Talk:Presidents of the United States Voyage Tips and guide

Archived discussions Talk:Presidents of the United States/2018 archive

Given that the Presidents of the Continental Congress cannot in any good conscious be called "Presidents of the United States", I have decided to give them their own section and throw people like Jefferson Davis into this section as well. I think this would also be the place to address w:David Rice Atchison whose very tombstone repeats the claim that he had been "President for one day" despite more good arguments to the contrary than in favor. Are there any others who might need to be listed in such a section if we deem it a good idea? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anybody wish to expand on it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@AndreCarrotflower: regarding this edit, please contribute to this discussion that I am sure you had been unaware of until now. It seems as of now that you are the first editor to find the inclusion of the treasonous traitor Davis objectionable. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The list of POIs is already creeping up to unmanageable levels, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Including attractions and information related to Presidents of the Continental Congress seems okay to me because 1) there's not much of it - just one POI and one infobox - so it doesn't add very much length, and 2) given the fact they held an office called president which was part of the U.S. government at the time, you could argue technically that it's within the scope of the article even if they weren't "Presidents of the United States" as we define the term today. On the other hand, Jefferson Davis has dozens of historic sites, statues, etc. all over the South, making for the possibility of numerous additions to what is, again, an overly long and list-y article. Plus, given the recent Confederate monument controversy and the general state of U.S. politics today, shoehorning attractions like that into this article is frankly "not a good look" for the site. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Confederacy can be covered in a separate article, but not here. Jefferson Davis emphatically was in no way a president of the United States. Period. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering what exactly is the scope of this article, beyond the obvious, that is? The reason why I ask is because there most likely are thousands of statues and memorials dedicated to US presidents around the world. Then there are historical sites where US presidents have signed documents that has changed history - Reykjavik comes to mind. Anyone? Philaweb (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not to just want to promote my own country, but Singapore is where Donald Trump met Kim Jong-un, which was the first time a sitting U.S. and North Korean leader had ever met. There are rumours that Hanoi is going to host the second meeting. The dog2 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

While of course this is subjective, to my knowledge, most Democrats regard Franklin Roosevelt as the best president of all time, while most Republicans regard that to be Ronald Reagan, to the point that these two presidents have almost cult-like status within their respective parties. Does anyone think this is worth a mention? At least to my knowledge, any criticism of Franklin Roosevelt is sure to offend a Democrat, and likewise, any criticism of Ronald Reagan is sure to offend a Republican. The dog2 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Lincoln.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think there are quite a few on the left wing of the Democrats who have a "warts and all" approach to FDR - nobody would openly declare to be in favor of Japanese Internment for one. And as for Reagan, any honest Republican must either acknowledge stuff like Iran-Contra, which "happened to happen" under his administration or at the very least point out the difference in ideology and approach of the modern GOP and Reagan. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think a lot of Democrats would agree with me that Lincoln was the greatest U.S. president, though he, like all others, had some severe blemishes on his record. I certainly don't agree that Democrats brook no criticisms of FDR, and not only on Japanese internment but also on pandering to Southern segregationist Democrats on things like not even pushing for anti-lynching legislation and keeping Jewish refugees from Nazi genocide out of the U.S. As for Reagan, he raised taxes and powered what he himself called "amnesty" for illegal aliens through Congress - positions that are anathema to most Republicans today, and which they would surely criticize if they acknowledge the truth about Reagan's record. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

To my knowledge, FDR raised the top Federal income tax bracket to 91% and greatly expanded the welfare state, which is what makes him very popular among the Democrats. And I thought Reagan gradually cut the top tax bracket from 70% to 33%, which benefitted the rich, but on the other hand raised taxes on students by making scholarships and stipends taxable income when they previously were not (in fact, to my knowledge, the US is currently the only country that considers scholarships and stipends to be taxable income). Unless I'm mistaken on that, such a massive tax cut would undoubtedly make him popular among Republicans.

And anyway, I guess if people disagree on this, then it probably will get too complicated to mention who is widely regarded as the best of all time. The dog2 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Who was best is absolutely not a travel-relevant topic! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If I'm going to go to only one presidential library, I'm going to go to the library of the president that a handful of strangers on the internet decided was the best president.

No, I can't convince myself of that. I agree with Ikan Kekek. Ground Zero (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If there was a broad consensus within the Democratic party and/or the Republican party as to who was the best, then it might be worth a mention because of notability. But given that the replies here show that people can't even agree on this within their own parties, I now agree that we should just leave this out. The dog2 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree that it is best to leave "who was the best?" out, though so far not one person has mentioned George Washington. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's because no-one asked for suggestions of who was the 2nd-best president. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

There could be a shortlist of about 3 or 4 which have the best attractions to visit though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think the question of who was best, even if we're going to do a top 10 of equally-ranked candidates and split them evenly by party, is the road to madness and not a useful way to improve this article. It will lead to disagreements on this page, and it will invite the kind of political edits from new users that we don't want.

Anyway, we all know that the current occupant of the big house is a medically-certified genius who is about to blow all other pretenders out of the water with his unparalleled greatness...any day now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that a top 10 is a "road to madness". BTW, I think this next election (2020) will be an interesting one. It's surprising how well Biden has been doing so far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

In Chinese history, there are actually some emperors who people almost universally consider to be exceptional. For instance, for the Tang Dynasty, Emperor Taizong is widely considered by many Chinese to be one of, it not the greatest in Chinese history. And correct me if I'm wrong but based on my understanding of English history, the reign of Elizabeth I is considered to be a golden age and many English people would consider her to be the greatest of all time. I guess US history is a bit shorter, so it's harder for people to agree on such a thing. With regards to the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of them owned slaves, so that would be a major point of contention among modern-day left wingers. Even Lincoln was no angel; he originally did not let black people join the Union army because the thought they were too dumb, and only after the Confederates enlisted black slave owners (yes, they really did exist) into their military (into a non-combat regiment, but useful for propaganda nonetheless) that Frederick Douglass was able to convince him to enlist black soldiers.

@SelfieCity: With regard to the U.S. election, I think if Biden ends up being the nominee, Trump is a shoe-in to win by a landslide. After all, Biden is a corporate Democrat and not a populist, and Trump's populist rhetoric really resonates with the white working class. However, if we get Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump, since both of them are populists, albeit one left-wing and one right-wing, we're going to have a very interesting and close fight on the cards. I'm not sure if you live in the U.S., but I can tell you that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician among left-wing millennials. The dog2 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

In Mexican history, there are few figures about whom everybody agrees. One would expect Santa Ana and Porfirio Diaz to be viewed negatively, but they have their defenders. Juarez meanwhile has some detractors, but imho they are usually of the "edgy for the sake of being edgy" kind. Of Germany's post-war leaders all that spent more than trivial amounts of time in the chancellorship have their defenders and even Ludwig Erhard, whose chancellorship was not exactly the most successful is well-liked by many for his pre-chancellorship... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

9/11 isn't an invasion and while there were Japanese aerial and maritime attacks on some outlying territories in Alaska (and of course Pearl Harbor) they never got to the lower 48. And "accomplished nothing" is actually a very charitable summary of the Pershing expedition. It was the closest the US would have gotten to war during that entire decade had the German Empire not been led by stark raving mad idiots what with their unrestricted submarine warfare at the worst possible time (right after it would've helped the Irish Revolutionaries in any conceivable way, right before Russia had its revolution, which would've allowed more of a "wait and see" approach) and the idiotic idiocy of the Zimmermann telegram which - one might argue - in some small way only became even a remote possibility of a harebrained scheme because a) the Pershing expedition had been an abject failure and b) the Pershing expedition had put a wedge between Caranza and the US making it seem even remotely plausible that either would be mad enough to go anywhere near open warfare (as opposed to subtle underhanded dirty tricks, expropriation or coups) with the other. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

So Bush (who was not born in Texas) had a property in Texas during his political career but has since sold it off. Is the property still in any way recognizable as his former dwelling (apparently he had quite the "green" stuff installed, like solar panels) and can it be accessed by the general public even in a "stand at a 'keep out' sign five miles away and gawk" sense? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about H.W. or W.? H.W. was born in Massachusetts and W. in Connecticut, but they all lived in Texas for most of their lives. You can easily tell W. is from Texas by his accent. I don't really think Prairie Chapel Ranch (W.'s house) is accessible.--JTZegers (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added a small paragraph about the modern two-party system as background information. It is most certainly true that the Democrats were explicitly white supremacist in Lincoln's time, while the Republican Party was founded to fight slavery, Lincoln being the first Republican president. I am well aware that unlike the Democratic Party of the Civil War era, the modern Republican Party isn't explicitly white supremacist or pro-slavery even though it may be right-wing, so please feel free to rephrase if anyone feels that the current iteration implies that. The dog2 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see this post before I deleted the content. Let's please not get into generalizations about the demographics of Republican and Democratic voters—it's tangentially relevant at best, easy to unintentionally mislead, and bound to start arguments. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

As a foreigner, it is most certainly notable that the Democrats and Republicans would swap platforms. I don't know about the history of the entire world, but at least in the countries I know that have two dominant parties, I've never heard of the right-wing party swapping platforms with the left-wing party like what the Democrats and Republicans did in the U.S. I was actually pretty surprised when I first found out that Lincoln was a Republican, and the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. But anyway, I understand this point is only tangentially relevant, so I won't push it here. The dog2 (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let's also remember the difference between what this article is about — sightseeing destinations related to the various Presidents — and what kind of article information about political parties would go under — an article that would probably be called Politics of the United States, which would result in terrible debates and would be limited in travel-relevant information.

The point of this article is stated in its title "Presidents of the United States". I'd agree that the content is best not included. The results of the 2016 and 2018 elections showed how easily regions or states could switch from one party to another and reshape the party they switched to — first when Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan voted for President Trump, and second when Orange County voted in the 2018 elections for the Democratic Party and Ocasio-Cortez was elected in NY. Therefore, any information about what people each party represents could go from being accurate to out of date within hours when the 2020 elections take place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, what in the world difference does it make to the traveller whether Martin Van Buren was natively bilingual or merely spoke English as a second language? What in the world difference does it make to the traveller whether a nearly 140-year-old, long-defunct law barred all ethnic Chinese from immigrating to the U.S. or only Chinese nationals? What in the world difference does it make to the traveller which states see more campaign efforts than others?

This article is supposed to focus first and foremost on tourist destinations related to U.S. presidents, not on American history or what those presidents did while in office. There are plenty of incomplete POI listings in this article that need our further attention. What does not need our further attention are the historical blurbs at the beginning of each section. It's well established that those blurbs are strictly necessary evils whose function in the article is to briefly explain the context of the POIs listed in their respective sections. However, despite numerous past entreaties to focus on what's relevent to travellers, nitpicking in those blurbs about minor historical details has comprised the bulk of the recent edits to this article.

Enough is enough.

Here's what I propose we do. First, let's put a hard upper limit on the length of those blurbs. Four or five lines would suffice, I'd say, though I'm not married to that number. Secondly, let's get to work shortening the ones that are longer than that. Lastly, and most importantly, let's make any subsequent edits to those blurbs subject to consensus agreement before the fact - in other words, any proposed changes must be vetted on the talk page first, rather than adding them directly to the article.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greatly support this. We may want to consider restricting the blurbs even more than that, possibly linking to Wikipedia for any substantial information. Additionally, I think it would be good if we, as a community, were to have a discussion about whether this article really can serve the traveler in any capacity, in any form. Who is this for? If there are notable sights to see, they go in a destination. Nobody is going to look at a list of presidential monuments to decide where to go on their next vacation.

In my opinion, I think the best way forward for this article is to restrict it to one geographical area - probably the Washington, D.C. area - and make it more of an itinerary. More of a model travel topic, like the Seinfeld Tour, and less like a mess of a list of things with presidents' names on. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

One thing that may help is if we say, right around the beginning of the article: "For detailed historical information about American history and U.S. Presidents, please see [insert link to Wikipedia page]." At least, then, it would be clear that we're not trying to write a 500-page history of American Presidents and, instead, a travel guide.

The problem is that, with our current culture and environment, since about 2015 politics has been an extremely important issue in many people's minds, and that's been reflected in many of our articles. Since insinuations are these days enough to represent a whole website or organization's political opinion, Wikivoyage users have a tendency to either write content with those insinuations, or argue over them. The best thing to do is realize the importance of not letting the article's content get political, perhaps by following the above or even semi-protecting certain articles if necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The problem here isn't politically tendentious edits. It's the addition of, and subsequently the act of engaging in nitpicky, hair-splitting disputes over, trivial historical details that have nothing to do with the modern-day traveller. I think the question ARR8 poses in his comment is a good one, though he seems to be staking out a position that's more extreme than mine. It's perhaps also worth mentioning that this is an article that was created by a user who went on to become a particularly nasty block-evading vandal - such pages are usually summarily deleted, but we made an exception for this one because so many trusted editors, self included, had pitched in with so many valuable contributions of their own. But if these blurbs are going to serve as a magnet for exactly the same kind of contentious, off-topic edits that have been such a problem in other articles (such as various sections of United States of America), then maybe that's another reason why we should be asking ourselves how good of an idea this article's continued existence is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I hope I don't upset anyone by asking just how bad are a few disputes about edits now and then? Is this a very serious problem? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The disputes would be fine with me if any of the points being disputed were the least bit travel-relevant. That's the much bigger problem, as I see it. There are some editors who, try as we might to teach them, can't seem to grasp where our purview ends and Wikipedia's begins. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

But is the issue at this point mainly with one user? Because if so, isn't this best discussed on their user talk page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the proposal to limit the background to 4-5 lines. This would put a cap on the tendency to fuss about details. Also, in most cases, we provide more space to the background info on the president than we do to listings about the president. That says something about the utility of this article to travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with keeping the blurbs short. Even one or two sentences might be enough. Things like the Chinese Exclusion Act and outlawing polygamy don't need to be mentioned. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree with keeping the descriptions as short as possible. For people who'd like to learn more about a president, there's always Wikipedia and other websites, and information is also available at many of the places we list in the article. ϒψιλον (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since the idea of deleting this article has been obliquely hinted at, I'd like to make the point again that this is a perfectly valid topic that some people will be interested in because they're history buffs who like to travel. Moreover, User:Hobbitschuster has been inspired to start a draft of a similar article about German Chancellors since the end of World War II. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced by "a traveler might be interested in it" as having any standing on the validity of a travel topic. Travelers have many interests. That logic can be used to justify literally any travel topic, because there will always be someone who is interested in something. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The argument is specifically that they would make a point to travel to these attractions, or some of them, and would therefore benefit from this article in their capacity as travelers, not that they're simply travelers who are also interested in, say, washing machine manufacturing or something else that's pretty much wholly divorced from travel. What alternative standard would you like to propose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I left my proposal for this article above. In short, turning it into a real tour/itinerary focused on a specific geographic area, probably Washsington, D.C., and linking it from there. I quite honestly doubt any traveler will find this article useful in its current form, no matter how interested they may be in the topic. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I tend to disagree, unless we do the same thing with national parks, but I sort of vaguely remember that you or perhaps someone else also proposed to divide up the article about the U.S. National Parks into regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seeing an emerging consensus, I've taken the liberty of trimming some of the longer entries, especially to remove less important points about their presidencies, and to be more concise. Some of the entries are still longer than 5 lines. Ground Zero (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with not letting the blurbs get too long, but what would people consider to be significant enough to be included? Based on a comment above, we can see that some people consider the Chinese Exclusion Act to be trivial, but I bet you many Chinese-Americans will disagree on that. But given this thread, I will go ahead and remove the part about FDR loosening restrictions on Chinese immigration since it's not as significant. The dog2 (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

And if people want to remove the blurb about white nationalism under Trump, I'm fine with that too. After all, regardless of the political debate on dog whistles and what not, Trump did not campaign on an explicitly white nationalist platform. The dog2 (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I don't think anyone is saying the Chinese Exclusion Act wasn't important. The issue is that the blurbs should not list every important thing each president did. I'd say they just should give the most famous highlights to remind readers who the president was. The current blurb for Abraham Lincoln is roughly what I have in mind—it gives the key highlights (Civil War, emancipation, assassination) without listing everything Lincoln is known for. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

No one said that the Chinese Exclusion Act was trivial. There was a lot of text about it:

"Partially loosened the ban on immigration from China in 1943 by repealing the Chinese Exclusion Act, albeit by replacing it with another set of laws that placed heavy restrictions on the number of Chinese immigrants allowed in, and banned all ethnic Chinese from owning property."

I trimmed that to:

"Partially loosened the ban on immigration from China in 1943, but placed heavy restrictions on the number of Chinese immigrants allowed in, and banned all ethnic Chinese from owning property. "

In doing that, I aimed to retain the substance of the change, without going into detail. In trying to trim the FDR section to a reasonable amount, would you propose to delete the references to the Great Depression and World War II in order to keep all of the text relating to the abominable treatment of Chinese-Americans? Or is there a better way of summarizing FDR's changes that isn't as long as the original? Ground Zero (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I plunged forward and removed the part about Chinese discrimination under FDR as a compromise. Most certainly World War II and the New Deal should be kept as I, like anybody else, would consider those to be the key highlights of his presidency. But it was Chester Arthur who signed the Chinese Exclusion Act into law, and I don't think that should be removed from the blurb under Arthur. Just because Chinese-Americans are in general doing well today does not mean there is no history discrimination against ethnic Chinese. If I'm not wrong, restrictions on Chinese immigration to the U.S. were only completely abolished (at least on paper) during the Civil Rights Movement in 1965 (when Lyndon B. Johnson was president).

As for FDR, should we mention anything about the Japanese internment camps? The dog2 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The point is that we are not writing a Wikipedia article here. How do we summarize a presidency in five lines or less? Discussing adding more shouldn't be done without discussing what can be removed to make room for it. Ground Zero (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

IMO, yes, interning Japanese residents and citizens should be briefly enumerated among the things FDR did. I wouldn't support getting rid of a mention of white nationalism in the case of Trump, but I also probably wouldn't spend time trying to put it back if there's a quick consensus to remove it - all of this is purely side discussion, unrelated to travel, so let's minimize it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm some way through reading the edits. Most are good, but I think it's natural for people to wonder about the relation between the Roosevelts, so mentioning that they were distant cousins is good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In that case, should we also mention that George W. Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush, and the Benjamin Harrison is the grandson of William Henry Harrison? We do mention that John Quincy Adams is the son of John Adams. And as a side note (which I'm not proposing to inlcude), Barack Obama and George W. Bush are actually distant cousins. The dog2 (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any suggestions for what could be removed? Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The family relationship stuff is the sort of thing that I consider to be "trivia". It's intersesting, to be sure, but if we decide to include "interesting things" about the presidents, then we should forget about having brief synopses of their presidencies, and just start copying stuff out of Wikipedia articles. Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

When two presidents actually have the same last name, that's when the question of how they're related is natural. It would take less time to just answer it than to debate whether to do so. And no, a distant relation between two presidents with different last names is not worth mentioning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The point that I am trying to make is that since I trimmed a bunch of entries, not succeeding in getting them down to the 4-5 lines that there seems to be a consensus for, there has been a lot of discussion about what to add back, and what other points could be added. There has been little discussion about how to trim further. If the consensus has changed from having short blurbs and focussing on travel content to letting the blurbs continue to expand, I'll leave this article to those who want to discuss how to add more background information on presidents. I didn't see where the consensus changed, though. Ground Zero (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As in the case of United States of America, we can aim for greater brevity, but any kind of absolutely slavish absolute limit on length is always a bad idea. I'd rather focus on including only the absolutely most important content, which would include explaining the relationships of the few pairs of presidents with the same last names. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

To me, relationships between a few pairs of presidents don't seem important compared to world wars, depressions, slavery, persecution of Chinese-Americans, etc. The point of aiming for a target of 4-5 lines is to help us focus on what is most important, and avoid adding everything that each editor thinks is important. I didn't achieve the 4-5 lines target, so your description of "absolutely slavish absolute limit" must be referring to someone or something else, or maybe it is just another example of rhetorical hyperbole that has no basis in reality, and that helps make discussions on talk pages more unpleasant for everyone. I, for one, tire of this style of debate. Ground Zero (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Absolutely slavish absolute limit" refers to a thing - an absolute limit - not a person. You really think the relationship between presidents with the same last name is not an obvious question? Not answering the obvious questions is for what kind of guide? I mean, really, ignoring the obvious? That would be like not telling people that Indonesian is spoken in Indonesia. They can just Google it, right? And if you tire of this debate, just concede this one point. It affects only 3 presidents I can think of - John Quincy Adams, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush. How about just accepting this one point and moving on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The language spoken in Indonesia is unquestionably relevant to travellers. The relationship between presidents who share a last name -- I would say that is not relevant to travellers. It is relevant to the study of presidents, and belongs in an encyclopedia article. But instead of debating this further, I will propose to modify our target to provide more flexibility.

Inspired by our policy of allowing 7 cities being listed in a regional article ± 2 cities, I am going to suggest that we modify AndreCarrotflower's proposal to "5 lines ± 2". That way there is flexibility to accomodate relationships or whatever, while not giving up on the idea that this list should not keep expanding when someone decides something about a president is important enough to include. The target is 5, but when it gets to 7, something has to go -- either the president's economic policies, relationships to other presidents, or mention of a war. Is that a reasonable approach to allowing flexibility so that we can move on? Ground Zero (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek:Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison, so make that four. The dog2 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero, that's probably a reasonable policy, but I'll have to see and work on implementation to be sure. I'll suggest that work be done on trying to encapsulate the descriptions, see how that goes, and then come back to the policy proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I agree with the proposal, reasonable though it is. I don't think we should set a lower bound for the number of lines, and, without one, it just becomes a hard cap of 7. I'd prefer the original quasi-proposed 5-line limit, thought would prefer an even shorter cap over that. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just edited all the president descriptions. I don't see any big issue at all - they're all brief now. That is, except for one: Bill Clinton. Maybe it's too recent and I feel too close to the object to see how to make his description briefer. But I don't think we really need to spend a lot of time discussing these things for just one description. I propose a different guideline, more along the lines of what AndreCarrotflower suggested above: As with the United States of America article, I would suggest that any substantive additions to the descriptions of presidents as they currently stand should require a discussion reaching consensus on this page, and failing that, should be immediately reverted. That doesn't mean reverting any addition of a word, as some more elegant phrasings might benefit from another word or two, but it does mean reverting the addition of new content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I removed the part about Thomas Jefferson's gravestone because that statement is meaningless without context. To my knowledge, he considered the founding of the University of Virginia to be his crowning achievement, and requested that it be carved onto his gravestone instead of his presidency. That said, I understand that the founding of the University of Virginia, which I added in place of that statement is not directly relevant to his presidency even if it may be one of his most significant contributions to the country, so please feel free to remove it if people feel it shouldn't be there. The dog2 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree in spirit with Ground Zero's proposed amendment to my policy, but I'd modify it further to 4 lines ± 2, with the understanding that given the M.O. of several of our editors, in practice that's going to equate to six lines per president, which IMO is the maximum length I'd be comfortable with. I also appreciate Ikan Kekek reiterating what is by far the most important prong of the proposed policy I laid out above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The number of lines is different on different screens, so it seems to me any kind of strict number-of-lines limit isn't workable. We could limit the number of sentences or words, or just agree to keep them concise and focused. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If vague requests to keep the blurbs concise, travel-related etc. were going to work, they would have worked the first time we asked folks to abide by them. Whether we measure by lines or bytes or words, the guidelines need to be clear and quantifiable, and absent a pretty damn strong consensus that an exception is warranted, we need to be reverting edits that fall outside those guidelines. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with removing this from the description of Woodrow Wilson: "Segregated the military and other formerly integrated organs of the federal government." Very historically important and relevant to the history of civil rights, but perhaps when (I hope) that sentence is reinstated, it could be characterized as a blow to civil rights with a relevant link, because isn't there a travel topic about civil rights? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we disagree about what the blurbs should cover. My position is that they should not include everything important a president did, but only the very most famous highlights, enough to remind the reader who the president was (as well as directly travel-related content like the sentence about Jefferson's grave). By the way, I'm not sure if the sentence about Wilson is true—Wikipedia seems to indicate that the army was already segregated before he came along. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

With regards to Jefferson's gravestone, how sure are you that Jefferson is the only former president who did not have his presidency mentioned on his gravestone. Unless you are sure that is the case, I don't think it's worth a mention in the blurb. And besides, we already list his house at Monticello under him, and his grave is on the same property that his house is located on. The dog2 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea whether or not he's the only president like that. It's an interesting fact either way. If you want to move the fact about the gravestone to the Monticello listing, that's fine with me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Granger, I note your point on Wilson. I had originally posted something documented, which is that he fired all black postal workers and segregated the White House staff. I think it is important that he was horrible for race relations, but I guess that could be covered somewhere else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to come back to this, but I just thought that we should mention something about "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" under Reagan, since that line from his speech at the Berlin wall is so famous that many people will instinctively think of that whenever Reagan's name is mentioned. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Really? I don't think it's essential. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it more important than the point that are in the blurb now? What would you take out to make room for this. The blurb is already long. There's not much point proposing adding something if you're not going to identify what you would remove to make room for it. There is a strong consensus to keep the blurbs brief. If you ignore that strong consensus, I don't think you'll find much support for your proposed changes. Ground Zero (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any need to include the quote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If we had to remove, I guess we could remove the part where he "ended the policy of using inflation to lower unemployment". I'm not sure how well known that policy is. And this was more as a gloss to his hard line stance on communism, by perhaps adding a short segment that goes something like "perhaps best epitomised by the line "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall". The dog2 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The dog2 is right about the inflation/unemployment thing. So long as we excise it, I could get behind including the far more well-known Gorbachev quote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reagan's monetary policies had a much bigger impact on average Americans than his foreign policy, but monetary policy doesn't lend itself to pithy summaries. I agree it's better to go with his well-known foreign policy initiatives. Ground Zero (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

In any case, we already mentioned "Reaganomics" and give a brief summary of what his general economic policy was, so that is already covered. The dog2 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm okay with it being in the section of his name, like this:

“	Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall	”
—Ronald Reagan

However, as just more prose, I see no need to include it. Understand the difference? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it looks like the quote is already mentioned in the caption. So it doesn't need to be added. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I guess I must have missed it. In that case, I'm happy to leave the blurb as it is, and I've completed the quote in the picture caption. The dog2 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Things have settled down in this article: there have been no edits to the article or the talk page for 5 days. We never achieved the "4-5 lines" of historical summary of the presidencies, as proposed by User: AndreCarrotflower at the start of thus discussion, but we have shortened them.

I propose that this pause in editing would be a good time to implement the second part of his proposal:

"let's make any subsequent edits to those blurbs subject to consensus agreement before the fact - in other words, any proposed changes must be vetted on the talk page first, rather than adding them directly to the article."

This would mean that any edits to the historical summaries of presidencies (only) would be reverted if consensus had not been reached on the talk page prior to the change.

The rest of the article, of course, could be edited freely. Agreed? Ground Zero (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Support as a step in the right direction. I would also extend this to the Understand section. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Support, of course. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Works for me. The dog2 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Comment. I see a change has been made. Good to add the in-article comment, but perhaps something clearer could be added as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If things continue the way they have for the past couple of days since the new policy went into effect, I'd be prepared to support limiting individual users to one blurb-edit proposal per month. What say you? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to wait till Monday. If this continues until then without resolution, at that point, I would consider it, though maybe we could do once every 3 weeks or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I dislike hard limits like that. What if someone notices serious problems in two different blurbs on the same day? If the blurbs are causing so much unhappiness, we could just remove them altogether—they're not providing that much value to the traveler anyway. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if this is seriously being considered, but strongly support it either way. I'd say the value provided is actually negative, as they are by necessity oversimplified and, as such, low in actual information value. On the other hand, the lead paragraphs about the presidents at Wikipedia go into the necessary amount of detail and have had an incredible amount of work put into them, including from real historians and experts with a wide range of opinion of each president, such that they have a semblance of balance. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've once again looked through this article to find listings that don't have a link to the city or district where they're located. Here's the current list:

• Tuckahoe Plantation
• Montpelier
• Sherwood Forest Plantation
• Grant Boyhood Home
• Grant Cottage State Historic Site
• Chester Alan Arthur State Historic Site
• Grover Cleveland Birthplace
• National McKinley Birthplace Memorial
• Roosevelt's Little White House Historic Site
• Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library & Museum
• Eisenhower Birthplace State Historic Site
• Ronald Reagan Birthplace & Museum
• Ronald Reagan Museum & Peace Garden
• Grave of and statue honoring David Rice Atchison

As far as I can tell, none of these attractions are covered in any Wikivoyage destination article (except the Grover Cleveland Birthplace, which is covered in Nutley, but I'm not sure if that's the right article for it). Any help would be appreciated adding them to the appropriate destination article and adding a link from the listing here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A lot of information can be gleaned just by doing a quick web search. For example, there is a w:Tuckahoe (plantation) article. I don't have time to look all of these up right now, but a normal web search is the way to start. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's not hard to start researching these places. The issue is more that it's not clear which article some of them should be covered in (the nearest city to whatever small town the POI is in? Or should the small town or protected area get an article for itself?). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As always, that would depend on how much content an article about the small town would or could contain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

New list – as far as I can tell, these are the listings that still don't link to the appropriate destination article:

• Montpelier
• Grant Boyhood Home
• Grant Cottage State Historic Site
• Eisenhower Birthplace State Historic Site
• Ronald Reagan Museum & Peace Garden
• Ferdinand Magellan railcar
• Grave of and statue honoring David Rice Atchison

It would be great if we could figure out which destination articles these should be covered in, add listings accordingly, and link to those articles from this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think if FDR's slipups on race (during wartime, mind you) are worthy of note, Wilson's avowed racism is even more so. But my addition of his segregationism was removed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

For better or for worse, Japanese internment is much more well-known than any of Wilson's domestic policies. But we could remove Japanese internment too if you want. Honestly I'm starting to wonder if it would be best to remove the blurbs altogether. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Japanese internment should be removed, especially as it's so relevant today. I think Wilson's racism is very historically significant, but I don't feel the need to make a Federal case about it. This is, after all, a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I actually lean somewhat toward's including Wilson's racism in the blurb. His blurb isn't that long anyway, and adding a short sentence about it would not make it too unwieldy to read. While I can't think of anything to excise from Wilson's blurb, if we really must excise something from the article, we can remove the sentence about Clinton's healthcare plan since it did not pass in Congress, and hence did not really have any impact, which would shorten Clinton's much longer blurb. And if we really want to push it, Trump and white nationalism is something I'd be willing to do away with as a compromise, since Wilson's racism was far more blatant. The dog2 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, this isn't a theoretical discussion. If you care enough about this to make a proposal, propose a form of words for Wilson's blurb here, and see if anyone wants to support it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I propose for discussion exactly the edit I made that was revered on account of "no consensus" Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Which was? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think this Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The phrase at issue is First Southern president and avid segregationist since Johnson. Are you distinguishing "avid" segregationists from merely ordinary ones? I'm not sure the phrase is clear enough to stand on its own. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is this article at guide status yet? If not, what needs to be changed? It seems highly detailed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Needs more listings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I recall seeing a policy somewhere that listings in itinerary or travel topic articles should not include hours, prices, phone numbers, etc., and that these details should be only in city articles. I can't find that policy, but it seems like a reasonable approach since itinerary and travel topic articles are not used for the nitty-gritty of travel planning, but more as an overview. This article has these details for many of the listings, which I think add unnecessary clutter. Ground Zero (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

So my edit was reverted supposedly because I violated the rule of not editing the blurbs. All I did was add a quote template with a line those presidents are famous for, which I think help in having lively content, and I would say help in jogging the memory of people as to what that president is famous for. For instance, someone who is a history buff on 9/11 and the War on Terror might be reminded about Bush Jr by the line "You're either with us or against us." and feel inspired to visit all the sites connected to his presidency. Besides, those aren't particularly wieldy and help improve readability, so why not? The dog2 (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You really think this is open to question? None of the presidents have a quote attributed to them above the super-brief blurb about them. There's no really important travel-relevant reason to spend time arguing about which quote we should have from G.W. Bush, let alone Millard Fillmore. So please drop the topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hear, hear. Let's focus on adding content about travelling to sites relevant to the presidents, not yet more background. This is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The quotes are a good addition, except that they add more to a long travel article, making them unnecessary. I agree with the above that they should not be included in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added the locations where Donald Trump met with Kim Jong-un but it got reverted supposedly because there are too many summit meetings. While I agree that we can't possibly list the locations of every summit meeting ever attended by a president, we do mention milestones in diplomatic relations. Regardless of my or any other person's personal politics, it is an undisputed fact that Trump was the first ever sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader in his official capacity. Similarly, it is an undisputed fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to set foot in North Korea. Shouldn't those count as particularly notable summits regardless of what your personal politics are? For that matter, if any future president of either party were to meet with the leader of Iran, I would be in favour of listing the location where it happened if it can be visited by tourists given that it is still a diplomatic milestone. The dog2 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. All modern presidents meet foreign leaders for important summits. Washington and Grant fought lots of battles -- should they all be included? Reagan's filming locations? If we want to include Trump's meeting places, then we should branch this article to "Donald Trump sites", which could then include his hotels. Otherwise, we end up with a great big jumble of information than will be unusable. The Reagan-Gorbachov meeting site should be removed. Ground Zero (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: Please give US politics a rest and find other topics to write about. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict x2) The mere fact that Trump was the first president to do such and such a thing does not make it notable. Every president was the first at something. And it remains to be seen whether Trump's summit meetings with the Kims will go on to be an event of major diplomatic significance rather than just a minor historical footnote. Until then, let's stick with the broad strokes, the places that we are already more or less sure that history will link him with: Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago. (Frankly, even the Old Post Office I find a little iffy.)

Parenthetically, making a federal case out of it (no pun intended) every time your edits get reverted doesn't really jibe with the collegial and cooperative spirit of wikis. If you're finding that this kind of thing happens frequently, the takeaway on your end should be to modulate your contributions in accordance with what kind of information does and doesn't make the cut.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Given that Grant is more well known for his superb generalship than his decent but hampered by evil or incompetent underlings presidency, should we mention the sites of the military career of the likes of Grant (Vicksburg, Shiloh, Fort Donelson, Appomattox) Garfield (read up on his civil war record - clearly the bullet that hit him in 1881 was meant for him in the 1860s...), JFK and so on? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd say no. Those belong in American Civil War. However, perhaps there could be a brief mention of them with a link. Similar situation in regard to Dwight Eisenhower and World War II. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

We don't have an article on the British North America colonial rebellion and the 1812 incident though. And some battles were rather obscure if not for the "future famous people" in them Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Early United States history could also be relevant. We might consider American Revolution or War of 1812 articles. /Yvwv (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Other than for Garfield's involvement, the Battle of Middle Creek is rather obscure... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

So is his presidency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Because he got shot. I like presidents who don't get shot. Believe me. Bigly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, Mr. Trump, but you can't disagree with me, surely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

At any rate our civil war article lacks a bunch of important sites Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's a good thing to work on, for anyone who feels motivated to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was just wondering, would Obama re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba be significant enough to make a note in his blurb? The dog2 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would be inclined to say yes, especially given that Obama's blurb on this page has always seemed underwhelming to me, and a poor reflection of how historically consequential his administration was (read: far from the most consequential in history, but far more so than the blurb currently lets on). But I'd say let's hear from others before you add it in. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I like adding it because it's a significant event in foreign policy, and he was an important president for foreign policy, but on the other hand, I think he did much more impactful things in foreign policy, such as withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and making the nuclear agreement with Iran - the problem being, of course, the degree to which Trump has rubbished everything possible that Obama did just because it was Obama who did it. So relations with Cuba are on ice, though not severed, and the agreement with Iran was violated for no reason and destroyed. Etc., etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It looks like there's not going to be any opposition, so I guess if nobody opposes in the next 24 hours, I'll make the change. The dog2 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let's discuss this edit. I think Granger is right. This isn't an article about cabinet officers, nor is it really about how the Executive Branch of the U.S. government functions. Let's please keep ancillary background to a minimum. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

