| Revision as of 04:41, 13 December 2016 editDon Cuan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,224 edits →2013 Gallup poll, weighted averages: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:41, 14 December 2016 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States/Archive 2) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=6 |units=months}} | {{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=6 |units=months}} | ||
| == Ronald Reagan == | |||
| I am not even an American, but it is a known fact worldwide that Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever. | |||
| Is it a joke that in your main table Ronald Reagan is ranked 40th, just above George H. W. Bush? | |||
| Also - you have too many different tables. Just use one large table, and make it include ALL the views and opinions. Below the table, supply the details, and specify how it was calculated. | |||
| Moreover - the general public polls are not less significant than the "scholars" polls, so no need to separate. | |||
| You can also make a "wikipedia poll" among your own readers, and add it to the average rank. | |||
| Don't forget to specify, for each president, what are his achievements, that made people rank him (don't assume, just ask them at the poll). | |||
| --] (]) 05:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : This is not the place to discuss Reagan's achievements. Read ]. By the way, Reagan's aggregate rank is 15. He is the 40th president because there were 39 presidencies before him. | |||
| : Different tables have different, incompatible information that cannot be merged into one table. And again, this is not the place to compare the significance of polls. Misplaced Pages is not the place for your personal opinions. That's also why there can be no wikipedia poll. Read ]. | |||
| : However, the ABC poll, the Washington College poll and the Gallup poll all have the same kind of information ("who was the greatest president?"), so they can be merged into one table. The first three recent president polls also have the same kind of information ("were these 9 or 11 presidents good or bad?"), so they can be merged. And the Quinnipiac poll could be one table instead of two lists. ] (]) 10:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : Now I see that the last column (right side) of the table is the total rank, but nobody gets to notice this columns, which is the most important for the whole topic. -- ] (]) 11:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. 1948 source == | |||
| There is no source for the 1948 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. poll data in the information box. The 1948 Life Magazine article listed in the refernences does lost list in rankings by numbers. Here is the Life Magazine article link: Life Magazine (November 1, 1948) Vol. 25, No. 18 starting on page 65. Presidents are ranked as "Great" "Near Great" "Average" "Below Average" "Failures" The numbers ratings is misleading and inaccurate and could be considered original research. Unless a number ranking source can be found for the 1948 rankings, the 1948 number rankings should be removed from the list. The 1948 Schlesinger article can be discussed in a section but not be part of the number ranking list. ] (]) 17:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :''Life'' only summarizes the 1948 study, but the full results did include numerical rankings. See , for example. --] (]) 03:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::This article should be used as a source for the 1948 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. poll. If not the poll data should be removed from the article. ] (]) 08:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also Schlesinger Jr. puts a racist Woodrow Wilson over Ulysses S. Grant showing that Civil Rights is not being put into ranking the Presidents. His 1962 and 1948 polls are obviously biased and don't take into account Grant prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan. Washington and Jefferson were slave holding Presidents and they get high rankings along with Wilson. Schlesinger Jr. also faults the Gold Panic on Grant rather then Fisk and Gould when Grant thwarted Fisk and Gould by selling treasury Gold. These polls are obviously made to put people's pet Presidents on the top of their lists and have zero historical value, nothing but POV. ] (]) 08:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You're right about the first part: we should switch it to the better citation. The second part is just you being unhappy that scholars' opinions don't align with yours. I'm not sure what you think we should do about that. --] (]) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes Comegenus. I agree concerning the citation it should be switched and I believe all the polls should be looked at to make sure each poll is properly cited. ] (]) 15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is an article on Woodrow Wilson from the Atlantic, as far as I know a reliable source: Dick Lehr (November 27, 2015) It seems obvious historians are ignoring Civil Rights and slavery when accessing Presidencies. Grant who prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan and integrated West Point and recognized the first African America governor of Louisiana get second to last place over Harding who died in office and did not even complete a whole term in office, while Wilson a known segregationist get in the top ten Presidencies, that in my opinion is POV and Fringe. Historians can have their opinions on Presidencies, but each presidency should be assessed on equal terms, rather then excluding issues that could damage their reputation such as slavery and Civil Rights. When Grant is assessed on Civil Rights his reputation goes up. Many of these polls exclude Civil Rights and slavery. Here is an article that addressed this issue on Grant: Thomas S. Neuberger (March 29, 2013) This is a direct quote from Neuberger: "''Thus a careful reading of history should place Ulysses S. Grant in the top twenty percent of American Presidents, a fact that '''has been withheld from the average citizen''' who only has heard about a heavy drinking soldier and a scandal or two in his second term in office, scandals which in the 20th Century seemed to be commonplace in a second presidential term.''" I know that this is going beyond the scope of discussion topic. So I can just leave it at this for now. I have added sources to show that this is not just my opinion or only concerned disagreement. Respectfully. ] (]) 16:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The citation has not been switched. I don't have access to the full article. ] (]) 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{done}} --] (]) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Scholar survey results references == | == Scholar survey results references == | ||
Revision as of 01:41, 14 December 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | United States: Presidents / Government C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Scholar survey results references
