president Of The United States/Archive 9

The president directs the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

We should remove "elected" because Gerald Ford was President but he was not elected. Usually, the President is elected. I don't think people will think that the President is usually not elected but appointed by the Pope or Putin. Ok, some might think Putin, because that man is not Trump but rather wearing a plastic Mission Impossible mask having replaced the real Trump, ha ha. Just joking on the last part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nywip (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done - The sentence is factual as written. The "Ford exception" can be stated in addition. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
There's also Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson & Arthur. Also, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman & L. Johnson served non-elected partial first terms. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
True; they at least were elected as VP before assuming the presidency and finishing the elected president's term. Drdpw (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The term isn't required in the lead. See President of Finland, President of Portugal, President of Brazil for a few examples. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That by itself is not a compelling reason for deleting an accurate fact from this article's lead. However, given that the subject (of the POTUS being elected is mentioned elsewhere in the lead, I'll remove the word "elected" from the opening sentence and will add a sentence to the last paragraph in the lead noting that 9 PsOTUS entered office for the 1st time intra-term without having been elected. Sound good? Drdpw (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Having it in the lead, suggested (erroneously) that one can't become US President without being elected to the office. Meanwhile, saying the US President is head of state & government without mentiong 'elected', isn't misleading. BTW: I didn't do two reverts, but merely a delete, then revert. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we just had conflicting edits, while I was posting the prose I mentioned above. Hopefully we're on the same page now. Drdpw (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
We are :) GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion does make sense when you take into account the order of succession means that someone can become President without ever having been elected to any office by the public. Ford was at least elected to the House by the folks of Michigan's 5th district, so he at least held an elected position even though he was never elected President or VP. But what of someone in the Cabinet who is appointed by the President and approved of by the Senate. Say the VP is impeached and removed from office and the President, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate all die within a week of the VP's removal from office. That means the next in line is the SecState, someone the public did not vote for in any capacity. They might never have been elected to any kind of city, state, or federal office by the public but they can still be President without having been elected ever. -anonymous 3/5/2017 12:34 EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:300:DBFF:0:0:0:6D3 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The POTUS is the most powerful political figure in the world as evidence by business insider and many other sources. Also if we all are to follow the sources then how come in the general secretary of Ch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?id=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec06/signing_07-24.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2011/0425/The-not-so-secret-history-of-the-White-House-Easter-Egg-Roll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228085232/http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?%252Fbase%252Fnews%252F1232616798110550.xml&coll=2 to http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?%252Fbase%252Fnews%252F1232616798110550.xml&coll=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426025113/http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-53.pdf to http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-53.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/buildingView.do?pageTypeId=17109&channelPage=%252Fep%252Fchannel%252FgsaOverview.jsp&channelId=-25241&bid=724
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/air-force-one/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/eise/secret16.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to President of the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am an Archives Technician with the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene, Kansas, and am requesting that our library be added to the paragraph of presidential libraries with grave sites, in addition to the Nixon and Reagan Libraries. President and First Lady Eisenhower are buried in the Place of Meditation on our campus, and the grave site is open to tourists. Our website is eisenhower.archives.gov. Thank you for your consideration! 207.245.177.20 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done I have included the link. Thank you for asking. Drdpw (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090910093654/http://www.bsartn2007.org/ to http://www.bsartn2007.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806204245/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not an accurate way to describe two term limitation. Sumi Smorynski (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I updated it from renewable to Limit two elected terms in office. Sumi Smorynski (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Now how do I close this topic out? Sumi Smorynski (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to President of the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am a university student studying communications at National University online and request that I complete some proofreading for my school project. Thank you, I can be reached at [email protected]. I have done editing work for this site before for a film class project, whereupon I corrected mistakes about a film and old-time actress's biography. Please let me know when I can finish my project. Best regards, Marie Hembree MSH 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Msmhembree: The edit request template is meant for suggesting specific changes you want to see, in the format of "change X to Y". If you are reviewing this article and notice something that needs to be changed, please suggest it in that format on this page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the phrase "He directs..." to "He or she directs" in the intro because it's talking about the office in general, and though all past and current presidents have been male, to only use "he" implies that future presidents will be male as well. I'm sure some folks find that offensive, and it's inaccurate. My edit was reverted by User:Thewolfchild as "not necessary". I think "he or she" or some equivalent rephrasing is indicated by Wiki: Gender-neutral language. Can anyone else weigh in? -- Beland (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beland: - Yes, I changed it. I don't believe that having just "he" implies any misogyny on the part of the project. As you yourself pointed out, all presidents to date have been male, the current one is male and will be for the next 4 to 8 years. Even if he died today, you would have drop 15 spots down the line of succession to find a female replacement. But that said, I'm not against gender-neutral language, I just think "he or she" is needless and looks clunky. But if you feel strongly enough about it, how about changing "He directs..." to "The president directs..." ? Would that work? - ^theWOLFchild 04:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree "he or she" is clunky compared to rephrasing to avoid gendered pronouns entirely. I'll implement your suggestion. -- Beland (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126165009/http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report to http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In the Timeline of presidents section, Andrew Johnson is listed as being a Democrat. While he was a Democrat, Johnson was Lincoln's running mate on the 1864 Republican ticket. During that time, the Republican Party referred to itself as the National Union Party. I suggest that Andrew Johnson be listed as being a President of the National Union Party, because that would be a clearer description of his party affiliation. SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  Implemented – The template has been changed. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. SMP0328. (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A claim was added about the president having unreviewable authority over immigration. The 3 sources used are: a Washington Post (WP) article, a National Law Journal (NLJ) article, and a circuit court ruling.