While this is not an article about the U.S. Cabinet in general, I think a short gloss about who the Cabinet is composed of is fine. When you go and visit tourist attractions related to various presidents, you may come across titles such as the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, so I think some background is useful for potential visitors to these sites. And besides, it is indeed true that one of the key roles that the Constitution assigns to the President is the appointment of Cabinet secretaries, federal judges and ambassadors. The dog2 (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can live with a single sentence explaining what the Cabinet is, though I don't think it's necessary. Let's please remove the rest of the tangential details. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

This isn't a case like with the summaries of each individual president's administration, where we have 44 individual blurbs that could easily amount to an unmanageable glut of information if we're not extremely vigilant. The Other titles section consists of only a few paragraphs and actually, IMO, was a little scanty on detail before the latest round of additions. I support the status quo, though I wouldn't support going into much further detail. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Should the blurb for Trump mention his impeachment? I ask because of the rule agreed to above that "any proposed changes to the blurbs must be approved by consensus on the talk page first, before they are made in the article." —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course. Third president in U.S. history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but Granger was right to revert the undiscussed change and bring the issue to the talk page. Even if it's obvious that the additional information merits inclusion, which IMO it was in this case, no undiscussed changes to the blurbs still means no undiscussed changes to the blurbs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. On the content issue, I agree that the proposed content is appropriate, and if there are no objections in the next day or so it can be re-added. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

There really couldn't possibly be a good reason to object. I don't dispute having a discussion, but this is really so obvious; how could we possibly ignore it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've re-added the information, minus the phrase "to date", which is meaningless in context if you think about it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Trump has officially been acquitted (What did the Democrats expect, given that his approval rating among Republican voters is over 90%?), so I think we should now modify the blurb to reflect that? The dog2 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

They expected that and thought it was important to do, anyway. Read up on why and what the implications of it are and don't discuss it here. Meanwhile, modify the blurb to state that he was impeached by the House and not convicted by the Senate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done. The dog2 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Changed to an uncontroversial form of words (it's arguably not and arguably can't be an acquittal, and we don't want to argue that point). Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Montpelier (Virginia).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anyone know what this is/ how to fix this statement appearing throughout the "Multiple Presidents" and "Other Presidents" sections instead of attraction names and phone numbers? JakeOregon (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what caused it. I purged the page (by clicking the "Edit source" button and then saving the page with no edits), and that seems to have solved the problem, at least for now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

As many of you may have gotten the news, Trump successfully brokered a peace deal between the UAE and Israel, and both countries are now going to establish diplomatic relations. Should we add this to his blurb? I would say it's certainly a significant foreign policy achievement. The dog2 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

His blurb doesn't list any of his policy accomplishments or any of his scandals. Why pick just this one accomplishment? It doesn't actually affect Americans materially, unlike changes to medical insurance, tax cuts, trade disputes with China and Canada and Mexico, what he has done/not done about the covid pandemic, to mention a very, very few. Starting to list those would change this from a travel article about presidents to an article about the Trump presidency. I think Wikipedia would be a better place for an article like that. Ground Zero (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This should not be included in the blurb. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

What others said. Very minor accomplishment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't notice this page was not supposed to be edited without discussion. Some proposed edits:

-Bill Clinton's blurb says he was not impeached. This is just factually incorrect. It's common knowledge that he was impeached and easily verifiable. He was impeached but not removed from office. His blurb needs to say that.

On Trump's blurb, I think this sounds less biased:

Donald Trump, 2017-present — A billionaire businessman and television personality who is the first president to have held no prior elected or military office and the second president to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. His campaign platform included a Mexican border wall to reduce immigration from Latin America, international trade restrictions and fairer trade agreements, particularly with China, and a promise to bring heavy industry and coal mining jobs back to the U.S. He became the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives but not convicted and removed from office by the Senate. As of May 2020, he is the oldest person to assume the office."

The basic changes are adding the Hollywood Walk of Fame trivia (since it's mentioned in Reagan's), attempted to include his pushback against China which has become more important in the past couple years of his presidency, and remove irrelevant "white nationalist" and "climate change denial" comments. Attempting to connect him to white nationalists (who apparently have endorsed Joe Biden in the upcoming election) is purely political. "Climate change denial" is always silly. His actual record in what he has said about the topic is all over the place. He has both called it a hoax and a "serious issue". Either way, it wasn't an issue that particularly moved American voters. His stance on climate change is not what got him elected (nor do I imagine voters who didn't vote for him would have if he had only said he cared about this topic). No, the core policy issues that made people want to vote for or against him were those mentioned: The wall/stricter immigration, and maintaining or reestablishing the US as a world power with trade agreements and bringing production and manufacturing back (and then the non-policy factor of his humor, brashness, and overall demeanor/personality). I know as the current president, people have the strongest opinions about him, but it reads a bit biased. It's a short blurb. Most of the presidents give minimal trivia with little to no information on their political stances on anything. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think the changes are mostly good, though "fairer trade" is arguable. I would remove "and fairer trade agreements" altogether. I think the blurb says he was "unsuccessfully impeached" or something very similar to that, which is half true. I think your description of Clinton's impeachment is more accurate. Also agreed that "climate change denial" has proven irrelevant to the actions of his presidency, as climate has had little relevance to his important executive orders and other decisions. Not sure what to say about "white nationalists," but I don't think we can claim that he brought about the rise of white nationalism, with the racial connotations included, which has long been present in the U.S. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the blurb in some way say he has been controversial? Having been impeached shows that, but there is no hint on the reasons. The "fairer trade agreements" is over the top, but for me it seems his followers would agree to everything there, nodding with a content smile. –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because the sentence started with "his campaign platform", the addition of "fairer trade" is not meant as a claim of achievement; just that it is something that he talks/talked about. I'm okay with removing it, though. It may have become more of a talking point after his election than during the campaign... It's easy for these things to run together in one's memory, especially with a campaign happening in the present. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the bigger problem here is that the blurb is too focused on his original campaign platform and not focused enough on his accomplishments as president. How about replacing the "campaign platform" sentence with something like

His "America First" stance has involved restricting immigration and international trade, and withdrawing the United States from international agreements; signature policies include a Mexican border wall and a trade war with China.

—Granger (talk · contribs) 13:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and definitely an improvement. We first wrote this during the mid-first term of his presidency, so there wasn't so much we could say about actual events. That has since changed and the paragraph should probably change accordingly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I like Granger's blurb to replace everything in the "his campaign platform..." part. It's short and concise and avoids delving into political issues which may always be messy, but are especially so with sitting presidents. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Let's rewrite this at the end of January 2021... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

No argument with revising Trump's blurb. It's a fool's errand to try to summarize a president's legacy when they're still in office (let alone when they'd just taken office, which is roughly when the text in the blurb was written). However, Bill Clinton's blurb does not say he was not impeached. He was impeached, and given that the desired outcome of impeachment is to remove a elected official from office, the impeachment was unsuccessful. We want to keep the blurbs short, and "unsuccessfully impeached" says the same thing as "impeached but not removed from office" in four fewer words. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

When I read "Unsuccessfully impeached", I assume the impeachment itself was unsuccessful, but the impeachment was successful. He was impeached. The removal from office was unsuccessful (He was acquitted). That impeachment is required for the removal but it is not nullified if the removal is unsuccessful. Nancy Pelosi made a big to-do about the success of the impeachment as a blemish on the administration in spite of non-removal during the most recent impeachment. Trump's sentence on impeachment is very clear. To me, Clinton's doesn't read as well. Upon looking, "unsuccessfully impeached" is also the phrase used in Jackson's impeachment. If that is really preferable or the "right way" (admittedly impeachments aren't something I read much about) to describe a successful impeachment but unsuccessful removal, I guess Trump's is the one that should be changed, but I prefer the way his is written. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is all unnecessary hair-splitting. "Unsuccessfully impeached" may not be correct in the nitpicky technical sense, but as a space-saving mechanism, it's an acceptable substitute for impeachment-plus-failure-to-remove-from-office. The other definition - where a bill calling for the opening of an impeachment inquiry is introduced in Congress but fails to pass - is a common enough occurrence that it wouldn't even rate a mention in one of these blurbs. That happened to both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, IIRC. The American presidency is the most prominent and powerful office in the world, and we can expect our readers to come to the article with some preexisting knowledge of recent American presidential history even if they don't live in the U.S. The business with Bill Clinton happened recently enough that the fact that he wasn't forcibly removed from office is Captain Obvious. Maybe the same isn't true for Andrew Johnson, but in the end who really cares? Even if you buy that there's ambiguity between "not impeached" and "unsuccessfully impeached" (I don't), that still doesn't affect the logistics of visiting the POIs in his section. Anyone who's enough of an Andrew Johnson buff to care about that fine distinction probably already knows what really happened anyway - it's by far the thing he's most well known for historically - or will be set straight by the tour guides at the historic site or museum/library or wherever they go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, what is the current proposal on what the entire Trump blurb should look like? Please post it. As for actions and inaction helping to accelerate global warming being irrelevant, pay attention to what's currently happening in California and the Gulf States. I really don't want to be having to argue against fact-denial in talk page discussions on this site. Wikivoyage is not bound to be scientifically objective like Wikipedia (NPOV), but pretending that deliberately worsening global warming with the aid of fact-denial is irrelevant is not being fair. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

