Undid revision 414109005 by 209.34.114.221 (talk) rvv |
209.34.114.221 (talk) |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
== Criticism section(s) == |
== Criticism section(s) == |
||
Mats thre president |
|||
I am really taken aback at how this article places so much weight on criticisms of the Presidency. Rather than summing up criticisms, in the same way that the job description of the President is largely summed up, lengthy criticisms, especially of Presidents George W. Bush and Richard Nixon, are found throughout. I see one instance where President Nixon is actually incorrectly referred to as having himself broken numerous laws. Worse, the criticism section (which, by the way, is very strongly opposed by the MoS, as I explain later) takes up roughly half of the article. |
|||
Worse still, criticism sections like this have recently been added to all of the articles on the three branches of government of the United States. They are all authored in similar fashion, beginning with the bolded text and going on, in paragraph form, to explain, in depth, the reasoning and different specific examples, etc. Due to the striking similarities, I am convinced that they were written by the same person. |
|||
More than simply a criticism of the presidency, these criticism sections seem to be a coordinated attack on the United States' government system. Are there criticism sections in the article on the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]]? No. How about the [[British Monarchy]]? Again, no. Why? Because editors there have correctly incorporated the relevant information throughout the article(s). And they have done it with [[WP:WEIGHT|due weight]]. |
|||
Furthermore, criticism sections are very strongly opposed, if not prohibited, by the MoS. A properly written article, according to the MoS, should ''incorporate'' relevant criticisms into the text with due weight, not separate them. |
|||
Therefore, I am removing the criticism section(s). '''Legitimate criticisms should be incorporated into the body text, on all of the articles. Separating it out makes for very unbalanced portrayals, according to the MoS.''' --[[User:Happyme22|Happyme22]] ([[User_talk:Happyme22|talk]]) 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you. I fought against the addition of both this and the article on the U.S. Congress, but lost. They were indeed all written by the same person. He had a history of rather unencyclopedic additions. I agree wholeheartedly that the large criticism section added undue weight and bias in the article. We might also want to take a look at the criticism section in [[United States Constitution]]. [[User:Andy120290|Andy120290]] ([[User talk:Andy120290|talk]]) 01:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I have reluctantly reverted this change. Although I don't necessarily disagree with the basis for removing this material, a change of this magnitude requires more discussion and consideration of how, exactly, these materials are to be redistributed throughout the article (or elsewhere). Let's hash it out here first, for a few days. No harm will come to the encyclopedia for retaining this material for that time. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:tan">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::How about moving that section's material to various parts of the article, to the extent such material is beneficial to the article? The rest of that material would be removed from the article. This should allow worthy material to remain in the article, but avoid giving that material [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|undue weight]]. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I disagree. I believe too much of the information in the section is far too critical to be incorporated in the article. The important part of WIkipedia's policies is that it is not our job to tell a reader whether or not something is a good or bad thing or make it seem either way. For example, the "Election advantages of incumbent presidents" section is complete nonsense because grouping it together with other criticisms is an attempt (whether intentional or not) to say that reelecting an incumbent is simply a bad thing. One might argue the other way and say the American public actually wanted to reelect their president and that is a positive thing. Of course, praising a president for doing a good job was not whoever's intention when they added the section to the article. Because of mine and the original poster's concerns, unless there is further discussion in the next few days, I will remove the entire criticism section myself. I am open to ideas, but the current diatribe in the article is too ridiculous to stay. [[User:Andy120290|Andy120290]] ([[User talk:Andy120290|talk]]) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Perhaps a different approach. First, reach a consensus as to which of the Criticism subsections is not notable (or inappropriate or something else bad) and does not belong in the article. Second, once consensus has been reached, remove those subsections. Third, of the remaining subsections, if any are left, reach a consensus as to whether some or all belong in a standalone Criticism section. Fourth, implement that consensus. To just axe everything is to lose whatever value it has. Now, maybe there will be a consensus that none of it has any value, but the opinion of one editor about one subsection does not a consensus make, either about that subsection, or about the section as a whole. As an aside, I don't agree with the interpretation of the incumbent subsection. I don't think it means that reelecting an incumbent is a bad thing. It simply means that incumbents have an advantage, as borne out by the statistics in the subsection. However, I question the subsection on a different ground. It has the following sentence: "Presidents, in office, and seeking a second term have an advantage over challengers,[88] and critics have charged that this is unfair." The first part of the sentence has a cite, but the key second part does not. I didn't read closely every single article cited in this subsection, but where does anyone ''criticize'' the advantage as "unfair"? If in fact there's no cite for the proposition that the advantage has been criticized, then it doesn't belong in the section.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I feel strongly that criticism sections belong in this article; I have no problem if users would like to move specific areas. But deleting a section outright would cause the article to become highly POV and unbalanced. It's necessary to give [[WP:BALANCE]] and to satisfy WP's criteria for [[WP:NEUTRAL|neutrality]]. I agree that we shouldn't single out any particular president or party for criticism but it's impossible not to talk about the presidency as an institution without mentioning particular presidents. We just have to be fair.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Not that it necessarily means your comments aren't valuable, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you create the original template of the Criticism section and then propagate it to various major articles, including Congress and the Supreme Court? I don't think this should be viewed as an all or nothing approach. A consensus should be reached as to which criticisms are notable and well-sourced, and, if so, where they fit best in the article. Because consensus on such controversial points can be very difficult to reach, I suggest taking each bulleted point in the section one by one. It might be easier that way. And I might add that the same would be true for all of these articles.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I tend to agree with BBB23. I think you're being reasonable. Yes I did have a big role in the criticism sections a while back. With the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] article, there had already been substantial criticism, and I worked out with other editors (and got a strong consensus) to rework it, expand it, rewrite some things and make it tighter. We also added criticisms of the criticisms, so to speak, which I think makes it fair and adds balance. But I think these sections are important since (in my view) the mainstream US press is highly cynical about politics, about institutions such as the presidency and congress and judiciary, and these articles ''without the media's take'' seem lackluster and clueless. So I see the criticism sections as being IF the mainstream press had a say in these Wikipedia articles (that's how I see it; I realize others may disagree.) It's essentially their voice -- political reporters & former Supreme Court justices and even some heavy duty politicians & such. That's what they think. I didn't make up those references.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::And these sections have lasted for about a year, meaning others have read them and considered them worthy of inclusion. They clearly follow all of Wikipedia's rules in my view (neutrality, secondary sources, etc). And without them the sections look highly unbalanced, almost like advertisements for these institutions. At the same time, I wonder if maybe having a separate criticism section for each article is too powerful or makes it seem more negative? I have no problem if others move specific points one by one to their respective places in the article and deal with them on a case by case basis. The problem is, this requires editing work.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::There's another way to avoid what I consider to be rather unending edit-battling in Wikipedia, which is this: if any material is ''seen'' as opinion-laden or essay-like (and everybody has different ideas about what's fact and what's opinion, let's face it) -- well then controversial stuff or seemingly controversial stuff can be moved to a [[Google knol]], with a link added to the bottom of the page. In that respect, there's less battling -- the knols get much less readership (since few people click on the wikilinks at the bottom of the page); but they're there at the bottom of the page via a wikilink in case readers are interested in learning more. I advocated this approach for the article [[United States Congress]], moved the criticism-of-congress section to a knol [http://knol.google.com/k/thomas-sulcer/criticism-of-the-united-states-congress/38jyd65oa42fm/14# here], added a wikilink, but then the wikilink got deleted (for being an ad -- I'm totally confused about any reasoning there since nothing is being bought or sold). So now the criticism section is back in, and of course there's more battling on the Congress page and will probably continue. But I'm willing to have a compromise with others here by moving the presidential criticism section to a knol provided a wikilink is at the bottom so the few people interested in criticism can find it on the web; without the wikilink, it is unlikely anybody will ever find it in the hugeness of the web.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The only problem that I see with the Criticisms section is that the entry for George W. Bush under "abuses of power" includes an opinion as to why the abuses took place, while none of the other entries for other presidents have any opinions stated as to the reasons for the abuses. I think this should be removed, as not only is there no way to prove the motives of the former President, but it seems like this was added to excuse the President's actions in an article that should be objective. [[User:Solarcide|Solarcide]] ([[User talk:Solarcide|talk]]) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The Bush sentence says: "In an effort to prevent terrorism, George W. Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps which were later ruled unconstitutional as well as torture and denying detainees due process." I assume you would favor removing the introductory clause?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Having a criticism section is very biased and not neutral at all. Everything in this world can, and has been, criticized. Yet most articles in this encyclopedia don't have a criticism section. (indeed it seems only the subjects some people really don't like have such sections) To be fair, you would need a "praise" section, where opinions are posted about all the wonderful things presidents have done. Which of course having such a section would be silly and biased. More importantly, the only purpose a criticism section serves is to allow a place for detractors to accumulate their points. Wikipedia is not supposed to either advocate or detract. Rather it's supposed to avoid such commenting whenever possible [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] The encyclopedia records facts, and criticisms are ultimately mostly a bunch of opinions. They serve no purpose here, other than for people to try to promote their negative views of the presidency. [[Special:Contributions/96.26.217.149|96.26.217.149]] ([[User talk:96.26.217.149|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 05:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Edit request from Additup1960, 12 October 2010 == |
== Edit request from Additup1960, 12 October 2010 == |
Revision as of 19:15, 15 February 2011
President of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
What the heck does the President do? Please clarify this article
Every so often I wonder what exactly the President does, and I end up looking at this article and being unable to decipher it. Now that I look at it closely, I'm realizing that it's because the article is quite poorly written and unclear.
For example, "Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the president and charges him with the execution of federal law..." This is an awkward sentence that is filled with political jargon (and if you understand such jargon you won't be consulting this article for information in the first place) and words that have no clear meaning. What does "charges him with the execution of federal law" MEAN? On top of being in passive tense, the words "charges with" and "execution" are NOT clear and have several commonly understood meanings, none of which seem to apply here. First of all, it "charges him with?" People get "charged with" crimes. Shouldn't it say that it "GRANTS him the ability to..." since these are powers he has? And "execution of federal law?" Does that mean he CREATES laws, or that he goes out on the street at night and ENFORCES laws, arresting crooks? "Creation of law" is clear. "Enforcement of law" is clear. "Execution of law" is not. Perhaps it is some special, specific political-jargon use of "execution?" You shouldn't have to consult a political or law glossary TWICE just to understand ONE introductory sentence in an article.
A much clearer sentence would be "According to the second Article of the U.S. Constitution, the President is considered the "Chief Executive" of the United States. He has the ability to create federal laws or edit existing ones, provided they are approved by congress, as well as appoint judges to the Supreme Court, sign treaties with other countries..." This says much more clearly who the President is according to the founding documents of the country, and starts to outline what he does without an overwhelming amount of jargon. (Please note that since I am unclear on what the President can actually do, my example may not reflect what he does.)
Sigh. I don't mean to sound like I'm ranting, but I get very frustrated by things like this that get in the way when I want to know something. Wikipedia is my go-to source when I want clear and quick information and I wish this article could also fit that standard. 69.225.117.21 (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Your "clearer" version is, comparatively, poorly written, and unclear, because it ignores the nuance of the President's duty. I don't mean to be critical, but you do seem to have a rather shaky grasp of certain very common English words. The usages above are not jargon.
- The word "charges" is being used in the sense of "tasks", much as one might say "John was charged with restoring the division to profitability". Look at Wiktionary's definition of the verb, which is quite a common usage. The Constitution does "grant" the President the ability to..., but it also places a duty upon him. My driver's license grants me the ability to drive, but it does not place a duty upon me to do so, whereas the President is both empowered and has a duty to execute the law.
- The phrase "charges him with the execution of federal law" is not in the passive tense (do you know what the passive tense is?), and it means that the President is charged with the execution of federal law. The meaning of the verb "charges" is as above. "Execution" is what he does. The President is the executive. He executes federal law. Again, it's a very common usage, and certainly not jargon. Again, look to Wiktionary if you need an explicit definition. Your usage of the word "enforce" is nearer the mark than "create", although his "enforcement" takes place from an office, for the most part.
- I hope that clears things up somewhat.
- The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the original poster of the "what the heck does the president do" comment, and in reply to you, nope. Having reviewed the original post, everything I've said is correct in the manner I intended to say it. The word jargon refers to slang or language that has a meaning that is only easily understood by a specific group. That is *exactly* what I mean when I refer to terms like "execution" in regards to federal law (the term has more than one meaning to most people outside of a political or legal context, none of which clarify the sentence), as well as the phrase "charges him with" which in common speak has several meanings that don't apply to the political context being used and in fact, cause the phrase to be unnecessarily confusing. If there are several commonly used meanings to a term, *any term you are considering for a sentence*, you should avoid that term in favor of words that are much more directly and commonly related to the intended meaning. If "grants" does not contain the desired-meaning, there are many more common terms that do. Furthermore, even when you need to include additional information, without a single common term that does the job, you clarify that in the sentence, which is when additional words are necessary. It doesn't matter if several words are saved when the term itself confuses the sentence. The overall amount of time for the average reader is still increased by the multiple readings and cross-referencing. This is why the term "jargon" exists and why jargon is avoided by actual skilled communicators. These are the basics of human communication and I shouldn't have to explain them to you.
- I also meant exactly what I intended to when I used the phrase passive tense and why it shouldn't be used. To quote the wikipedia entry on the subject, "passive voice emphasizes the process rather than who is performing the action." Look at the example I gave, where the President, the subject of the article, at the beginning of the sentence, and not the Constitution which is granting the powers. Perhaps your understanding of the concept of passive speaking is limited to what someone gave you in a textbook and you have no actual ability to functionally apply it and the communication problem it represents in other contexts, which is fine, except that you seem to mistake a child-like ABC application of sentence-structure for the entirety of the concept...like someone who takes issue with the term "addition" when it's used to refer to forms of combining things outside of a teacher writing "1 + 1 = 2" on a chalkboard.
- My example has a much clearer sentence structure, with a more proper use of terms based on a knowledge of basic writing skills and not a childish college-level need to use jargon to try to prove your intelligence, which only succeeds at demonstrating that you have limited actual intelligence, when seen by those of us who actually can recognize such things. You should watch your tone going forward, especially because I can tell already that you're not strong enough in your understanding of human communication...and I will not be patient nor polite if I have to deal with or dissect any immaturity or ignorance going forward. EGarrett01 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Criticism section(s)
Mats thre president
Edit request from Additup1960, 12 October 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please change "As a result, Americans have unrealistic expectations of presidents, who are expected to "drive the economy, vanquish enemies, lead the free world, comfort tornado victims, heal the national soul and protect borrowers from hidden credit-card fees."[63] " under the "Images and public relations" tab to say, "As a result, some Americans have unrealistic..."
Additup1960 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- How's that? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Somebody is asking to have the word some added before the word Americans in the above line? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. An improvement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Executive (qualified) immunity
Seeing the Ashcroft case up for review by SCOTUS made me wonder whether or not we ought to include a treatment on qualified immunity after the states secrets paragraph... Thoughts? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems important. Good job noticing this stuff. If you feel its worthy, put it in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- In al-Kidd, the issue of absolute immunity was analyzed under the usual framework of immunity as a prosecutor (not an executive). In terms of qualified immunity, although the court used the phrase "qualified immunity for acts taken in furtherance of an investigatory or national security function," its analysis was essentially the normal Saucier/Pearson analysis for any state actor. Similarly, the S. Ct.'s granting of cert on the issue of qualified immunity does not appear to be any different. Until just a moment ago, I'd never researched the issue of presidential immunity. Looks like the seminal case is Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). Is that where you want to go?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I guess I would have been more correct to say we should put insomething about "absolute civil damages immunity." -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm mulling over the thought of moving the executive privilege paragraph to the administrative powers, and state secrets paragraph up to war powers, since the privileges descends more out of those powers, respectively, than from his power to appoint judges or grant pardons... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Instead of what I've striken, I'm thinking it might be more wise to shake up the article again in the following way:
- Formal powers and duties
- This would be a summary of his constitutionally enumerated duties, as in the article.
- Informal presidential powers
- Here we would move all the accretions of power that the presidency has collected over time: executive privilege, absolute civil damages immunity, state secrets privilege, executive agreements, executive orders, etc...
Would that be better, or would it disaggregate the article too much? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree Foofighter. looks like an improvement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Your attention is requested
If you are so inclined, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:US_Heads_of_State, a nomination for deletion of a navbox template that could potentially be used in all President of the United States biographies. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 14:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Just throwing it out there, the President of the United States is no longer widely considered the most powerful man in the world. That description should be modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.19.6 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Origin section lacks sourcing
The Origin section has no sourcing. It should not be difficult to find proper sourcing for the origins of the Presidency. SMP0328. (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Mystery image
In the Article I legislative role subsection, there is an image that is covering the subsection's title. However, when I attempted to fix this there was display of the image's template in the edit window. The image is also not present in a preview display of the subsection. This should be fixed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Without doing anything, I don't see an image covering up the subsection title. What image do you see? Also, if I understand you properly, there is no code for an image in the subsection (you talked about the edit window).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- The image is of the Flag of the President of the United States. SMP0328. (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Citizens United Decision
There needs to be some info included on this page about the recent Citizens United ruling which granted corporations "personhood" in the united states. What is the posibility under this new decision that a corporation could technically be president of the united states if they now have personhood in the constitution and meet all the requirements listed for becoming president. This has been a big discussion recently and i would like someone to include a section to spur more discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.8.81 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a fascinating idea for a science-fiction movie, but not this article. The only way a corporation is going to become president under current laws is by pulling the strings of actual biological humans, and tongue-in-cheek, I'd add that it's more likely to be that they thusly control Congress than the presidency. For that matter, that's a story far older and broader than this country. Business (read: economic) interests have always been involved in nations this way, and in this country the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents were forced to acknowledge the compromises between some (mostly northerners) who were against slavery and those (mostly southern plantation owners) who owned slaves and relied upon them for their profit margins. And, of course, there was Eisenhower's warning about the influence of the Military Industrial Complex, which you might notice is also more effective on a state-by-state basis (and their representation in Congress) than at the presidency. If the discussion you refer to includes reliably sourced comment by notable people, it belongs, referenced, in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission article. Aside from brief responses such as mine, article talk pages aren't for the discussion of broad themes not directly relevant to specific editorial work on that article. Abrazame (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Corporations may legally be "persons," but they are not "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, and thus would be ineligible to stand for election. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Wot, no Kennedy?
Your table of US Presidents omits JFK Historygypsy (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)