The WP article doesn't say anything about unreviewable authority. It just says that a recent executive order on immigration has "grave legal defects". Not sure why this source is being used.

The short news article by NLJ reports that SCOTUS will review the current president's claim that he can't be reviewed. Again, not sure why this is being used.

The circuit court ruling contains a summary of the current president's claim, which is that the president has unreviewable authority. The next page of the ruling goes on to describe SCOTUS's prior rulings against unreviewable authority. I'm sensing a pattern here.

The three sources make a good case that the president actually does NOT have unreviewable authority over immigration. The claim needs to be rewritten to actually reflect the sources. Thanks. KinkyLipids (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

I agree with you that the statement about the president having unreviewable authority over immigration is not backed up by the citations provided. More seriously, it's just thrown into the section, seemingly haphazardly, and states a hotly contested assertion as fact (in contravention of WP:NPOV). Rather then attempting to refine the claim, I'd eliminate it altogether. Now, having said that, perhaps a couple sentences could be added to that section's paragraph on executive orders:

From–The president possesses additional powers to direct the executive branch through executive orders that are grounded in federal law or executive power that is constitutionally vested. Executive orders are subject to Judicial review by U.S. federal courts, which can find them to be unconstitutional. Additionally, Congress can overturn an executive order though legislation.

To something like–Additionally, the president possesses the power to manage operations of the federal government through issuing various types of directives, such as presidential proclamation and executive orders. When the president is lawfully exercising one of their constitutionally conferred responsibilities, the scope of this power is broad. Even so, these directives are subject to judicial review by U.S. federal courts, which can find them to be unconstitutional. Moreover, Congress can overturn an executive order though legislation.

That's my 2¢ worth; anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Drdpw (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drdpw (talk · contribs): Thanks, that sounds great——on both eliminating the claim about unreviewable authority and making changes to the paragraph on executive orders. KinkyLipids (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  Implemented – I've made modifications to the subsection. Drdpw (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As it has recently come to my attention, I need to go through the proper channels.

Recently, I went through every article about a United States President and added the Presidential Seal in the infobox. All this did was simply add the seal to the infobox and would appear above their order of office. I also added the Vice Presidential seal to every President who also served as VPOTUS. I managed to add the seal to every presidential article with the exception of Donald Trump, as I do not have the proper editing privileges, before they were reverted.

