Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Re: W Portrait

Some users have the habit of using the recently unveiled portrait of President Bush from the Smithsonian. Should we not post the portrait shown, since it is not the official White House portrait? Or do we not post it until President Bush is out of office?Iamwisesun (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I say wait until his term of office expires, and the President-Elect becomes the President. That way there is consistancy as to what picture is used. Furthermore, the picture for the President Elect, when he becomes the 44th President, should be his official portrait, and no other picture from that point on.

Is that the official White House Portait posted below?--207.114.206.48 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, I am trying to find out if we should use THAT photo below when Bush is out.--Iamwisesun (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the official Bush portrait. It was unveiled before he left, unlike Clinton, who was unveiled in 2004. That is the official Bush portrait and I will continue to revert to it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081219-1.html. This is the Union League portrait of Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/images/20081206-3_d-0376-5-515h.html. That can not be confused with the Official White House portrait, which is the current portrait listed on this article. I reverted it back to the correct image. Yezn0r (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked this before, but got no response. And my question was simply deleted. Even if it isn't official, why can't we use it? It looks a lot better in comparison to the official pictures his predecessors had. --Evildevil (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush portrait

The photograph goes better with the general style of the pictures here than that informal painting does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the general style, all other presidents (excluding Obama of course) use their official portrait, that is Bush's official portrait, he chose it, not me, therefore it should be the picture he is remembered by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.47.127 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not his White House portrait. That's displayed in this article. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually his official portrait is the one with his jacket off as you can see in this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this Washington Post article [2]:

"a White House spokesman later clarified that these are not the official "official portraits." Those will be completed after the president leaves office and will hang at the White House" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.199.122 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The portrait in question is currently undergoing an IfD at Commons. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Link doesn't seem to work. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the above link. Thanks for letting me know. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the museum picture until the Official Portrait is revealed. I have yet to get a response for when I've asked why we must change it to something that doesn't look as good in the article. --Evildevil (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We shoudn't use it because it is highly probable that is isn't free at all, so shoudn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Please see the Deletion request on Commons. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet there's no deletion requeest thing for the version without the annoying gold border.... How many versions have been uploaded to wiki under different names by now, anyway? --Evildevil (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

#20 coloring

Why is number 20 in Lincoln not red?

So the next time we have a President-Elect we have system in place with proper terms and style? Ya'll got everything smoothed out for next time? Moonraker0022 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What is already being done with leadership changes for lists for other countries? Also, there are official terms for the different stages...no one just came up with a source for the pre-president elect term, but I remember reading it was something like "president designate" or something similar...can't find source on this though. :( — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Portraits

All these portraits may not be as public domain as we all thought. A few of the First Lady portraits have been deleted on Commons with the rationale "This is a commissioned work by the Executive Office, not a work OF a member of the Executive Office. The artist retains the copyright and there is no evidence that he gave up those rights." So in fact the portraits might not be public domain at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with by pre-1923 portraits as any copyright they may have had, has expired and so they are public domain. The post-1923 portraits are questionable so I have replaced these with free images. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the assessment (I should...I wrote it!) The problem lies with the fact that the artist never gave up copyright laws. Much as if you own a book, you don't have the right to copy that book and give it away. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Something as simple as a portrait of the President of the United States is not going to be a "copyright" problem. This is ridiculous. Portraits of the President should be on this page. Furthermore, if their mugshots are public domain, why would their portraits not be? Reverted back, accordingly. Yezn0r (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Without making a statement on the article itself, you are absolutely wrong. A portrait can indeed be copyrighted. Especially since it contains elements other than, you know, the "mug shot". (and no, a photograph of a president is not automatically in the public domain. So pretty much everything you've said is wrong.) --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be reverting in a moment, too. I suggest this is ridiculous. Neither Rambo's Revenge nor Golbez have offered any actual evidence that the pictures they seek to remove are NOT public domain. All that has been said is that "a few...First Lady portraits" have been deleted from Commons with a rationale that suggests they are still copyrighted. But there is a distinction between First Ladies (who are not public servants) and a President of the United States (who obviously is.) In order to remove portraits of Presidents that have served on this page for a long time, you need to have much more than "a few First Lady portraits" have been deleted on other pages. The presumption has been, and currently is, that the portraits of Presidents are in the public domain. Without actual evidence to the contrary for each and every photo you wish to change, I submit you do not have enough evidence to change settled consensus on this page. JasonCNJ (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on now, I've made no statement as to whether these images are legal or not. All I've said is that Yezn0r was completely wrong in his understanding of copyright (he is), and I reverted an unreasoned revert. That's all. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for attributing to you an opinion you have not expressed. I have struck out your username from my above comment. JasonCNJ (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Try right clicking on the presidential image hosted on the artists website. It says "This work is not public domain and shoud NOT be taken from this site". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I went to the page that you linked and right clicked but didn't see any message like that. Am I looking in the wrong place/doing the wrong thing? JasonCNJ (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If it turns out that these portraits cannot be housed here, then so be it. But given the utter lack of consensus on this issue, I do not think deleting the portraits from this list is necessary or helpful. JasonCNJ (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is not consensus. Either they are free, they are fair use, or they are not fair use. There is a question here; simply saying "consensus is established" cannot overrule copyright issues. You cannot consensus a non-fair use image into being usable. --Golbez (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that FDR's picture is a photograph, and not his official portrait. If possible, it seems like that should be changed. Right now, the picture stands out like a sore thumb. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

