president being the heads of state and government. Further, when I think of the Constitution's role here, I think of it defining the presidency, not the president. (In fact, the similar article at Encyclopedia Brittanica is called "Presidency of the United States of America" [3]. In Wikipedia, that information is a click (on "executive branch") away. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 15:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you really want to get the constitutional aspect in here, then change the second sentence to something like "Deriving power form Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president directs the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces." —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 15:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This article is in and of itself, about the office|title|position. As it first appears, the title should be fully capitalised accordingly and written in such a way that accommodates this. Preceding it with the definite article (the) causes president to be lowercased. Also, it causes it to refer to something (or someone) specific - arguably the incumbent. The article is about the position and not the incumbent. Simply removing the definite article resolves the matter, though I also amend per the head of state. We don't generally go adding the to other titles (eg book titles etc). Drdpw I am still at a loss as to why you think this is incorrect. Preceding with the office of (more words) appeared to make more people happy but ... Head of state is a position invested in the presidency and exercised by the incumbent - the head of state: a person. I am all for an economy of words. A lot of this discussion (including my own comments) are hyper-pedantic. I don't think that such subtleties serve our readers nor are they likely aware of such distinctions.

In the lead of Vice President of the United States, the titles, vice president and president, are also lowercased because they are preceded by the definite article - even thought the references are to the offices and not the incumbents. We should be comparing apples with apples.

On this proposal, I am neutral, except that it would require further tweaking WRT para 3 of the lead. It is not suitable in and of itself. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: If you trace the archives of the discussions on MOS:JOBTITLE back to about six months ago, you'll see that there has been extensive discussion about how that section has been heavily vandalized by idiots who do not understand how capitalization works in formal written English. The underlying problem is that every editor like myself who actually has the advanced university education to see why lowercasing job titles willy-nilly is inherently wrong is also too busy earning a substantial income to initiate an arbitration to get every responsible editor permanently banned from the encyclopedia. And WP admins have been too incompetent to summarily ban those editors even though such sanctions were clearly justified. So MOS:JOBTITLE really should not be treated as controlling in this discussion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool down, Caesar. "Heavily vandalized by idiots" is not a fair way to characterize the good-faith contributions of those you disagree with. You are not alone in having an "advanced university education", which anyway is not a requirement for understanding English grammar and style issues. Nobody is advocating "lowercasing job titles willy-nilly". I'm glad you're "earning a substantial income", but that's not what stands between the current dispute and an arbitration proceeding that will get all who disagree with you "permanently banned from the encyclopedia". Nor is calling WP admins "too incompetent" likely to advance your case. In fact, nothing you said here is the least bit useful to this conversation, except in letting us know which side you're on. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Or the P can just be capitalized in the first sentence. Head over to the talk page of WP:MOSBIO where it is becoming clear that the lower casing lacks consensus and the conversation is now about clarifying the rules so that P and p get used consistently.

Slywriter (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support using "The office of President of the United States is ..."; I don't have an opinion on the rest of the lead sentence at the moment. Using this construction is not unwieldy, and makes it very clear that the article is about the office as such. Using "The President of the United State is ..." makes it sound like the article is about whoever is currently the US president, and that will confuse some subset of readers (most likely kids and non-native English speakers), at least momentarily. So, just use the clearer wording per WP:Common sense and WP:ENC principles. And yes, it should be capital-P in this context, since this is the article about the office itself and we're treating the unique title as a proper name here. It is not the same kind of usage as "Nixon, while still the president of the United States", which is treatment as a job title and descriptive phrase of a person, but not attached to the name in "impeachment proceedings against President of the United States Richard Nixon ..." form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Too cumbersome looking, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer capitalizing the P and acknowledging that "President of the United States" is a globally unique title that can survive capitalization after a "The". It's the least cumbersome path and gives proper respect to the head of State of a nation. They are not some generic "president". Slywriter (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I too prefer the capitalisation of the P when speaking of both the office and the title. And, the very same should apply to other offices and titles. They are proper nouns, contrary to some erroneous conclusions that they are common nouns and therefore would not warrant capitalisation. I have written to the editors of Wikipedia for further guidance because I am not convinced the measure is the correct one. Where I can I have been reverting them because using the BBC guide (which has been referenced herein) in first instance - like at the beginning of the article for instance - capitalisation is acceptable. There is not much consensus on this matter --72.252.112.182 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Omitting "the" is perfectly valid. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Lede sentence should begin: "The President of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state ..." and thereafter should be construed as the single individual, with care to use past perfect in reference to previous incumbents. The POTUS jargon doesn't need to be in the lede sentence.

Possibly, it should be "The President of the United States of America is the head of state ..." as "President of the United States of America" is the full correct name.

The alternative will be convoluted and at odds with normal use: "The Office of President of the United States of America is the ...". The office name is also a proper name, as is the associated physical room, "The Oval Office". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article is referring to the office, not any individual who is or ever has occupied it, and so the "P" should be capitalized. The best way to do this is "The President of the United States", but I could live with "President of the United States" (no "The") or "The Office of the President of the United States." SMP0328. (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Omitting the "The" gets my vote. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That would make it weird. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead is fine, the way it currently is. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

My !vote is to capitalize the P, but apart from that, yes the lede is fine. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't it sound like a laudation?

"In contemporary times, the president is looked upon as one of the world's most powerful political figures as the leader of the only remaining global superpower.[11][12][13][14] The role includes responsibility for the world's most expensive military, which has the second largest nuclear arsenal. The president also leads the nation with the largest economy by nominal GDP. The president possesses significant domestic and international hard and soft power."

In my opinion there is no need to mention that the USA have the most expensive military and so on in an article about the office of the president. Agluszak (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

22nd Amendment

The article said that the 22nd Amendment says that if a person serves as president for more than two years of a term to which some other eligible person was elected president, then he can only be elected president once. But the text doesn't say that, nor does the text imply that the rule only applies if the original president was eligible to the office, so I have taken out the word "eligible", as it was inaccurate and original research. The inclusion of that word makes a real difference (but if you don't agree with me then it was a tautology). Suppose President A is elected, and after a year in office it emerged that he wasn't eligible after all -- say his birth certificate turns up and it proves he was under 35, or wasn't a natural born citizen. He resigns, and his Vice President serves the next three years as President B. The 22nd Amendment says President B can only be elected president once. But if you qualify the text by pretending it says that if you serve more than two years of a term to which another eligible person has been elected, then that would mean that since President A wasn't eligible, then President B can still be elected twice, and serve eleven years in total. That's clearly wrong, and illustrates the dangers of Wikipedia editors adding their own gloss to the constitutional text they are writing about. Richard75 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Eligible, eligibility, reeligible are words used in the work cited; these words are used in various other scholarly articles on the 22nd Amendment. You present an interesting hypothetical here, an interesting, but extremely remote possibility. I have restored the word eligible. Drdpw (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for change in text about superpowers on 22 June 2020

It says in the beginning of the text that the president of the United States has got great power mainly due to America being “the only superpower left in the world”. Now, this isn’t quite right since People’s Republic of China now also counts as a superpower and therefore this fact should be adjusted. 81.232.50.143 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – From the introduction to Potential superpowers:

Currently, only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower. China on the other hand, has been referred to as an emerging superpower, given that Beijing's power is now beyond the classification of a Great Power.

Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Request minor edit to Election section

"Otherwise, the House of Representatives must meet to elect a President using a contingent election procedure in which representatives, voting by state delegation, with each state casting a single vote, choose between the top electoral vote-getters for President."

Should be "...top three electoral vote-getters...", per the Twelfth Amendment. This improves clarity.