One of the things that was brought to my attention was the size of the seal, and that it was too small to see when viewing the article on a smartphone or tablet. The size of the seal was 45px. However, simply clicking on the seal will open a larger version of it. The VPOTUS seal was the same size, as well.

The reason for adding the seal was to add something unique to the articles. As the seal is very specific to the US presidency, I felt it appropriate to add the seal to the infoboxes of the presidents. Similar to the articles on some former Presidents of Mexico.

I would like to add the seal back to the articles, but only if allowed. LordVesuvius (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see various replies on your talk page. Thanks for opening a central discussion here. Decorative pictures in WP:infoboxes are generally discouraged per the manual of style. If you look at {{Infobox person}}, there are reserved spaces for a portrait of the subject and for their signature. Seals, coats of arms, military decorations and the like are usually omitted. — JFG ^talk 20:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Recently there has been a dispute about whether the title used at the top of the infobox should be "President of the United States" or "President of the United States of America." I think that the latter is appropriate, but thought it was worth discussing.

In particular, I think "President of the United States of America" is appropriate because

1. It is the official title of the President in Article II, Section I of the Constitution. "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
2. It is used by the President in proclamations, nominations, and commissions in the form "NOW, THERFORE, I, N., President of the United States of America." E.g. President Trump's recent proclamation of Captive Nations Week.
3. It is used in international diplomacy. See for example the UN Protocol and Liaison Office's list of heads of state and government.

--Dyskutant (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to support the addition “of America” for the reasons stated above. In addition it is the more complete and formal title. Follow-on usage should use President or President of the United States. Garuda28 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"President of the United States" is the common name for the office. SMP0328. (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It is, but COMMONNAME only applies to article titles, not usage in the infobox. I think a more relevant guidence is at Wiki: Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title Garuda28 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The title of the Infobox should match that of the article, but the full name of the office could be included somewhere within the Infobox. SMP0328. (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you give an example of where you would suggest putting it in the infobox? Garuda28 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drdpw and SMP0328.: I'm sure you guys can work out which year the US gov't started up here of the talk page. - wolf 03:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The year isn't necessary for that sentence, so we could just have no year in that sentence. Referring to the presidency's formation is enough. SMP0328. (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay by me. Drdpw (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Well done, guys. - wolf 09:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Section 1 of the 25th amendment, should be mentioned before sections 3 & 4. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This section is in reference to a wider conversation that applies to the 45 presidents, and related articles, not just this specific article. I'm choosing to host the conversation here so we can set the precedent for using the rule correctly before applying it to other articles.

According to AP style, the Chicago style used by Webster's, and dictionary.com, "president" should not be capitalized unless it comes before a specific president's name. Wikipedia is for the most part not currently following this rule, as almost every president's article reads like this: "Abraham Lincoln ... served as the 16th President of the United States". I don't see a grammatical rule that supports this; it seems to be done out of misunderstanding. This article, and the list of U.S. presidents, shouldn't have the phrase "president of the United States" capitalized either. It's my belief that they were capitalized by mistake when referencing government documents, which also capitalize personified words such as "People" and "Order" as in the preamble to the United States Constitution. This is done for the same reason that fairy tales capitalize "Nature" and "Time"—making proper nouns out of words to personify concepts, which don't affect the way grammar works when referring to these concepts in any other context.

An exception to this rule includes pages such as the Executive Office of the President of the United States, which actually is a proper noun because it refers to an agency, not a non-proper noun lower-case president. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@SMP0328, the Chicago style linked above includes the full phrasing, "president of the United States", which refers to the same thing. By what grammatical rule does it apply differently here? This article should read like a normal encyclopedia entry for international English readers, not a governing document for members of the U.S. government. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a proper noun, as it is the name of the office. Proper nouns are capitalized. SMP0328. (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
SMP0328, I've made the same argument before, but that's not what the style guides say. How is the "office" you refer to a proper noun, when this is not a U.S. governing document, and therefore shouldn't seek to personify the general position? If you are correct, than there should be sources other than the current state of Wikipedia articles to back it up. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
"President of the United States" is the formal name of the office. The Constitution gave the office that name. Proper nouns are capitalized. I'm not saying it should be capitalized because of the Constitution, but because it is the name of a specific government office. How is it not a proper noun? SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
How is it one? The grammar style guides don't call it that. Since you say it's a proper noun because it's referring to the office (by which I assume you mean rank), could you come up with an example for that's not referring to the office? Since the style guides say not to capitalize it, and you're arguing for specific cases where it is proper to do so, you should be able to clarify both when the office is/isn't being referred to. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about rank. It's a proper noun because it is the name of a specific office, as opposed to a group of presidents or the concept generally. Just like the difference between "king" and "King of England". SMP0328. (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the king of England should be capitalized either unless referring to a specific person. Perhaps your argument applies to when referring to someone currently in office, but when referring to the office generally, I don’t see evidence of its being a proper noun. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The MOS says different. SMP0328. (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
You have a point! In this case I think it's the external style guides that need to be updated, not the MoS. However, on individual president pages when it is stated "Abraham Lincoln ... served as the 16th President of the United States", I believe the MoS indicates it should be the lower case form, since Lincoln is the subject of the sentence, not the office of U.S. president. Thoughts? UpdateNerd (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
That's correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly, in the past, a consensus to change President of the United States & Vice President of the United States to the lowercase version in the bios, wasn't reached. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope. See this RfC, among previous RfCs. No magical exception has been made for – out of all job titles in the whole world – these two. It sometimes just takes time for WP:P&G changes to percolate down to every single article. The facts that some editors haven't absorbed the change and make arguments that don't take it into account, and a handful of editors who argued against what the guideline says actively try to defy it page-by-page, isn't evidence of lack of consensus; the first is just proof that WP isn't run by robots, and the second is evidence of a WP:Tendentious editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to President of the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PshycoWeiner (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 

  Not done Please state the change you require. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is clearly edited primarily by left-leaning individuals because their biases are really leaking through. This article should paint a positive picture of U.S. presidents especially the current one, President Donald Trump. Why can’t this article mention his many accomplishments and how he is helping make this country great again. Have a nice day, Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B12B:14DA:2C7F:3840:2A73:E1C5 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The following Wiki Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like nomination is an April fools joke. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

the article should not effectively state that the nuclear arsenal of the United States , which the President commands, was "the second largest". the actual number of stockpile is subject of debate and speculation, as it is almost certain that the official russian figures are inflated and incorrect. it is highly likely that the United States actually possesses the largest stockpile in total, while that cannot be verified due to the delicate nature of the subject and information status, the claim of "second largest" should definitely be removed. see for example. https://www.ridl.io/en/russias-tactical-nuclear-weapons-a-reality-check/ ... and more with respect to general bogus claims and russian official numbers and data also see:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-05/data-manipulation-more-likely-russia-just-has-poor-statistics https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5738077/China-Russia-authoritarian-countries-fudge-GDP-figures.html https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/new-study-shines-light-literally-on-chinas-and-russias-fake-gdp-data/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.203.154.135 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Drdpw: What are your objections to refactoring the timeline? I feel that the EasyTimeline version is rather garish. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not a fan of shaded boxes unless essential, the year divisions aren’t useful, and the names off to the side are disruptive rather than informative, and a sidebar showing presidents parties is redundant so close to the existing table of presidents and their political parties. The existing table could be refined, there was no need to replace it. I’m interested in what others think. Drdpw (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have introduced a reformatted graphical timeline. This version is more informative than the replacement, and hopefully less "garish" than the original. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Both versions are informative, and I prefer the sidebar style as of this revision. — JFG ^talk 20:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Tend to agree. The format currently used in the article[2] is better suited to situations involving a lot of overlap, i.e. things happening concurrently. The U.S. has never had two presidents at the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
While I prefer by far the more compact Graphical timeline style (template), the current EasyTimeline style is used for other political timelines, such as Prime Ministers of the UK. (this comment is mostly here to add some useful links) ―XyKyWyKy aka raffriff42 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"As prescribed by the Twelfth Amendment, each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the size of its total delegation in both houses of Congress."