References, etc

I noted a change in listing the reference under the presidents' names, which in my opinion looks a bit untidy, because there are appproximately 4 references for each presidents. Now, I have seen some tables which have separate column for references. Maybe we can considerate that? w_tanoto (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. There should be one source for all of this information. --Jordan Elder talk 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Locked with wrong Bush date

This page probably should not have been locked with the incorrect Bush 43 end date. January 12, 2009 is listed, which obviously is not correct. --Jonk1011 (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected until, well, until the inauguration. Tan | 39 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

copyediting quibble - "president" vs. "President"

is there a reason i don't understand for the wholesale capitalization of the word 'president'? ('presidency/ies' too . . . ) . . . - if i write President Obama, i capitalize the 'president' . . . but if i write 'president,' whether it is of the United States or the PTA, i do not capitalize . . . and that would be in accordance with what various style guides dictate . . . did Wikipedia find some wonderful reason for this change? - b betswiki (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people seems to support that we use "president" when the title is used generically. The Chicago Manual of Style(section 8.21) also supports this. I'll do the edit. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Current Incumbent"

The term "current incumbent" in the last sentence is a raging redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.163.112 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was, so it has been corrected. Thanks for spotting this.--JayJasper (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.200.114 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, they weren't taut properly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

Due to the fact that we are listing presidents and NOT administrations, isn't it fair to say that obama is the 43rd President, presiding over the 44th administration? 69.203.92.219 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not how the Americans traditionally deal with the Grover Cleveland-derived numbering issue. Best to stick with what is commonly used - Cleveland is counted twice. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above poster is correct. Our State Department, a long time ago, made the official determination that Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd *and* the 24th President, since his two terms were non-contiguous. Barack H. Obama II is indeed our 44th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.7.85 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This should be updated: Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms and is counted chronologically and illogically as both the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth president. 72.177.113.91 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle initial?

How do you decide who gets a middle initial? At the moment it's hard to determine a consistent style.

Obviously the two George Bushes should be shown with their middle initials for the purpose of disambiguation, and no-one would recognise James K Polk's name without the K (or maybe that's just me). Equally, no-one writes Gerald R Ford. So you can't just always include or always exclude it; I think you have to go by what is most often said. Perhaps we should go by what the article titles do? ciphergoth (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article title is the best solution - it allows individual initials to be settled at the best location and avoids the names appearing in an unrecognisable form. The best known name is always better. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd push for using Gerald R. Ford's middle initial. In Michigan, where we actually named stuff after him, it's ALWAYS "Gerald R. Ford." Just "Gerald Ford" sounds weird and strange to me. Schoop (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Then really the place to discuss that is Talk:Gerald Ford. But in the wider world it's rare to use any of the middle initials (Dubya's an exception but that's largely because of his father). Timrollpickering (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think that a definitive list of U.S. Presidents should, somewhere, include their full official names with the middle name (if any) completely spelled out and replacing any commonly used nicknames (i.e, William instead of Bill; James instead of Jimmy, etc.) and including name suffixes like John Adams, Jr. or John Tyler, Jr. (though, some sources say it's John Tyler IV). In addition, I think a side-note or footnote should be included for Presidents whose birth names aren't the same as their official names, i.e. Bill Clinton was originally born 'William Jefferson Blythe III' and Ford was originally born 'Leslie Lynch King, Jr.'. --Lasloo (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Color in table

In my view, the blue colour (meaning Democratic Party) is wrong in 17th President A. Johnson. Johnson and A. Lincoln ran on the National Union ticket in 1864, and were elected for that party. So, in the office of the US President since March 4, 1865 Lincoln wasn´t a republican (Second term, red color) and Johnson wasn´t a democrat (blue color). Look at cs version cs:Seznam prezidentů Spojených států amerických --83.208.117.159 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The confusion is because the National Union Party doesn't get much attention as it was really little more than a branding mechanism for the Republicans designed to allow them to take in additional support. This is not unusual for parties - the old Canadian Conservative Party has a long history of using various names designed to either accommodate members of other parties or broaden the appeal - they were the "Unionist Party" from 1917-1920 when they allied with part of the Liberal Party who had split over the First World War. The split later healed, and the Conservatives used various labels such as "National Liberal and Conservative Party" (1920-1922) and "Liberal-Conservative Party" (1922-1938), before becoming "Conservative Party" again. In 1940 they tried rebranding as "National Government" (despite being in opposition), but it didn't work. In 1942 they picked a new leader who demanded a name change to "Progressive Conservative Party" (he had been a Progressive at the provincial level) which lasted until the 2003 merger. Most political parties are not very well constituted in a way that makes the difference between an old/new party and a rebranding immediately obvious. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. I understand that parties can change names, split or allied. The National Union Party perhaps wasn´t the new name of Republican Party, but the new official party on political scene, that had been established from Republicans and Northern Democrats. In the table is mentioned as well, but there is no corresponding colour. Best regard --83.208.117.159 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The color system is misleading, as most readers will associate the red and blue colors with current political associations and branding, as discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Truman

As noted on the Harry S. Truman page, consensus and convention are to label him Harry S. Truman, not Harry S Truman. It's not that the S. stood for nothing, it really stood for two names - Shipp and Solomon. He always signed his name with a period after the S. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Harry Truman article clearly says that it did not stand for anything. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Officially, it did not stand for anything. Unofficially, or "just in the family", so to speak, it stood for both "Shipp" and "Solomon". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FDR's portrait

what happened to Franklin Roosevelt's portrait —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.218.96 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

General George Washington not First President

Washington was the first president elected UNDER THE CONSTITUION. He took office in 1789. But America was a country first in 1781, when the last of the thirteen colonies ratified the Articles of Confederation. So who was leading the country for those seven years. Congress elected presidents untill the Constitution was ratified. the first was John Hanson of Maryland. His official title was President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He once recieved a letter refering to him as "the President". Part of it reads "I congratulate your Excellency on your appointment tofill the most important seat in the United States." The letter was signed by George Washington, our Eighth president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.187.152 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this should answer your question. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, this—Chris! _ct 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

The number 41 needs a link put in to access George H.W. Bush's presidency page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.143.57 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is not currently a page for the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. It is only a redirect, which is why the number 41 is not linked. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why KENNEDY is the only one that is looking down to the floor ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.103.54 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the artist? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---

As the page seems to be protected, I can not correct the statement of "no president can be elected more than twice", which is somewhat innacurate, as if a Vice-President becomes President in the first two years of the "Former" President's term, than he/she could only be elected to one Presidency. But if he/she were to take the post of President for some reason, in the last two years of same term, then that person could in theory be elected to two terms on their own as President. Gerald Ford for example, IF and only IF he had won the election against Carter, he would not have been able to run for President again in 1980. On the other hand, If George H. W. Bush had been assasinated in Kuwait in 1993, I do not condone this type of action just using this as an example, and Dan Quale became president, he could have feasibly been elected President twice.

So in a different way of saying it from the Ammendment, a person can either be elected president for two full terms, or may be elected to serve so that his total time as president will not ever add up to more than 10 years. But the amendment is very clear, one of the few parts of US Law that is.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

If you are going to mention a tidbit like this, then it should be accurate. If making it accurate gives you the impression that we have veered off of the topic at hand, which I do not, then it should not be included at all.

Citations

Should not go in the name box... the name is the most important part and it's all messy-looking. —Noisalt (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge — that looks way better. —Noisalt (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of fixing that and the refs will go in a seperate notes column, I should have it finished in the next couple weeks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

JFK Portrait

Anything less depressing available? Fateforgotten (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's his official portrait. It's supposed to make him look thoughtful. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

George Clinton VP tenure error?

Just stopping by, but I think I see an error:

As VP for Madison, the following dates are listed: March 4, 1801 - April 20, 1812 ... which overlaps Aaron Burr's time in office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.160.18 (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please add column: religion

Please add a column entitled Religion. Some major reference works include the religion of the president in their listings.--Standardfact (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion that could be too contentious to limit to one word summarising there religion, and anyway, Religious affiliations of United States Presidents already exists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It gets particularly tricky where guys like Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln are concerned, as they were like deists or maybe even atheists. There's no point putting something contentious in this list. It's only a list of names. Details can be found in the articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson

Andrew Johnson was independent for most/all of his term and this should be addressed. Plumber (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Forgotten Presidents

Why does the page discussing the list of presidents failt o mention the ones prior to Washington? Should I create a new page looking at these presidents, maybe flow into the problems at the start of the era under the constitution and then finish it off by reporting on how Wachington was approached to form a monarchy! Could be a quite intersting page - anyone want to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman's name

{{|editsemiprotected}} There should be no . after the S because S isn't an abbreviation for anything. Please change Harry S. Truman to Harry S Truman.

False. The period after the S is the official spelling. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, he has no middle name, but the official spelling is with a period (his signature includes it). Please see the FAQ at top of Talk:Harry S. Truman.  fetchcomms☛ 03:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference for definition of "presidency"?

(See also section Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Numbering above.)

The first note begins: "A presidency is defined as consecutive time in office served by a single person." However, it provides no reference and cites no authority for this definition. An author above claims it is the State Department that so defines a presidency, but this sounds dubious. I have a vague recollection of someone saying it's the Library of Congress, but that sounds dubious, too.

Is there an official historian in the EOP? Someone else in the executive branch? An authoritative (or curmudgeonly) historical society? Who, exactly, say it's so? My vague recollection includes someone saying that that was the way it was defined, but "everyone" thought that authority was kinda silly for doing so.

cheers, FortyThree-p (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you're concerned about? Is it the way they're numbered? (Particularly, with Cleveland in their twice). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. Forty-three people, forty-four presidencies. I'm not trying to argue that the definition is incorrect. I'm trying to argue that it is controversial and could use a cite. FortyThree-p (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversial where? Every source you're likely to find lists Cleveland as both the 22nd and the 24th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Bugs on this one. Every single source numbers the presidents this way, including the U.S. government themselves: [3]. The definition sentance in an entirely unremarkable and non-controversial way to describe the numbering of the presidents. --Jayron32 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious to see any source that claims it's controversial. Note the user's ID. It's apparently controversial to the user because it confounds his sense of logic or something. But this has been the conventional terminology for a long time. Here's some of Walter Cronkite's coverage of the JFK assassination.[4] Starting at about the 5 minute mark, where he famously almost chokes up on the air, he also mentions that LBJ will become the 36th President. That's using the conventional numbering scheme, of course, with Cleveland counted twice. That was 46 years ago. If there's any controversy about the numbering, it's not much of one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Death of Abraham Lincoln

The death of Abraham Lincoln happend on april 15, 1865 and in The Ford Theater in Washington D.C. He was assasanated by Originally, John Wilkes Booth, a well-known actor and a Confederate spy from Maryland, had formulated a plan to kidnap Lincoln in exchange for the release of Confederate prisoners. After attending an April 11 speech in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for blacks, an incensed Booth changed his plans and determined to assassinate the president.[69] Learning that the President and First Lady would be attending Ford's Theatre, he laid his plans, assigning his co-conspirators to assassinate Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward.

Without his main bodyguard Ward Hill Lamon, to whom he related his famous dream regarding his own assassination, Lincoln left to attend the play Our American Cousin on April 14, 1865. As a lone bodyguard wandered, and Lincoln sat in his state box (Box 7) in the balcony, Booth crept up behind the President and waited for what he thought would be the funniest line of the play ("You sock-dologizing old man-trap"), hoping the laughter would muffle the noise of the gunshot. When the laughter began, Booth jumped into the box and aimed a single-shot, round-slug 0.44 caliber Derringer at his head, firing at point-blank range. Major Henry Rathbone momentarily grappled with Booth but was cut by Booth's knife. Booth then leaped to the stage and shouted "Sic semper tyrannis!" (Latin: Thus always to tyrants) and escaped, despite a broken leg suffered in the leap.[70] A twelve-day manhunt ensued, in which Booth was chased by Federal agents (under the direction of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton). He was eventually cornered in a Virginia barn house and shot by Lawman Larry Ray Creamer, dying of his wounds soon after.

April 15, 1865 at Fords Theatre on a private presidental balconey seeing the play "Our American Cousin" with the first lady and was shot by John Wilkes Booth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.208.172 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)