Talk:Executive (government)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Clean up[edit]

This article needs to be cleaned up. There are numerous grammatical errors, a few of which I've changed, but I don't have time to do them all. This is a really important article and should be of the highest standard! Boliviainfoforum 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

comment[edit]

I dont understand politics!

UGGHH!whether it be the reasons for different branches of government, or the reason for having a strong cenrtal government in the force place. sure, we need rules but do they need to be enforced in this manner?I'm soooo very confused!

--65.6.202.23 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)kristiann--65.6.202.23 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

citations needed?[edit]

it might be helpful to have some citations in this section and perhaps mention or link to some scholars work on executives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.151.252 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Foreign Relations section is poor[edit]

lhjm fgnjfgjhgffghf The first sentence of both paragraphs don't make sense. Additionally, labelling foreign relations as only "symbolically" important is crazy in the current world. Also, it's no surprise that a Foreign Relations budget is 0.7% of the total budget. Of course it is as they aren't a "spending" department like Education, Health Care, Military etc...Oplossing is duidelijk 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information[edit]

The local executive is usually supervised by [Here] As mentioned above  ??? This sentence seems to be missing a piece marked with [Here]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.79.238 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The article was vandalized at 15:13, October 22, 2007 but only partially reverted resulting in a block of type being removed from the article. I have restored the section back to its prior version. Unfortunately this article has been vandalized and reverted numerous times since. Dbiel (Talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed premature reference to president[edit]

I removed the incongruous sentence "The president controls the armed forces and military." from the introductory paragraph because it presupposes a presidential system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmetCaulfield (talkcontribs) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


…Thank You: very nice articleDavid George DeLancey (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Executive Hierarchy of the US Government[edit]

Can someone more qualified than me make a list or flow chart or the Executive Branches hierarchy structure in the US? For example where do Governors fit into the mix in relation to the President? Mayor? Etc...

Perhaps make a flow chart of another government as a secondary example...

I guess I haven't looked yet, but maybe these are already pages in Wikipedia? Rmkreeg (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC) whatever dude you r crazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.141.122 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

American perspective[edit]

The intro to this article heads straight to define the subject in national rather than global terms. I suggest the perspective be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.19.186 (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement the entire article suggests that a if the executive also makes laws this is despotic or undemocratic. This view is totally opposed to many democratic systems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.175.40 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor citations[edit]

The citations on this page are terrible and all except for one point to the same site, reference.com. They do not sufficiently verify the information on this page (some of which doesn't even need verification, or appears to be original research that I think can't be verified directly). I'm not going to look through the history, but my guess is that the page used to have a {{unreferenced}} template and somebody tried to help by looking at various sentences and throwing key terms into reference.com thinking "well, it's relevant" or "look at the giant entry this one has! That information can't not be here!"

But there's a problem with both of those ideas.

To "it's relevant": Just providing a relevant source doesn't prove anything. Example: Feta cheese is the official cheese of Nascar. [1]

To "this one has a big entry": Well, that's usually because IT'S MIRRORED CONTENT FROM WIKIPEDIA.

I have removed citations to reference.com that only contained mirrored content from Wikipedia (or in a few cases, no content at all), and I call into question the pertinence of the two I left.Exp HP (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Collective Executive[edit]

The lack of a collective executive, similar to that found in Switzerland, hurts the article. I don't know how to word it or I would add it.
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).