The allocation of electors was defined by Article II and wasn't altered by the Twelfth Amendment. This error was fixed on the Vice President article, and I recommend the same fix for this article. Namely, the sentence should read:

"Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the size of its total delegation in both houses of Congress." 107.77.221.6 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Corrected that sentence so it refers to the right Constitutional provision. SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's very clear that the MOS:JOBTITLES guideline specifies that the word "president" in the first sentence of the article should not be capitalized. For those unfamiliar with the guideline, the relevant parts are:

• bullet 3 (the word "The" is a definite article)
• table column 2 example 1. "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." — not "Richard Nixon was the President of the United States."

The guideline was revised relatively recently, I think within the past year, that revision arising from community-level discussion and consensus. It was understood that the revision was contrary to a majority of existing usage, which had not received close scrutiny at community level. Nevertheless, however, there is some disagreement as to whether this article should comply with the guideline. Some editors comply with the community consensus they agree with and ignore the rest; i.e. community consensus means little or nothing to them. I disagree with that, not only because it would mean that the massive editor time spent in these discussions developing community consensus is wasted time. Further, for those interested in site-wide encyclopedic consistency, I ask which is more likely to produce that in the long term: A common target provided in the guideline, or editors independently doing whatever seems right to them?

I'm seeking a local consensus to comply with the community consensus. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

First, I have not been following the changes to that guideline. I took a wikibreak for large parts of last year due to uncivil conduct on the part of User:Arrivisto and User:Jooojay which has been discussed at length elsewhere. The fact that revision was contrary to a majority of existing usage speaks for itself as to why the revision should be rolled back as not actually reflecting community consensus.
Second, I don't see that guideline as applying to this article. When read in context, the guideline is clearly referring to the use of the title as an adjective, not as the subject of a sentence that is introducing the subject of an article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
So we're talking about two competing and conflicting types of community consensus. First, we have what I'd call "implicit" community consensus represented by what editors do in articles, even if they do it without any discussion at all (which is the case far more often than not). Then we have "explicit" community consensus resulting from thorough, evidence-based scrutiny at community level. I know which type makes more sense to me. Wiki is not a democracy and the first type mostly represents the equivalent of democratic voting.
There is no adjective, or even adjectival usage, in "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." So I'm honestly at a loss to respond to that argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
In this situation, I think WP:BOLDTITLE has a say in the matter. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
In the first example there, the capitalization in the bolded text is inconsistent with that in the article title. So I'd say BOLDTITLE does not speak to capitalization. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears quite odd to have in the intro - president of the United States, followed by POTOS. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't imagine why, considering that "all-terrain vehicle" is abbreviated as "ATV", "automated teller machine" as "ATM", "chief executive officer" as "CEO", and "personal identification number" as "PIN", etc, etc. To my eye, it would appear quite odd to say that "I rode my atv to the atm, where I entered my pin to get some cash for the ceo" merely because those terms occur in lower case when spelled out. In any case perhaps we can agree that there are more important considerations than what appears odd to us. In fact that's kind of my whole point: For Wikipedia's first 16 or so years, this has been done solely based on what "appears correct" to individual editors, not on examination of authoritative sources such as widely-recognized style guides. Editors' thinking was as follows: "It's a title. Capitalize it." Turns out it's a little more complicated than that. I think it's time we raised the bar, don't you? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The advice at MOS:JOBTITLES is pretty uniformly followed in WP, with a few president usages sticking out as sad counterexamples to consistency. It seems clear enough to me that we cap the unmodified title of high positions as it says there, but in more generic uses such as when preceded by "the" we don't. If people want to change that advice, shouldn't we be talking about it more generically, rather than just arguing to maintain this one exception in a few places? Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: A few randomly-chosen examples: Premier of the Soviet Union — President of India — Vice President of the United States — President of Ukraine. If this were a rare exception, you'd think I would have run across one lower-case example in the process of randomly choosing them. I don't think your line of argument is going to withstand scrutiny, and I much prefer mine. This was done without close scrutiny for many years, resulting in a massive amount of usage that ultimately failed close scrutiny. I don't know why anybody would consider that at all surprising—your average editor is not a language expert—and as far as I'm concerned it violates no sacred Wikipedia principle to work to fix the problem. We can't be expected to get all of these details right in the beginning, and widespread bad stuff cannot be protected merely because it's widespread. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, presidents and premiers. Why not fix it by removing "The" and just write the opening about the title? Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Because the article is not about the title. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I believe we should follow the MOS, which has the benefit of deep scrutiny by the whole community. Habits can change. Newspapers in the U.S. used to Capitalize Every Damn Word in Any Headline (except "in", "the" and such, oddly), but today the trend in editorial style clearly favors capping only proper nouns, just like in regular prose. Likewise, the use of "the president" instead of "the President" only takes some getting-used-to. — JFG ^talk 12:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Related side note, I recently realized that some "the President"s had been decapped incorrectly, and I fixed that in the articles I had touched. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Earlier today I decapitalized the presidents of France and India. No pushback yet. Please do not misread as "decapitated", the French did that already. — JFG ^talk 23:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a recollection that one of the "Nine rules of capital letters" (the answer to an 1890s school exam paper that circulates online) is something like "always capitalise 'President' and 'Presidency' when they related to the President of the United States of America". (It didn't clarify if this was a one country or a global rule and didn't stop to care about the Vice President.) Similar approaches with other country's leaders may have led to this particular one. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is it, then when an editor 'decapitalizes' here, they can't make the same effort at Vice President of the United States article. Is it SO DIFFICULT to have Prez & Vice Prez articles intros the same, concerning this matter? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