Where are the references for the Scholar survey results section ? Shouldn't references be cited for each ranking poll ? I believe the C-Span 2009 rankings and the Siena College 2010 rankings have been removed from their repsected websites. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
User: Sleyece; Comments, Concerns, and Feedback
I made many edits to the table. Notably, I changed the aggregate to a "frequency of position" system, in which a number of ties result, but I feel a much more accurate representation of the overall dataset is represented. What do you all think? I also limited the table to 15 positions, so that data will fit on the web page. I added, with appropriate citation, a recent "538" poll to the dataset for 2016. If possible, I think the table should be updated annually, with citation, from here on in. What do you all think about these adjustments? Thank you all for your understanding and diligence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Do not make such massive changes without discussion. Furthermore, your new table is seriously flawed. Not only does it remove the aggregate, which we already discussed and agreed to leave in, but you completely deleted Barack Obama's rankings from the table. I'm restoring it to its previous form. Feel free to add the 538 poll to the table, but don't just make such radical aldjustments without discussing it here. As for the annual update, it sounds good, though I'm concerned about the feasibility of updating it every year. Anasaitis (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The aggregate has been discussed, and it has been continually pointed out as statistically flawed. I also removed ALL incumbent ratings. President Obama is not currently ranked because he has never been an Ex-President. Sleyece 00:03, 01 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the aggregate has been discussed, and it was agreed that it would stay. I see nothing in the relevant discussion which suggested it was statistically flawed. Also, why would you remove the incumbent ratings? This table covers everything In the surveys, and some of the cited surveys included the incumbent President. You cannot just delete parts of the table like that. If it's in the cited material, then it should be included here. Anasaitis (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion. Let's hear from some other users. Sleyece 08:51, 01 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, "Anasaitis," I know gaslighting when I see it. The aggregate was discussed, and YOU decided it would say. I appreciate your opinion less now. Sleyece 09:49, 01 December 2016 (UTC)
"Gaslighting"? I don't appreciate your insulting accusations. I also don't appreciate the fact that you have taken it on yourself to completely restructure the table without discussion. We do agree on one thing, however: this should be discussed with other users. I think this should be done BEFORE any radical changes are made to the content of the table. Anasaitis (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If we continue to have a dispute about our edits, perhaps we should seek conflict resolution, @Anasaitis:? I am adamant that all polls on the table AND that the table actually fit on the page. I think a page this important should eventually be a featured article. We can't achieve that if our data isn't even formatted to the standard page width? Can we agree on that as a baseline? --Sleyece 08:32, 09 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you asked for other users' opinions, I'm inclined to agree with Anasaitis. The incumbent rankings should remain. Obama may not have completed his term when they ranked him, but the cited surveys did rank him and you can't ignore that. The aggregate should stay at least until there's a consensus on removing or replacing it. In the meantime, I'm reverting the page to the 9 December version. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Trump
Why are there rankings for Trump when he hasn't even taken office yet, let alone been included in any historical surveys? -70.162.247.233 (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I suspect someone was trying to add another row for Trump, though they seem to have failed to format it properly. I undid those edits. Someone can readd Trump when a survey with his name comes out. 104.35.40.176 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that edit, although I don't see why Trump cant be on the table with a blank row. --Sleyece (talk) 09:03, 09 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but I don't think Trump should be included until inauguration 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416 (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Article very out of date
There are polls in here from 2005 up to 2011 that mostly focus on George W. Bush. We're almost two presidents away from Bush now, more than 8 years. Needs more current polling within at least the last 6 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.16.183 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
2005, are you kidding me? I'm pulling teeth here to drop a poll from 1948! --Sleyece 00:03, 01 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.137.30 (talk)
2013 Gallup poll, weighted averages
The weighted averages strike me as odd, placing Barack Obama only in the third-last position. Compare this with Carter, who had a more negative reception, and Bush sen., who had a similar amount of critics in this poll but much more indifference towards his term.
I don't know what formula was used for the weighting, but assigning values from 1 to 5 for "Outstanding" to "Poor" (ignoring "No Opinion") gives me very similar results (smaller deviations might be due to rounding) in all but four cases:
| President | Outstanding | Above Average | Average | Below Average | Poor | No Opinion | Average in Article | Calculated Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dwight Eisenhower | 10% | 39% | 36% | 2% | 1% | 12% | 2.11 | 2.10 |
| John F. Kennedy | 18% | 56% | 19% | 2% | 1% | 4% | 2.02 | 2.00 |
| Lyndon Johnson | 4% | 16% | 46% | 14% | 8% | 12% | 2.73 | 2.75 |
| Richard Nixon | 3% | 5% | 27% | 26% | 33% | 6% | 3.43 | 3.74 |
| Gerald Ford | 2% | 14% | 56% | 15% | 5% | 8% | 2.86 | 2.85 |
| Jimmy Carter | 4% | 19% | 37% | 20% | 15% | 6% | 3.11 | 3.12 |
| Ronald Reagan | 19% | 22% | 25% | 13% | 19% | 2% | 2.30 | 2.87 |
| George H. W. Bush | 3% | 24% | 48% | 12% | 10% | 2% | 2.96 | 2.95 |
| Bill Clinton | 11% | 44% | 29% | 9% | 6% | 1% | 2.55 | 2.52 |
| George W. Bush | 3% | 18% | 16% | 39% | 23% | 1% | 3.45 | 3.59 |
| Barack Obama | 17% | 31% | 27% | 13% | 11% | 1% | 3.28 | 2.68 |
At first I suspected tampering, but those averages have been unchanged since they were introduced. Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of falsifying the numbers to make a point, but the direction of these differences are somewhat suspicious. Though it is debatable whether we should include these averages at all. I didn't see them in the Gallup article, so these might fall under WP:OR. Don Cuan (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States Presidents articles
- Low-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- C-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles