Talk:President of the United States

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)

I for one thinks that the POTUS acronym should be included in the article lead within parentheses, firstly because it really is common in political talk (and to some extent even in popular fiction), and secondly because it also is a genuine “inside term”, just as much as SECDEF and DEPSECDEF are used in DoD contexts. RicJac (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Bbb23's point. It is another name by which the office is known, and it is used widely enough that it should be mentioned. The lead, especially its first sentence, is exactly where other names go in Wikipedia articles, not the body. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Alternative names: "[S]ignificant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." That POTUS is a significant alternative name is beyond doubt. It is commonly used in news reports and popular culture, even being used as the name of a band. The first hatnote at the article notes that POTUS redirects here, and suggests P.O.T.U.S. (Sirius XM) for people who were looking for the satellite radio station. That P.O.T.U.S stands for Politics of the United States, which is clearly a take off on the more commonly known POTUS. -Rrius (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

When did the office of President of the United States become active?

Anybody know? --Pawyilee (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

Idea for addition re presidential income

Presidents now earn substantial royalties from the books they write, far exceeding their official salaries. This ought to be mentioned in order to avoid the implication that presidents must actually live on their salaries. It would also be good to mention that their investments/savings are put in a blind trust - even though this is standard for high-ranking political leaders in the US, it's not necessarily a well-known fact, and readers of this article may find it interesting and relevant. (I am not a serious editor, obviously - just throwing this out there in case anybody's interested) 71.236.242.147 (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 June 2012

CPI values appear to be wrong. For example, 2001 should be $498,344 per web site cited.

Wristshot0 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. A find of CPI or even just consumer turns up zilch. I'm not going to read the whole article looking for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)