JFG has fixed it here and you have fixed it there. I'm not very optimistic about the chances of your edit holding, considering that your edit summary didn't link to the guideline let alone point out the specific relevant parts therein. Note that there is no community consensus that those two articles should be in agreement on this at all times, so "consistency with President of the United States" would be a far weaker edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I just got around into looking up the history of this so-called "community consensus" you speak of. Nonsense. It was a series of unilateral edits to the MoS by User:SMcCandlish in June 2018 after premature closure of a RFC on one of the most important issues of English writing style. At a bare minimum, the RFC should have been circulated on the village pump to solicit additional comments several times over a number of weeks, and I see no sign of that. The largely anecdotal evidence presented by User:SMcCandlish of a purported trend towards lowercase was equally consistent with bad training or overwork on the part of the writers cited and was therefore unconvincing. Wikipedia core policies (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT) reflect a philosophy that Wikipedia follows, it never leads. It is inappropriate for an editor to attempt to unilaterally impose their novel views on the community and beg the question by referring to a nonexistent consensus. The logical result of adopting a bizarre capitalization style in the Manual of Style—one that does not reflect the style actually used in American English by most educated intellectuals—will be to alienate and drive away even more editors and lead to further deterioration of the English Wikipedia project. For example, Law of New York was vandalized last November, but the number of active lawyer editors on English Wikipedia is now so tiny that no one caught the vandalism for over nine months (until I noticed it a couple of days ago).
I note that User:SMcCandlish has elsewhere voiced disdain for certain traditions of American English. Too bad. There are other places for advocating change to American English, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Alienating Wikipedia users by trying to impose a nontraditional writing style is not a constructive contribution to the Wikipedia project. There's been a lot of news coverage over the past few years over how the English Wikipedia's active editor community is hemorrhaging editors like crazy, and this is definitely not helping.
Unfortunately, I'm far too busy this year working on class actions for the first time to initiate the necessary ArbCom proceeding to obtain appropriate remedies. But I will gladly support any editor who does so. I'm also going to cross-post this to the talk page for the relevant MoS section. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:MULTI. Any discussion should be under the duplicate posting at WT:MOSBIO. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that there has been vandalism and undone edits recently. I was thinking that an extended confirmed protection might be needed to combat these problems. If an admin sees this, please let me know if this is a good or bad Idea. Thanks! --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"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)

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)