Talk:President of the United States/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about President of the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

"Rationale" section is very misleading.

It implies both that popular voting in Presidential elections is formality and the Electoral College actually chooses the President (other way around), and that the 12th Amendment created the Electoral College, which it did not (the 12 amendment provided that Electors vote separately for President and VP, as opposed to voting twice for President and the second-place finisher becoming VP).68.33.32.75 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes which I hope deal with this. Also I reworded the bit about faithless electors, because it implied that faithless electors have actually changed the outcome of presidential elections, which has never happened. Richard75 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why dont we just go ahead and put Obama's name up there

I mean my god why should we wait only 1 more day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwalks (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

TWO more days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As soon as it gets changed it will get reverted because he ain't President yet. (We had such precision when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair, right down to discussion as to who was running the UK between the trips to the palace - not a totally silly question because it could affect who had power to deal with the flooding emergency. And the constant revert wars over the Australian election were not useful.) If there's an attack on the US today it will be Bush who has the actual power to do anything, not Obama. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many guys are going to sit at their PCs on Tuesday with cursor hovering over the Save page button, feverishly hoping to become the one who updated the article and made it real real by putting it into Wikipedia. I also wonder what their future wives (if any) would think of that. 78.34.129.171 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Far too many. I wonder if perhaps I should have upped the protection to full (and don't worry, the semi expires at noon, Washington DC time). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh naughty, you shouldn't have told me. Now I'm going sit there, too... I'm so gonna brag to everyone I know should get to be the one. Oh my. I'm gonna hit Show preview a million times until tomorrow. :D 78.34.154.49 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The other sad thing is, if you do it just one second too early, someone will revert you - and then probably do the edit themself a moment later to get the "credit." Richard75 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, "credit". There's no credit there. 206.47.141.21 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Error in Qualifications

"Every President to date has been a white male. President-elect Barack Obama would be the first known President with any non-white ancestry."

Non-white ancestry would signify that Barack Obama is absolutly not part white, but he is biracial. Can we please change the wording on this? Fortunia (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

Besides, at least one historian disputes the notion that Barack Obama would be the first known President with "any non-white ancestry". See http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, this will just become another "dead thread" to be closed soon.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

Why is Grover Cleveland always counted as 22nd and 24th? I recognize that he served nonconsecutive terms, but he was just one man. Obama is technically the 43rd man to hold office, Bush was 42, and so on. Why did they screw up the counting? Emperor001 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are "they"? 206.47.141.21 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When Grover Cleveland again became President, it was decided that it was a new administration rather than a resumption of his first one. SMP0328. (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

43 men, 44 Presidencies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the whitehouse.gov [1] count as a reliable source that we can follow?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That and countless others. There is no issue with this. Cleveland has been counted as both 22 and 24 for a long time. Today Obama made a statement about "44 men". Obviously it's only 43 individuals. Obama probably didn't want to get into a debate over minutia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The World Almanac attributes this to an announcement by the State Department. I'm going to try to dig up some details about this - it has become more "tradition" than anything else at this stage. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's one from Google Books affirming this: [2]. I'm still looking for something a bit more definitive, though. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Five Presidents

The caption is mis-leading. Obama was not President, when the picture was taken. His having taken office since, doesn't retroactively change this. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But the image is not a clone of him, or is it? Just upload or search for a new pic if it bothers you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Search for an image taken in the last 9 hours.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As there's yet to be such a photo, we'll have to wait. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That and nothing else was my point.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

bigger picture of Obama

we can barely see him. Someone enlarge the picture of Obama, I don't know how to Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a standard template. You're going to have to live with it. Foofighter20x (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Fixed it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, snap! Well, there you go! Rock. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Official "Executive Office of the President". Retrieved on 2005-10-07. <-- Invalid URL, must be changed to http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo.rosciani (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Change made. SMP0328. (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DougieLawson (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Style of the President

The President's is styled "the Honorable", not "Mr. President". The President is addressed as "Mr. President" just as other government officials are addressed as Mr./Madam [Title]. Other examples are Madam Speaker and Mr. Chief Justice. The latter officials are styled the Honorable Nancy Pelosi and the Honorable John Roberts. As such, the infobox for this article and Vice President of the United States should list "the Honorable" as the style, not "Mr. President". -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a more honorable reference then the one given so this can be cleared up without much further debate? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The explanation of style is one important thing to look at. The Style (manner of address) does a pretty good job. For specific governmental examples of "The Honorable George W. Bush", see the following: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. There are thousands more. -Rrius (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew you would find something. I see no issue now if you restore your edit, but try to put a reference in if you can. Good job. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute here: are style and honorific synonomous, or are they different things? Can we include both? Foofighter20x (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another take, though it cites the source I did: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131200.html and http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/what/c18027.htm Foofighter20x (talk) And what other countries do is ancillary to what our own government calls him. 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, please tell me we are not circularly citing wikipedia for the meaning of the word style. That's just ridiculous. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And the debate continues... I have to go so you guys are going to have to reach a solution solo or get a different third opinion. I should be back on later though. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One last thing: the cites Rrius gives shows BOTH. The Honorable only appears before the persons name in their postal address, however, the salutation of them in the letter is "Mr. President." His sources don't provide an answer to "Just how do I address the President when I speak to him?" Historical and common usage since Washington has been the latter, "Mr. President," and not the former. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When you don't adress his real name it is Mr. President. When you adress his real name its either the honorable Barack Obama or President Obama. This situation is extremely complicated. I really don't know how easy it will be to reach an ultimate conclusion. Perhaps we should try to mark down both of these in the info box, other wise the debate could be endless. You both have great points, and sources to back you up. The question now is how do we go about reaching a consensus. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

His sources don't provide an answer to "Just how do I address the President when I speak to him?" That isn't the question, though. The question is "what is the style of the President of the United States". -Rrius (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we not make our own determination and defer to the protocol authorites, such as Ms. Manners's book. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be reasonable, but Rrius had already called you out on that being an un-worthy source. I don't have as strong an opinion on the issue, but we definitely can reach a solution. Is there anyway you can convince Rrius that Ms. Manners is very much a liable source and taht it is useable in determining the content of the page? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? The Washington Post is not an unreliable source. They put in on their own website. If they feel it's reliable, then I'm willing to believe we ought to as well. Here's another interesting website. Also, look to the 2nd link I provided above, which is from the State Dept. (though it again provides both). Foofighter20x (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. A recent edit has been made to the page, Instead of reverting it and saying this is under discussion, I left it. Maybe we should leave it like this... What do you think? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any books that make the nice distinctions between styles, titles, and forms of address. Before getting into it, though, "honorific" is a pretty inclusive term that applies to "the honorable"; "President" (when used before a name as in President X); "Mr.", "Ms.", "Mrs.", and "Miss"; and "esquire". A style is an honorific used before a full name. The style used with a name is one form of address, as is the title (sometimes with "Mr./Madam", sometimes without. So "The Honorable Barack Obama" is one way of addressing the current President, as is "Mr. President". The former would be used in the inside address of a letter or in introducing the person. One of the links I provided above is George Tenet introducing President Bush to an audience as "the Honorable George W. Bush". The "Mr. President" form is for the salutation of a letter or actually speaking to the President. The same is true for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He is addressed in salutation or speech as "Prime Minister" (some Commonwealth countries use "Mr. Prime Minister"), but he is styled "the Right Honourable Gordon Brown"

In reality, we should just exclude the style parameter in American articles because it is really not intended for us. It is meant for places like the UK and the Commonwealth countries where there are different levels of styles. They use "the Honourable", "the Right Honourable", "the Most Honourable", "His/Her Grace", "His/Her Royal Highness", "His/Her Excellency", and "Her Majesty". There are more than that, but you get the point. The only other style Americans use, though we don't often think of it that way, is "the Reverend". Standard advice these days suggests addressing letters to "The President, The White House, Washington, DC 20500" rather than using the [Style] [Name] form, so I don't know that there is any value in providing the style here. I hope using nothing is a workable solution. -Rrius (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Any use of "His Excellency" is foreign to the U.S. The Senate revoked such usage, unless you can point out where it passed it later. Foofighter20x (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't use it, many foreign states apply it to him when he is in their countries. -Rrius (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just sort of standard international protocol for heads of states in international relations.

Fourth paragraph from the end: it appears the Senate settled on "Mr. President." Foofighter20x (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. The Senate acting alone would have no such power. At any rate, the result had nothing to do with "Mr. President", but rather sticking with "President of the United States" was the result.[12] -Rrius (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an interesting cite on the page of the Emolument Clause (see footnote 4) which I think pretty well settles the disagreement: it was "Mr. President." Foofighter20x (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another book saying it was decided to be solely "Mr. President." Foofighter20x (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another book from 1906 with an interesting passage: "...from that day to this the official title of the President is simply 'Mr. President.'" And it has a footnote with craploagds of other primary sources. Foofighter20x (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In 1819, the style of "His Excellency" was met with scorn in the Monroe administration, implying the style was less than Presidential. Foofighter20x (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The result of that business from 1789 was no action; no law was passed. Suggestions to establish his title as "His Elective Majesty" or "His Highness, the President of the United States, and Protector of the Rights of the Same" failed. Nowhere have I suggested that he is not addressed as "Mr. President", and nothing you have cited suggests he isn't referred to as such by foreign powers when traveling abroad. The point is that "Mr. President" is not a style.

Do you have any problem with the suggestion the style parameter be dropped? It is not required by the template, and it is not especially helpful. -Rrius (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just my point; it's not a question of law, but of custom and tradition. How the Senate chooses to address the President is their own business, just as the Senate's rules or procedure are their own business. Today's equivalent would be S.Res., whether the Senate acting unilaterally on its own, or the House on its own with an H.Res., or both together in a Joint Resolution. The hang up in 1789 was that the House and Senate desired to call him the same thing, but they couldn't agree. As such, tradition and custom over the past two hundred years has been to simply call him the default of "Mr. President." Whatever styles he is given in foreign countries can go in those Wikipedia articles in foreign languages. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what was before each house. They were going to create something by statute, but ended up not doing so. It was not a situation where the Senate passed a Senate Resolution and the House passed a House Resolution, and, oh well, they didn't create the same thing. They weren't trying to decide what the Congress would call him; rather, they were deciding what his legal title would be. As a result of not acting, the simple title "President of the United States" was left in place. The were attempting to pass a bill or joint resolution that would have become an Act, but failed. Once again, "Mr. President" is a form of address, but not a style. The President's style is "the Honorable", but he is styled "his Excellency" by foreign powers. The inaction of the Congress in the 18th century is irrelevant and has no force of law. -Rrius (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the story you are sticking with, then there is no style or title for the President whatsoever: neither "The Honorable" or "His Ex.", as neither have been passed by law. Might as well we both just agree to leave the thing out of the infobox entirely. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in at my talk page. It seems to me that one very important distinction should be made:

The Office, "The President of the United States" brings with it the address "Mr President"
The man who happens to currently be President has the full style "The Hon Barack Obama" (and has had that style, for life, since he became a Senator)

Further, the former president Bill Clinton is now customarily called "President Clinton", but retains his "The Hon" (although I was initially unsure as to whether the two should be used together, a quick Google shows me "The Hon President Clinton" in use). So, when one is in office, one is President and Man; when one leaves office, one is man-who-was-President. An intriguing question has just occurred to me though: what style(s) did Laura Bush have when GW was in office and now (and were there separate ones for The First Lady and the woman?) D B D 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First Ladies are addressed as "Mrs. X". There is no style or for of address for either current or former ones. Thus, Michelle Obama and Laura Bush are directly addressed as "Mrs. Obama" and "Mrs. Bush". On the envelope, they are "Mrs. Michelle Obama" and "Mrs. Laura Bush" or, more formally, "Mrs. Barack Obama" and "Mrs. George W. Bush".

Interestingly (or perhaps not so interesting), Barack Obama has been entitled to "the Honorable" for life since 1997, when he became a state senator. -Rrius (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your "Interestingly", I point you to my second bullet... :D Also, I'm sure I've seen "First Lady Laura Bush"... D B D 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"First Lady" is not a formal title, though; it's just an appositive. Speaking of "First Lady Laura Bush" is no different from discussing "crime writer Agatha Christie". As to the other, I assumed your capitalised "Senator" referred to when he became a US Senator. -Rrius (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: First Lady, I thought that might be the case! Re: Senator, I'm not familiar with US state vs federal distinctions — am I to gather than "state senator" and "US Senator" are distinct? D B D 12:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Distint they are. U.S. Senator means just that: a representative of a state in the United States Senate. State senator means a member of any given state legislature's upper house; they are still both address as Senator, however, except in print, where the distinction is made. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed

3rd paragraph, change "Since the adoption of the Constitution, forty-two individuals have been elected or succeeded into the presidency, serving fifty-five four-year terms altogether."

to: "Since the adoption of the Constitution, forty-three individuals have been elected or succeeded into the presidency, serving fifty-six four-year terms altogether." --81.107.154.70 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction has been so updated. SMP0328. (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Small edit required at "See also"

At the "See also" section the "List of Presidents of the United States" appears twice.