Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

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)

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)

Update to first table, edit request

Extended content
Political party	APSA 2024	Siena 2022	C-SPAN 2021	Siena 2018	APSA 2018	C-SPAN 2017	PHN 2016	APSA 2015	USPC 2011	Siena 2010	C-SPAN 2009	Times 2008	WSJ 2005	Siena 2002	WSJ 2000	C-SPAN 2000	Schl. 1996	R-McI 1996	Siena 1994	Siena 1990	Siena 1982	CT 1982	M-B 1982	Schl. 1962	Schl. 1948

Demigoob (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Question: what exactly are we supposed to do with this? M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

See earlier consensus on not doing this. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of the charts are impossible to negotiate, on my machine at least, and I doubt that I'm alone. It's wider than the available window, and the sideways scrollbar is at the bottom of the chart. This means I can't find a president partway down the chart and see his score in columns the right-hand part of the chart, including the overall score. Koro Neil (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

we'll see what we can do, but I'm having trouble getting tables to work properly myself. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've set the tables to be scrollable with fixed headers rather than static. See how that works on your devise. It can be disabled (link at top left) if you don't like it. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

War mongers on the top of the list

the list of those presidents placed on the top are more of blood thirsty war initiators.

The question is who paid the polls to make such a bias towards wars? 2001:8F8:1661:FAFF:8C75:4250:CD94:8A61 (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I question your assessment based on the overall 2022 Siena College rankings.

Regarding the top twelve:

• The US only went to war under Franklyn D. Roosevelt after it was attacked by Japan.
• There were no significant conflicts under the Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or Obama administrations.
• Aside from the end of the Korean War with the October 1953 armistice, a war that started under Truman, there was no major war under the Eisenhower administration, although there were covert actionss in the Congo, Guatemala, Iran, & Iraq.
• The Kennedy administration had no involvement in any major wars, although there were many conflicts. See Foreign policy of the John F. Kennedy administration.
• The Lincoln, Madison, Truman, & Johnson each had significant wars that started under them.

Of other presidents that had significant wars or conflicts, the overall 2022 Siena College rating has Wilson at 13, Polk at 15, McKinley at 22nd, Nixon at 28, & George W. Bush at 35th.

Since only a third of the top twelve ranked had initiated wars in which a foreign power did not start the wary, your assertion that those presidents placed on the top are more of blood thirsty war initiators seems faulty. Furthermore, your comment seems to violate the WP:OR, WP:NPOV, MOS:CONTENTIOUS, & WP:FORUM policies & guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

45/47 edit?

Should we change the 45 to 45/47 for Trump's numbering and add a footnote/edit the Cleveland footnote? NoLongerBreathedIn (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that a ranking performed at a specific point in time should include not only just those presidents that existed as of then, but also only what was known of them at the time. So rankings before now should only refer to 45. Future rankings that occur during or after the term of the 47th president, and take into account his performance during that term alongside his performance as the 45th president, could be referenced as 45/47. P.S. Apologies for not logging in; I can't remember my password and I'm not getting the reset email either. 2600:4809:C054:3700:E921:773:646C:915F (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about historical rankings, and the second Trump presidency isn't historical, it isn't even present-day yet. We need to wait and see how historians view the second term. If it's as much of a train-wreck as the first term, we would treat it the same way as we do Grover Cleveland. There is, however, a possibility that lessons learned during the first term might result in an effective second term presidency, in which case historians would rank the second term differently and then so should we. It's too soon to make such a decision. Either way, we shouldn't label it 45/47 because that implies a historian viewpoint that hasn't happened yet. Check back in 4 years. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As long as the rankings for Trump are for 45, that's the label we should use. Once we have rankings for him as 47, then we can change the label. — kwami (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Obama

Obama is consistently ranked top 3 My tightness (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we can agree this needs to change

I understand why Lincoln’s predecessor was ranked the worst but I do not believe it’s the case anymore . I think 4 years we can confidently say Joe Biden is far worse. The country hasn’t been this divided since the 50’s 67.6.114.58 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless we get a new historical survey, nothing in this article is going to change. And after the complete failure of Donald Trump's presidency, Biden looks good by comparison. Dimadick (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)