Jump to content

Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Further Reading sources removed

In a recent edit [1], some references were removed because they were more than 20 years old. But in the Further Reading article [2], it does not prohibit older reference material. Since we (appropriately) include older polls in the main article....I don't think it should be omitted here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33, you are right that WP:Further reading emphasizes notability as the main factor and also that generally these should be short sections. While it doesn't prohibit older material, the thinking in removing these older sources is that newer materials often reference older studies/works, making those older works seem somewhat redundant and less notable/relevant Superb Owl (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, but is that indeed what is happening? (I.e. are the "newer materials often referenc[ing] older studies/works"?) I ask because some of the sources removed look pretty solid....and I am not seeing where they are referenced elsewhere. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33, you mean in the article or in the works themselves? I am talking about the works themselves that tend to reference older studies and polls and give context that they build upon with more recent events and information Superb Owl (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see it in either. I haven't back checked every source in the article.....but spot checking a few, I don't see it. If we aren't sure these references are mentioned in the article's current references....I would suggest restoring them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Open to that idea if others agree but will just suggest that if an old source is not mentioned in any of the citations in the article or in any Further Reading entries from the last two decades, maybe they aren't notable enough to include in Further Reading in the first place Superb Owl (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of the sources are individual polls. (Like Gallup or C-Span.) I wouldn't expect those to cite a book (like those deleted).Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In that case it sounds like the article relies too heavily on primary sources and maybe we should flag sections that need more reliable, recent secondary sources Superb Owl (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. First, if you have rankings.....obviously you are going to have polls. And secondly, that would raise the issue of RECENTISM. But we are getting on a tangent here....the topic is Further Reading. Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are the removed sources, in reverse chronological order:
  • Skidmore, Max J. (2004). Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786418206.
  • Taranto, James; Leo, Leonard (2004). Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House. New York: Wall Street Journal Books. ISBN 978-0743254335. → For Federalist Society surveys.
  • Pfiffner, James P. (2003). "Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility" (PDF). White House Studies. 3: 23. ISSN 1535-4768. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 4, 2021. Retrieved June 16, 2008.
  • Bose, Meena; Landis Mark (2003). The Uses and Abuses of Presidential Ratings. New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1590337943. → A collection of essays by presidential scholars.
  • Skidmore, Max J. (2001). "Ranking and Evaluating Presidents: The Case of Theodore Roosevelt". White House Studies. 1 (4): 495–505. ISSN 1535-4768.
  • Vedder, Richard; Gallaway, Lowell (2001). "Rating Presidential Performance". In Denson, John V. (ed.). Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 978-0945466291.
  • Faber, Charles; Faber, Richard (2000). The American Presidents Ranked by Performance. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0786407651.
  • Holli, Melvin G. (1999). The American Mayor: The Best & the Worst Big-City Leaders. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271018768.
  • Miller, Nathan (1998). Star-Spangled Men America's Ten Worst Presidents. New York: Scribner. ISBN 978-0684836102.
  • Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. 112 (2): 179–190. doi:10.2307/2657937. JSTOR 2657937. S2CID 155363507.
  • Felzenberg, Alvin S. (1997). "There You Go Again: Liberal Historians and the New York Times Deny Ronald Reagan His Due". Policy Review. 82: 51–54. ISSN 0146-5945.
  • Ridings, William J. Jr.; McIver, Stuart B. (1997). Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing. ISBN 978-0806517995.
  • Murray, Robert K.; Blessing, Tim H. (1994). Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (2., updated ed.). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0271010892.
  • DeGregorio, William A. (1993). The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents (4th, rev., expanded, and up-dated ed.). New York: Barricade Books. ISBN 978-0942637922. → Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys.
  • Murphy, Arthur B. (1984). "Evaluating the Presidents of the United States". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 14 (1). Wiley: 117–126. JSTOR 27550039.
  • Greenstein, Fred I. et al. Evolution of the modern presidency : a bibliographical survey (1977) bibliography and annotation of 2500 scholarly books and articles. online
  • Bailey, Thomas A. (1966). Presidential Greatness: The Image and the Man from George Washington to the Present. New York: Appleton-Century. → A non-quantitative appraisal by leading historian.
Superb Owl (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I added these back and methodically removed those that were not wholly about the topic, had fewer than 50 citations (a better metric for notability than age?) or were already mentioned/discussed/cited in the article. None of these are hard/fast rules for how to do WP:Further reading but are generally in-line with WP:Further reading and hopefully address the objections to the previous method (which I agree was too crude) Superb Owl (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The one I'm struggling with whether or not to add back in had 40 citations but the journal and author don't have their own wikipedia pages...leaning against it but wouldn't object if someone else wants to put it back:
Superb Owl (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This is RfC level changes that have been hyped up by two people, so I reverted to citation bot. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sleyece, can you undo your revert and I will re-add all the further reading resources back to the article and flag them with my concerns one-by-one so we can continue this discussion? Superb Owl (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you already undid the revision and added back some data for further discussion, which is fine. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Sleyece - there were some intermediate edits that took a lot of work and was anxious not to lose them. All the resources should be there now - just adding flags with the potential issues they face one-by-one Superb Owl (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a false assumption that more recent articles in this field summarize the best of the older articles. Just the opposite: journals have space limitations and every page discussing old articles is one page less available to cover your new findings. I think the current articles assume that people interested in the Roosevelts Bushes , Harrisons and Adams etc have access to these older articles, and they should be included. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I've come around on this point and we are now debating which of the 20 we should keep. I flagged them one-by-one and there are three main objections to some of those sources (regardless of era):
1) Low citation count (as rough estimate of notability)
2) Not the same scope as this article (per WP:Further reading)
3) The work is already discussed in the article itself Superb Owl (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are the four works I feel most confident about including:
Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I recommend we keep: (A) Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. --the most in-depth analysis of how reputations can be evaluated over very different time periods (B) Murphy, Arthur B. (1984). "Evaluating the Presidents of the United States". Presidential Studies Quarterly. --important on how academic criteria change (C) Greenstein, Fred I. et al. Evolution of the modern presidency : a bibliographical survey (1977) bibliography and annotation of 2500 scholarly books and articles. --anyone who wants to evaluate one (or more) presidents needs access to this literature. (D) Skidmore, Max J. (2001). "Ranking and Evaluating Presidents: The Case of Theodore Roosevelt". White House Studies. --the most in-depth study of a single president; (E) Holli, Melvin (1999). The American Mayor: The Best & the Worst Big-City Leaders. --this article is about two things: a) US presidents and b) historical ranking--this covers b) & is the best book on that topic Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Initial thoughts on those suggestions:
a) Schlesinger 1997 is already discussed and cited in the article - seems excessive to list again
b) Murphy has 29 citations in 40 years - maybe could be added to the article if he has some unique perspective to add? Doesn't seem notable as a standalone resource.
c) Greenstein has only 26 citations in almost 50 years, so it does not seem to be an essential piece of literature
d) Skidmore has only 9 citations on his Roosevelt article
e) Melvin has citations to support notability but the book is not entirely within the scope of this article (Mayors are not within this scope). If there are chapters or sections that focus on historical rankings of US presidents, I would support those being listed. Superb Owl (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The readers we serve are interested in American political leadership, and how scholars deal with it. The "Mayors" book will be very useful to many readers who want to delve further into the theme, and that is the criteria we should be using for a bibliography of Further reading. The criteria is not "Notability"-- it is rather helping our users: "a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject." Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
from WP:Further reading: "Topical A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article. Works that are not entirely about the subject of the article should have notes that identify the relevant part of the work (e.g., "Chapter 7"). Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly. Reliable Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation." I still disagree with inclusion because none of these works are seminal (the ones that are appear in the article itself) and are (in my opinion) outdated. "Limited The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works, which in the case of a historical topic like World War II would run into thousands of items. When the list needs to be trimmed, preference in retention should normally be given to notable works over non-notable works." According to Template:further reading cleanup "Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications..."
While we wait for others to weigh-in on keep proposals (the 4 sources I proposed, plus the 5 by @Rjensen), do @Rja13ww33 or @Sleyece have any thoughts on whether we can go ahead and move/remove the other 11 sources out of Further reading to bring us down to 10? Are there others we should keep? Superb Owl (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
If no one weighs in further, you may continue to assume consensus from here on unless someone else reverts you. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept the ones without consensus and removed around 7 to bring us down to 14. Still much higher than the 6 that is what most editors consider to be the max. I forgot Ridings was cited (more than once) in the article and change my earlier 'keep' suggestion to 'remove' Superb Owl (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me. I'll take a closer look tomorrow and comment further (if I notice anything else). Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I frankly don't get why some have the labels they do. For example, one of the Further Reading sources (i.e. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1997). "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton". Political Science Quarterly. 112 (2): 179–190) has a label of "Relevance?" But not only is the relevance of this without question (a heavyweight historian's poll of other historians cited in a reputable journal), it is already cited in the article (proving its worth). So I don't mean to be hypercritical here.....but I don't follow some of the reasons for this. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Was trying to flag that they were already in the article - changed them to 'excessive' flags but open to suggestions Superb Owl (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
"already in the article" is a poor reason for dropping it from "Further reading." We want it to list the main books that people should go to if they want to study the topics further. Rjensen (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried organizing this discussion with the outstanding decisions we have yet to make into a table with what has been said so far and what the flags mean. Please fill out (or edit in the case of @Rjensen - I took a stab at summarizing your stances) a row if you have opinions you want reflected there. Superb Owl (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Is it alright if I ask for a third opinion to maybe help us reach a consensus one way or another? Superb Owl (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Walton and Smith

The Walton and Smith poll results should be presented in a different format. The "white supremacist" list should be placed in a separate table or box from the other four categories, not as part of the same table, since Walton and Smith are using "white supremacist" to refer to personal beliefs and the other categories to refer to policy. I realize that the footnotes try to explain such anomalous results as Lincoln and Nixon being characterized both as white supremacists and anti-racists, but combining the two axes into a single table may confuse more readers than it helps. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree the whole list is too convoluted. The footnotes try, but I think this is worth keeping.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the recent edits on this. I have thought this aspect of the article is problematic. This has come up before (see Archive #5). Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 ranking in the first chart is completely borked

Abraham Lincoln is down in the middle of the pack. Washington does not even show up. It seems to be a chart failure—the detailed rating for Lincoln show indicate he should be ranked first. The other charts also seem to have technical faults. I am going to check for vandalism, then either fix or blank. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) —

Are you talking about 2010 Siena College ranking? I can't seem to reproduce the issue you are referencing Superb Owl (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I am at the page now — will report soon. Still a problem that I see. Also dow grading many presidents in a very partisan way. By the way, I am using an iPad Pro, but never have seen chart disfunction like this in ten years. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
@Superb Owl The APSC 2024 and the Siena column both are not functioning correctly. Check Obamma' rating of 44.
— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
It seems to be functioning correctly for me. I am using Firefox on a Windows 11 PC. I will check on an Mac & one or two mobile environments. Peaceray (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks fine on Firefox on my MacBook Air but it cuts off after the WSJ 2000 column on Safari. But the APSA 2024 & Sienna 2022 columns look fine on both browsers. I am having dinner now but will check iPhone & Android phones later this evening. Peaceray (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I just checked again—the problem seems to be in totaling the rows to get ranking at the least. The display I get might display correctly if it hand been done manually. perhaps removing function migt correct what I see—wildly inaccurate rankings caused by flaws in the chart mark-up. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
Will not blank. May template. Too bad my Windows computer is down during an up grade. I will try Chrome to browse.
I just checked again—the problem seems to be in totaling the rows to get ranking at the least. The display I get might display correctly if it hand been done manually. perhaps removing function might correct what I see—wildly inaccurate rankings caused by flaws in the chart mark-up. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 03:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
Chrome performs differently, in small ways. Still the same problems.
  • The chart template is not setup to total rows. The total ranking numbers in what I see are manually entered and totally wrong. When I search the Internet, I see other outlet picking up the same, incorrect, ranking numbers that I see on Wikipedia Safari Desktop.
  • This is the first source I can find for the complete ASPA 2024 survey is
https://www.wsav.com/now/the-2024-presidential-greatness-rankings-are-in/ WSAV.com in Savannah, Georgia.
  • I first read the survey in the nyt about two days ago. Now, because their archive search function is so crappy, I can not find that article again.
  • Please check the ranking numbers again. They do not reflect the source at all (I have only checked the ASPA 2024 completely, but indications that similar problems are in the data in the final ranking column on the left. Now, with more investigation, The issue with my Safari browser and iPad Pro are very minor. The issue is the manually entered bad data in the leftmost ranking column.
— thank you all for your help and work — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 03:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
better link for full APSA 2024 survey Spectrum News
— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 06:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
I have fixed the overall ranking numbers for the ASPA 2024 survey and added a second ref to that column. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 20:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
Finally, the only problem with my Safari & iPad Pro is that the top row of the chart data does not appear. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 20:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
Might want to double check. Kennedy is still listed as #35 overall in the first chart. I assume this error is due to conflation with his Sequential number and his ranking number.
By the way, how is the number in the first column being calculated? I just pulled the whole table into excel and averaged the scores and they're pretty out of whack. For example, Woodrow Wilson is currently in 15th place but his average score of 8.32 should put him in 7th place between Truman and Eisenhower.
I've never dug this deep into a talk page before, but happy to help any way I can Demigoob (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Demigoob; the Kennedy error is mine—I have restored him to #10. The source states Wilson at #15. The table does no calculation; the rankings are manually. I will look at Wilson again and reply here. Thanks for the offer of help—tables, I think, unless you have a lot of experience, are ver tedious, especially with very long rows and columns. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —
    • I guess I got in over my head. The 2024 polls shows correctly, but now every poll shows the same as the 2024 poll. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC) —
    • I reverted my edits to the table. Evidently there is a function to shift the column headed by each survey to the leftmost column. Find that and the aspa 2024 ranking problem can be properly fixed. I just do not have the time to learn the intricate features of this table. My edits, including the nyt cite and the correct ranking for 2024 are still there, but reverted. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC) —

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

The "number" column in the first chart ("scholar summary survey") was originally somewhat aligned with the average score of each president (with notable errors), however it has been edited within the last couple of hours to reflect the sequential order of each president. I think that's a better way of doing it, however a column that can sort the table by average score would be quite useful to people wishing to view the ranking of each President as an average of all the surveys that have ranked them. I would know, as that's how I found this page in the first place.


Please consider the following table, which adds a column with the average of all the survey scores combined, for users that wish to view the Presidents in order of average ranking score. This is my first table edit on Wikipedia, so although I have double-checked the numbers, you may want to triple-check them. Demigoob (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, not only did my request post twice by accident, it seems to be completely malformed. First time is always the hardest, right?
anyway, here's a link with the original text of my request, including the table: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRrKSEEft1z3XIJUVUmgLkL6sYXAz8RIos6wu3cQOLT3PuH7YzgidMu5k7pctSmaS0N7g6mxao0q-pZ/pub Demigoob (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I just now realized that what I was seeing when I first arrived on this page was the "No." column was based on the most recent survey, not an approximate average. Still, I think that an average score column would be a useful tool and provide much easier access to the information that the average user is here to learn. Demigoob (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
We have consensus to not have an 'average' column because it would be spurious. The average depends on which polls are included, and ideally would be weighted for the reliability of each poll. We can't do that, so adding an 'average' column is OR. We could have an average of Sienna polls or CSPAN polls perhaps, but not of all the polls that happen to make this list. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Defense of President Harding Movement

Yet another presidential ranking year is here, and yet again Donald Trump ranks below Warren G. Harding. In fact EVERY time historians have been asked they rank Trump beneath Harding. When will it be okay to stop slander Warren and put Trump in the image of the three worst presidents? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that's more relevant than Harding's rankings in the 20th century - maybe start with a photo of Trump in the 2018-present subsection until there's consensus? Superb Owl (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if we can get consensus on that I would agree it's appropriate at this time to have a picture and caption of Trump in that section -- Sleyece (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree, Warren Harding was a very good and decent man and President. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
All he ever did was make sweet love to his mistress while his Cabinet raided the Treasury; then he had a stroke. #JusticeforHarding -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
His cabinet did not do that. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Teapot Dome scandal Bkatcher (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
One cabinet member…hardly representative of his cabinet. The most ginned up scandal in American history and a total disgrace that it still affects the reputation of a good and decent man like Warren Harding. JohnAdams2024 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed - just one member is very different than the whole cabinet Superb Owl (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the Fall guy went to prison, and the rest of them kept all the money. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with removing Harding and adding Trump. Harding, much like Nixon, were embroiled in a scandal but were effective executives nonetheless. Buchanan and Johnson are where they are due to their disastrous handling of the country in the prelude to the Civil War and aftermath, respectively. Trump's handling of COVID and his loss in 2020 is just as egregious and damaging to the Union as Johnson and Buchanans ineffectualness. PaulRKil (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Part of Buchanan's poor reputation is not based on being ineffectual. He was a Doughface and promoted pro-Southern Democratic policies throughout his term. Other Northern Democrats disliked him, the Southerners considered him a useful ally but "without any firm moral commitment to their cause", and you can guess what other Northerners thought of him. The Doughfaces aimed to achieve "sectional compromise", but both failed to achieve this goal and uninentionally added fuel to the fire of sectional violence. Some historians view Buchanan himself as a traitor. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be consensus here, so I'll make the move. We list Harding as among the last in the last century, which is not what the list claims to be. The changes of fortune in rankings are of historical interest, but we should summarize opinion today. There is a potential problem of recentism, which was why we didn't do this earlier, but we are now a full term from Trump leaving office. — kwami (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted ‘Racism Ranking’

Please achieve consensus before re-adding material.

Section quoted a single book published in the early 2020s ranking presidents’ “racism”.

In addition to the…usual…nature of the section, it suffered from recentism.

It marked Lincoln as a “white supremacist”. It is…a highly unusual position, and one especially associated with a particular ideology that was most popular in 2020-2021. It is definitely something that will remain to be seen, whether there is still a serious historian ranking presidents by “racism” number in 30 years. Oxenfording (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to concur, the “racist rankings” should be deleted, it’s quite obscene. Nate Rybner 02:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
adding my $0.02 here, this list is silly especially as it lists certain presidents in multiple categories. Nixon is both "anti-racist" and "white supremacist."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.26.248.228 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
For the record; we achieve consensus before removing material. Saying "I deleted X, you must achieve consensus to question me" is a no. We don't do that here. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Late comment - for the record, we do actually do that here. See WP:BURDEN. That is policy. The burden for including that material (i.e. achieving consensus) has not been met. There isn't a comparable burden required to justify removing it, especially if the cited source is questionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Restored list. The arguments given above are unfortunate and to some extent specious. Calling the sources questionable just because there are two of them makes no sense - we are citing individual polls and studies, and these two are peer-reviewed ones of a crucial aspect. The comment above saying that white supremacy is merely "a particular ideology that was most popular in 2020-2021" is breathtakingly ignorant. Calling Nixon anti-racist for his policies and a white supremacist for his private views makes complete sense, and the source explains clearly the difference between a given president's personal views and their actions in office. The idea that you could call a description of Abraham Lincoln as a believer in the superiority of white people over black people "obscene" does show the passion that can blind us when editing - especially of beloved national figures. I'm not American, and perhaps I lack a bias that is implicit here on the talk page. But there are many sources that suggest that Lincoln was a man of his time and believed such things - it was the way society operated. Ask any prominent Civil War historian, and they will posit that Lincoln's views evolved throughout his life, but at no stage did he ever call for total equality.

"Clearly he began his politcal career believing Negroes inferior to whites and wishing gone from what he perceived an Anglo-Saxon America. On October 16, 1854, he declared in a speech, 'Let it not I am contending for the establishment of political and equality between the whites and blacks. I have already called for the contrary'... . After becoming President, he changed his mind. He moved, haltingly and agonizingly, toward abolition, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and supporting the thirteenth amendment... Benjamin Butler, in his memoirs written more than twenty-five years later, declared that the President had remarked to him just before his death in April 1865, 'But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the south and north can live together unless we get rid of the negroes'"

Nelson, P. D. (1974). FROM INTOLERANCE TO MODERATION: THE EVOLUTION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN’S RACIAL VIEWS. The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, 72(1), 1–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23378278


I think the suggestion that Lincoln could not possibly have been a racist because he opposed to horrific brutality of slavery is more a case of "recentism" than any criticisms of the study as discussed above. These are all wholly different men from different periods, and whether they acted to mitigate institutional racism or not is not mutually inclusive with the world view they were raised in. Overall, the consensus here is poor and I think the addition was well-sourced and well-written - in short, a good addition to this article.

While the racism ranking is actually my favorite section of this article, a single editor can not overturn a consensus. Dimadick (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. It's good you agree with me though! I put it back because I felt the arguments for removing it were based on a poor understanding the point of the academic study they were cited from. I'd appreciate getting consensus to add it back - it's annoying to have to go through the history every time. Dhantegge (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I support restoring it. There are problems with it, but that's mostly due to difficulties in interpreting historical sources when racism was the norm. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I also support keeping the diversity and racism section. Have we determined that we should only summarize polls with secondary coverage? Most of the article is cited to polls themselves. Of them all, a textbook summary of a poll of experts seems weighty enough for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
(updated x 2) It would make a stronger case if there were notable secondary sources talking about this ranking. I just found the book has 276 citations, but have had trouble tracking down any on the chart in particular (maybe the name on the chart isn't the name in the book?). In general, I prefer to exclude when on the fence because the encyclopedia is so large that we don't have enough volunteers to maintain the level-5 articles and consensus inclusion sections, let alone disputed ones. Superb Owl (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it ought to be removed for some of the reasons given by others. I also think it is a problem as far as WEIGHT goes....as this is a single aspect of the person, when a President should be weighed by multiple things.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that it reflects perhaps the most important social aspect of the US, which sparked one civil war and has people threatening a second. If maintenance is your concern, then we should delete all articles that aren't at least GA.
Of course presidents should be weighed by multiple things. That's what this whole article is about. This is fills in a gap of something critically important that presidents are typically not evaluated by. Encyclopedias are supposed to be universal; cutting out the concerns of minorities and reflecting only the concerns of whites does not make for universal coverage. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I was skeptical but am swayed to support keeping it given that it is evaluating something that does not seem to be evaluated in other surveys and seems additive Superb Owl (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like RIGHTGREATWRONGS and POV pushing to me. All the other surveys in the article tend to focus on overall job performance. Why break out this aspect of their Presidency? There are a bunch of issues we could break out. This sticks out like a sore thumb in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Then break out those other aspects of the presidency that aren't covered in our surveys. I'd welcome the additional information. Then this one won't stick out like a sore thumb. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think we ought to have a RFC. The notion we should be breaking out these individual issues is nonsense. The article deals with overall historical rankings.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why you want to remove pertinent information, or to restrict the POV of the article. Unless it's trivia, more info on a topic is generally better. — kwami (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I've explained why. Either you aren't reading what I am posting or (with all respect) this is a classic case of ICANTHEARYOU.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they aren't listening. It could be (as unlikely as it seems) that they have a different opinion than you do. Explaining your opinion won't inevitably make it their opinion. — kwami (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami I support reinstating the racism ranking back into the article. It's a strong, peer-reviewed study which you can't find anywhere else. Dhantegge (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I deleted the hypocritical 'primary sources' tag. Apart from the intro, just about everything in this article is based on primary sources. We could place that tag at the top of the article, but it's POV-pushing to add it to cherry-picked sections. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States/Archive_6&oldid=1264993098"