People can argue all day about whether or not Trump is a white nationalist, and I don't want to have that argument here. But what is certain is that Steve Bannon, who is unquestionably a white nationalist, was part of his campaign staff, and in the initial phase was part of his cabinet. Also, prominent white nationalists like Richard Spencer and David Duke endorsed him. So I don't think it's unfair to mention the coincidence between Trump's presidency and white nationalism. At least according to the news, white nationalist terrorism seems to have increased since Trump assumed office. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think impeachment needs to be explained for the benefit of non-American readers. Despite having lived through the Clinton impeachment, and I suppose the attempted impeachment of Nixon when I was a kid, I was still confused when Trump was impeached and stayed on as president — I had to look for an explanation for this. My country doesn't have the concept of impeachment. I don't think that "unsuccessfully impeached" is a useful shortcut, especially for an international website like ours. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've always agreed that "impeached by the House of Representatives but not removed from office by the Senate" is the kind of unimpeachably (:-) clear phrasing we should use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pulling together suggestions from above gives us (I think):

Donald Trump, 2017-present — A billionaire businessman and television personality who is the first president to have held no prior elected or military office and the second president to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. His "America First" stance has involved restricting immigration and international trade, and withdrawing the United States from international agreements; signature policies include a Mexican border wall and a trade war with China. He became the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives but not removed from office by the Senate. As of May 2020, he is the oldest person to assume the office."

I think the "oldest person to assume office" bit is not particularly interesting, and I'd remove that. Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This version is alright with me. I think it's OK to leave the thing about age there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think we should mention climate change denial. That was a key part of his campaign, and he has indeed acted on that by pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. The dog2 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since tinkering is inevitable, I'm going to point out that Trump has not, as far as I can tell, withdrawn the United States from and international agreements. He withdrew from Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and that's it. NAFTA was renegotiated as the almost-identical USMCA. His trade war with China is already mentioned. I think his attack on Obamacare should be mentioned. And the border wall is more of a fence, and there was already a fence along parts of the border. So incorporating The dog2's comment about the Paris

Donald Trump, 2017-present — A billionaire businessman and television personality who is the first president to have held no prior elected or military office and the second president to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. His "America First" stance has involved restricting immigration, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, and extending the Mexican border fence. He has also worked to repeal and undermine Obama's expansion of public support for healthcare, and instigated a trade war with China. He became the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives, but was not removed from office by the Senate. As of May 2020, he is the oldest person to assume the office."

Ground Zero (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

A technical change: "but was not removed", as otherwise it is unclear whether additional president were impeached and removed. –LPfi (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Change made. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm OK with this form of words. Is this good enough? There is no way we can mention all of the important things Trump did or did not do, nor should we. It's really ideal for us to agree on a summary and once again move on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm okay with this. Trump has withdrawn (or is withdrawing) the US from quite a few international agreements and organizations, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and UNESCO. But if others would rather not mention this, I can live with that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it sounds good, but I'd omit the Obamacare thing. Obviously some Americans care as it relates to their health and ability to afford healthcare, but as a description lead in a subheading about visiting sites related to Trump, I don't think it's of any interest to travelers. I might also call it an "America first" policy instead of "stance". It sounds better/more "political" to me, just as a small nitpick. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Donald Trump, 2017-present — A billionaire businessman and television personality who is the first president to have held no prior elected or military office and the second president to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. His "America First" policy has involved restricting immigration, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change and other international agreements, and extending the Mexican border fence. He has also worked to repeal and undermine Obama's expansion of public support for healthcare, and instigated a trade war with China. He became the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives, but was not removed from office by the Senate. As of May 2020, he is the oldest person to assume the office."

I've added back in "international agreements" (I was thinking just of trade agreements, but now I see it's broader). I think attempting to repeal or scupper Obamacare is a key initiative that is no less linked to visiting sites than anything else.) The border fence is really the only thing in the list that can be visited. I can live without the healthcare line, but i'd like to see a better argument for dropping it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This works for me. I don't have strong feelings about whether or not to mention Obamacare. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

With regard to Obamacare I think his second term (if re-elected) may merit its inclusion, but currently I don't think it's likely that we'll see any attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act be successful due to the coronavirus pandemic, and this is a time when if anything people want to see more healthcare, not less. Otherwise I support the wording of proposal 3, although "Border Fence" sounds interesting after "Build the Wall, "We Build the Wall," etc. The current construction looks half like a wall and half like a fence, so I guess either word would do. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, given that it's basically always called a "border wall", not only by Trump himself but also the media, "wall" makes more sense. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've made the change without Obamacare and with "wall/fence". My understanding is that it's more fence than wall, but I agree with Ikan Kekek that we shouldn't spend this much time fussing over this. Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should we mention anything about the travel ban? It is one of Trump's signature policies. It was originally called the Muslim ban, but that's now a misnomer because it has been expanded to include North Korea and Venezuela, which are not Muslim countries, and could conceivably be expanded to include China too given the current geopolitical situation. The dog2 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your proposal on Paris Agreement/climate change was incorporated. It's time to stop fussing and arguing over this. Let's move on to creating/updating actual travel content. If you want to focus on writing about politics, please do so at Wikipedia. Ground Zero (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: For God sake, please stop the personal attacks. I have never insulted you here. I was just making a suggestion, and if you disagree with me, then just say you disagree. I have in fact always gone along with the consensus even if it goes against my views. But please stop insinuating that I'm using Wikivoyage to push a political agenda. That is absolutely untrue and defamatory. The dog2 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I made no personal attack. I did not accuse you of "pushing a political agenda". I am saying that you focus on political discussions too much for a travel guide. This takes up the time of other editors. Others have made this point to you too. Let's not spend more time fussing over the political content of this article. Ground Zero (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

(Tangent, but: SelfieCity, I'm not sure that you're aware that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on whether to eliminate the ACA after this year's elections, as a result of an appeal by Trump's Justice Department, which is not independent of him. If you think that they would be dissuaded from so ruling because of the pandemic and would have otherwise ruled against it, I seriously doubt that. It's quite possible that since Chief Justice Roberts previously sustained it though seriously weakening it, he'll vote to sustain it again on some other basis than before, because it's no longer a tax with the individual mandate eliminated and no tax penalty imposed, but the fact that the decision will take place after the election means that confidently predicting a decision one way or the other is a fool's errand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC))Reply

Okay, thanks for explaining. I have removed that part of my comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Franklin D. Roosevelt's blurb says "Forcibly interned many ethnic Japanese". The link is confusing (as the majority of people interned were US citizens, many second or third generation), and the phrasing is a bit unidiomatic. I suggest rephrasing to "Forcibly interned many Japanese-Americans". See w:Internment of Japanese Americans for background. Does anyone object? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The majority were born in the US, so "Japanese-American" is a better description. Ground Zero (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Ethnic Japanese" is broader, and they interned both Japanese-Americans and ethnic Japanese who were not US citizens. That said, I'm not going to fuss too much over this. The dog2 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't find "ethnic Japanese" unidiomatic and agree with the dog that it is more accurate than "Japanese-American". Definitely agree with removing the link to Japan, however.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

If we're going to discuss this, I'd like to hear from other Americans about whether they find "ethnic Japanese" or "Japanese-Americans" to be a more natural phrasing. In my experience, the terminology "X-American" is more common in the US than "ethnic X". —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) As was stated already, the people imprisoned weren't all American citizens, which is why "ethnic Japanese" is more accurate, in this instance, than Japanese-American. If there's a problem with "ethnic Japanese" that I'm not seeing, then "...forcibly interned many Japanese and Japanese-Americans." is another historically-accurate phrasing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

If we want to avoid any ambiguity, we should use the phrasing "Japanese permanent residents and Japanese-Americans", or I think better, "permanent residents and U.S. citizens of Japanese origin", but "ethnic Japanese" is an accurate short-hand, and it's idiomatic for people who are of Japanese ethnicity but not necessarily Japanese citizens. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not entirely surprising that a country at war would round up nationals of the country that has attacked it without provocation or warning. What is shocking is that the US (and Canada) incarcerated its own citizens base on their ethnicity, took away their civil rights and their property (and didn't return it). This is worth being clear about. Ground Zero (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm pretty sure they would have interned people of Japanese ethnicity who were neither American nor Japanese citizens. For instance, Peru and Brazil both have large Japanese diaspora communities, and if you were ethnically Japanese but a citizen of Peru or Brazil while in the U.S., they would have interned you too. And neither Peru nor Brazil were at war with the U.S. The dog2 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero's point cuts to the heart of it. I'll suggest "Japanese-American citizens and permanent residents", so that we put the more shocking part first, but I won't fight the omission of "permanent residents". After all, there is no attempt to be minutely, encyclopedically accurate in this short blurbs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely fine with Ikan's suggestion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll compromise and accept Ikan's suggestion. The dog2 (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: And just you know, this kind of internment of people based solely on their ethnicity is not unique to the US and Canada. When India and China went to war in 1962, India did the exact same thing to the ethnic Chinese community of Kolkata (most of whom were born in India). The Indian government never returned the confiscated property, and it was not until 1998 that the local-born Chinese were allowed to apply for Indian citizenship. And likewise, Vietnam expelled the ethnic Chinese (most of whom were born and raised in Vietnam) in the North when Vietnam and China went to war in 1979. That is why there is no Chinatown in Hanoi today, and the Chinese clan temples have been converted to other uses. And I'm sure you know that many Arab countries like Algeria expelled their local-born Jews after the start of the Arab-Israeli conflict was founded. The dog2 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The edit has been made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well folks, it looks likely that Biden has won, so should we try to draft the final version of Trump's blurb, as well as Biden's blurb to make the switch when 20th January comes? The dog2 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

With the caveat that results aren't conclusive yet, if you'd like to start a rough draft of a Biden entry in your sandbox, ready to add on Jan. 20, go ahead. As for Trump, he has until Jan. 20, 2021 to continue doing things, so we can't close the book on his presidency until then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

By the nature of a wiki, there's no such thing as the "final" version of any of these blurbs. The relative importance of various aspects of the Trump presidency will only become clear with historical perspective. But of course we can update it (maybe it should mention why he was impeached). I would suggest that the initial version of Biden's blurb should be brief.

Anyway, the destinations are much more important than the blurbs—are there any Biden-related sites to visit? We have some time to do our research, assuming he does become president. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your point about the mutability of historical perspectives is well taken. In terms of Biden-related sites, we know he recently visited the house where he grew up in Scranton, PA, so we could probably find that address and mention it but note that it's a private house that can't be visited. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

whatever happens, Biden won't be president before noon January 20th. And a lot could potentially happen until then. Plus how does one even begin to summarize a thing yet in the future, namely Biden's tenure in office? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

We can write a little about Biden's background. For instance that he was Obama's VP, and we can even mention a bit about Kamala Harris, who would be the first black, Asian and female VP. As for Trump, perhaps the peace deal he brokered between Israel and the two Arab countries, Bahrain and the UAE could be mentioned as a foreign policy achievement. The dog2 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not a peace deal, mere normalization of relations between countries that don't border on each other and weren't active combatants for a long time. And I think that's less significant than moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which also doesn't bear mentioning, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

One more thing about Biden. He would be the oldest person to take office, overtaking Trump in this regard. Of course, at this moment, while Biden looks likely to win, the results are far from conclusive, so no changes should be made to the article until the race is actually called. The dog2 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest waiting until some time in January before adding a Biden entry. A lot of things could happen between now and then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Biden's childhood home is at 2446 N. Washington Ave, Scranton per this local news article. Of course, we should mention that it's a private residence, and travellers should stay on the sidewalk. JakeOregon (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

When did we add mention of Brexit to European Union? Not in 2020, when it nominally took effect, but way back in 2017 when the vote took place. I see no reason for Wikivoyage to wait to Jan 2021 to acknowledge that President-elect Biden won this race; as soon as Pennsylvania is declared, we can stick a fork in this mess because it's done. 23.239.59.12 23:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many things can happen between now and 20th January. And in any case, all blurbs have to be approved here by consensus before they can posted to the article. I don't mind if people want to try drafting the Biden blurb here, but until the community agrees, it should not go into articlespace. The dog2 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

If something happens between now and then? We continue to update the page as it happens, much as we update pages rapidly as destinations are obliterated by tornadoes or become unsafe due to armed conflict. Wikivoyage is a wiki. If a disaster affects travel, we want the info sooner rather than later. 23.239.59.12 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

First of all, we're nonpartisan, so information should be presented in a nonpartisan way. Secondly, the community has agreed that the blurbs for each president have to be approved by community consensus before they can be published in articlespace. And thirdly, this article is about Presidents of the United States, and Biden is not president until he gets inaugurated on 20th January. The dog2 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan Kekek and The dog2. As soon as Biden is sworn into office, he should be added. Prior to that, he's not yet president. Compiling sights related to him beforehand is obviously fine. I don't really imagine his blurb upon entry really needing that much content. Former VP and oldest elected president are the main relevant/noteworthy trivia to say until he actually starts doing things in the office. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For what it's worth, having first run for the office in 1988 he may well hold the record for "longest time from first campaign for President to Presidential inauguration" at something above 32 years... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've done a bit of searching for destinations and found these pages: [1] [2]. Not sure if any of those are worth listing in this article though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Auntie Beeb just called Pennsylvania for Biden. It's over: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54836636

That will require a few edits. Remove the "oldest" superlatives from Reagan and Trump. In "other titles" in the intro, replace "he" with "he or she" for the VP. (Her spouse, presumably, becomes the "second gentleman" - matching the existing use of "first gentleman" and "first lady" for spouses of individual state governors) Cut back the number of Trump POI's to match that of other former presidents - Mar-a-Lago might be notable, but every individual golf course Trump owns? No. That'd leave two POI's at most (maybe Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago) until it's decided whether (and where) a Presidential Library or other museum will be created to mark the end of the Trump era. Put the map marker back on Mount Rushmore.

As for a 46. Biden entry? One line saying that he's currently expected to be inaugurated on 20 Jan 2021 and leave it at that for now? Dunno. 66.102.87.40 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why we would "cut back" POIs when a president leaves office. That said, it might make sense to cover Trump International Golf Club as part of the Mar-a-Lago listing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The "oldest" lines are still true for some time. –LPfi (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mx. Granger: If look at the Google Maps, Trump International Golf Club is not next to Mar-a-Lago. It's actually a couple of miles away. The dog2 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Four POIs is a lot compared to most single-term presidents, but then again Trump's presidency will likely go down as unusually consequential to American history by comparison with other single-term presidents, so viewed in that light the amount might be more understandable. Still, it's worth thinking about what POIs might be more relevant specifically to Trump's time as president, rather than his previous life as a public figure outside the political realm (Trump Tower, for example, doesn't seem to have much importance to any of the pivotal events of his administration). Also, two golf courses? I know he enjoyed the sport, but still... -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, mark me down as in favor of the IP editor's idea for a one-line acknowledgement of Biden's impending inauguration but putting off the addition of any POIs until after January 20. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think we should also try to draft the "final" version of Trump's blurb, so we can switch it in once Trump leaves office and Biden takes over. So I guess we should think about what are Trump's most consequential policies. And I'm not sure if we should have a one line summary on why he lost re-election (which I think it's safe to say is due to COVID-19). Of course, Trump could still do many things in the 2+ months he has left in office, but we can always update the draft until it gets implemented in the main article after he leaves office. The dog2 (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's at all clear that he lost because of COVID-19. Some people probably voted for him because they buy his false dichotomy between fighting the disease with behavioral restrictions and getting the economy back to normal. And circumstantial evidence suggests that Biden's margin in several states was from Republican and Republican-leaning voters who voted against Trump because they were sick of his tweeting and so on but then voted for Republicans for the House, Senate, State Legislature, etc. As for points of interest for an outgoing president, I doubt we should remove any. And furthermore, New York's Trump Tower was relevant because blocks of it were rented by the Secret Service at cost and it was a focal point for anti-Trump demonstrations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure there was also a significant people who turned away from Trump because of his mishandling of COVID-19. I actually personally know someone who was a Trump supporter because he is making millions of dollars and was very grateful to Trump for the tax cut he received, and in fact donated $20,000 to Trump's campaign before COVID-19 hit. Only when COVID-19 hit and it became plainly obvious that Trump was not taking it seriously did he turn on Trump and end up voting for Biden instead. But yes, what you said is true. I have other conservative friends who never liked Trump from the outset because of the things he says. The dog2 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

A big part of the problem in trying to figure out why Trump lost is that opinion polls were so inaccurate this year in the U.S. Over the course of the Trump Administration, he looked consistently and historically unpopular, with his popularity only arguably decreasing somewhat after the early days of the pandemic in the U.S., but the polls were wrong, so we really don't know why he lost, but it's not obvious whether he would have had more or fewer votes without the pandemic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

We're travel guide writers, not historians or political scientists, so I suggest we keep this kind of debate to a minimum. The blurbs are really not important. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. And what they should reflect is known or at least widely accepted facts. Stating that Trump lost during a pandemic many people thought he mishandled is true; stating he lost because he was perceived to have mishandled the pandemic is problematic because how would we know? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Still, him having been highly controversial is a "known or at least widely accepted fact". I think we should, with suitable wording, say something about that. I suppose he contributed significantly to the polarisation of the country (that's at least part of the story told over here), and if so – given we can word it in a neutral way – something should be said about that. I suppose most presidents before him have tried at least to look like they strive to be president for all of the people, which my impression is he hasn't. –LPfi (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's true that Trump didn't try be "president for all of the people", but his methods were certainly different from the norm. I obviously don't know him, but my impression is that he likely genuinely felt/feels that he was "representing the people" against the media establishment, corrupt political elites, and China. I think in many ways he did have his hand on America's pulse (Americans on both sides do distrust the media and are skeptical of establishment politicians, and the growing threat/fear of China is also on more Americans' minds) but there was a clear disconnect regarding HOW he chose to address things versus how the public wanted him to address them, even if only in terms of his way of speaking. Whether or not Americans FELT represented doesn't seem like a uniquely Trumpian thing. Very few presidents are likely to be cited as making all or most Americans "feel represented".

I agree with others that Covid was the predominant cause of Trump's loss. Not only were some voters turned off by his response, but I have doubts that the turnout for Biden would have been so high had the mail-in ballot system not been implemented. The mail-ins were heavily in favor of Biden in most places. It's clear that mail-in ballots were responsible for Biden's (probable) win, and that is all due to Covid. It can be debated as to whether those voters would have still voted if it had all been in-person, but Covid was undoubtedly a huge part of this election and it definitely benefited Biden. I think it definitely should be given mention. It changed the entire election process. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My hunch is that Trump would have won re-election in a landslide had it not been for COVID-19. Trump actually got a record turnout and won more votes this time than Obama did in 2008, and it took an even bigger record turnout for Biden this time round to defeat him, so it's certainly conceivable that Trump would have even won the popular vote had it not be for COVID-19. And not to mention, Trump actually increased his vote share among black, Latino, LGBT and female voters, but eventually lost because there was enough of a swing in the other direction from retirees and white college-educated male voters. But anyway, to get back to updating Trump's blurb, how about inserting a sentence at the end stating: "Lost his bid for re-election amid the COVID-19 pandemic, which many people felt he had mismanaged." In that way, we're not speculating on the reasons for his loss, and we're also keeping it nonpartisan by not taking sides ourselves, but merely acknowledging that many people felt that way. The dog2 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

ChubbyWimbus, ask any liberal whether Trump tried to represent us. Liberals don't expect Republicans not to differentiate themselves from liberals, but the level of vituperation, personal attacks and threats from a president is unprecedented in my 55 years. And I could go on to talk about whether he tried to represent POWs and their families, Muslims, anti-Nazis, refugees and immigrants from "shithole countries", New Yorkers struggling because he refuses to send relief to our state's government that was way into the black until the pandemic he refused to manage hit, etc., etc. As for your proposed wording, The dog2, I already proposed it, and I'd appreciate not having more discussions about how Trump would have supposedly won by a landslide if he was different in no other way than not having a pandemic to (mis)manage or how the most divisive and vulgarly abusive president in modern history who said Nazis and KKK and a teenage lyncher who threatened and murdered were "good people" actually tried to represent everyone. Signed, a democratic socialist New York Jew. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. I don't disagree with all these things you brought up about Trump, and my statement was not meant to be a political endorsement of Trump, but merely stating what I think the numbers showed, because frankly speaking, the fact that slightly less than half the country turned out in record numbers to vote for someone like that who has made America a laughing stock on the international stage is concerning. Go and check out some of Andrew Yang's post-election interviews and you'll see where I'm coming from. But anyway, this is not the place for political debates, so I'll leave it at that. The dog2 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek, The thing is, Liberals also said Bush didn't represent them. Conservatives said Obama didn't represent them or try to represent them. None of that is at all unique to Trump. The people's feelings don't tell us if the men themselves believed they made the effort, and that's what matters when talking about whether they "tried" or not. "Trying" comes from oneself, not from others. You can try to save someone's life and end up contributing to their death. The horrible results don't negate the fact that you tried or felt like you were doing good at the time. I'm surprised you still believe the "fine people" soundbite. If you actually listened to that press briefing, he stated clearly that the "fine people" were those who just wanted to protest the tearing down of the statue and also stated clearly that he was not referring to the white nationalists and neo-Nazis who he said "should be condemned totally". That whole debacle was one of many that was easy to verify the complete dishonesty of the media.

At any rate, the Covid line seems to be agreed upon.

Another bit of trivia for Trump is that he is the first president since Jimmy Carter to not start a new war or send Americans into a foreign conflict. That is rather noteworthy as Americans have become quite accustomed to war and in spite of Trump's aggressive demeanor, he maintained unprecedented peace during his time in office. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can see audiovisual footage of him supporting the actions of the 17-year-old terrorist who drove up from Illinois to shoot demonstrators dead in Kenosha just for being Black and affirming that Black lives matter, in the wake of a killing by the police. And trying does matter, but it's a matter of words and gestures at least. No, GW Bush didn't represent me and I consider him an unpunished murderer, torturer and war criminal, but his rhetoric was not at the level of Trump's constant insults, verbal attacks and threats toward everyone he didn't like. Recall that domestically, GW Bush made both words and gestures of respect for the American Muslim community, and even though with the other hand, he quietly had hundreds of people in New York City alone arrested and detained just because they were Muslim and his rhetoric and actions on the international stage had a role in making the situation scary for American Muslims (along with many American non-Muslims' reaction that because terrorists were avowedly acting in the name of Islam, all Muslims should be under suspicion, when that's never the reaction to all whites when white terrorists strike, as in Oklahoma City), that did matter. The idea that Trump, of all people, tried to bring people together is not something that can pass any kind of smell test while he's still in office. You could try that argument again after most of the witnesses to his presidency are no longer around to refute it, but even then, if you're not dealing with people comfortable with fact-denial, the mountains of tweets and video clips would be hard to get around. And I'd as soon continue to argue about this as to argue with a QAnon supporter that the Democrats aren't actually a cabal of child molestors who drink human blood and the civil rights struggle isn't caused by Jews manipulating Blacks, so if you insist on having the last word on this non-argument, that's up to you as long as you don't try to put any of this stuff into articlespace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please stop the political debates, everyone. I suggest we leave the blurb alone for the time being—it is really not important. If we must change it, let's keep any discussion narrowly focused on what should go in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there has been any disagreement on the addition to Trump's blurb, so I'd say let's go ahead and add it. Trump has lost his bid for re-election, and even Fox News has called it, and regardless of how you lean politically, that is a fact. If Trump does anything noteworthy in his final two months in office, we can always add it to the blurb later. As for Biden's entry, let's wait till inauguration to add it, because he is not president yet. The dog2 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

We should at least acknowledge, by name, that Joe Biden is scheduled to be inaugurated to the 46th US presidency in Jan 2021. The comment "Biden isn't president yet. Anything can happen in the next 2 months." is bizarre, as the election is over and the outcome is known. A recount in one state won't be enough to change that, at least not lawfully, so no reason not to name 46. Biden as the current President-Elect of the United States of America. 66.102.87.40 06:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

For all we know, he could die prior to January 20. I don't expect that, but I don't see in a travel guide what we gain by running a blurb for a president before he takes office. What's bothering you about just having a blurb ready to run when he's inaugurated? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Granger, you keep saying that the blurbs are not important, but the consensus almost since the beginning of this article's existence has been that they do serve an important role in contextualizing the POI listings. So I would ask you to respect that consensus and redirect your comments toward how to make Trump's blurb best reflect his administration. I agree that much of the political discussion preceding your comment was extraneous, but some of it wasn't, and when you strip away the bluster you find a lot of valuable insights about what does and doesn't belong in the blurb.

At the very least, I think we can all agree on including the facts that Trump was president during the COVID-19 pandemic and that his response to it was widely criticized as ineffective, as well as the fact that there was widespread civil unrest during his administration, for a variety of different reasons, most notably police brutality against POC and the feeling among some Americans that the COVID-19 lockdowns were too heavy-handed. I also like ChubbyWimbus's suggestion of mentioning Trump's relatively isolationist and non-interventionist foreign policy, which really is a startling break from his predecessors going back at least as far as Reagan.

As The dog2 said above, I would prefer to avoid any speculation about what contributed to Trump's defeat in 2020 (COVID may well rank high among them, but we won't know for sure for a long time, and we should avoid regarding the immediate post-mortems as being conclusive). Bizarre tangents about whether Trump felt he represented all Americans as president or just his base also don't belong in the blurb.

And, perhaps just as importantly, we need to let go of the idea that whatever is the end result of this discussion will be the "final" Trump blurb. The ultimate legacy of any given president in American history generally does not become clear until years or decades after their administration, and that legacy often ends up looking very different than we would have expected in the immediate aftermath (for instance, did you know that as of 2018, a solid majority of Americans have a positive opinion of George W. Bush?). Not to mention that Trump is still in office for two more months, and it's possible that some unexpected event that's consequential to his legacy (a terrorist attack, a major stock market crash) might occur between now and January 2021. So we should remain open to further revisions to the blurb as the final weeks and months of Trump's presidency elapse, and even after he's out of office as his legacy continues to evolve.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Going into detail about the police killing of George Floyd and the anti-lockdown protests is going to make Trump's blurb too long. So I suggest we keep it short and sweet by just using the term "widespread civil unrest". So perhaps we modify the addition to his blurb to "Lost his bid for re-election amid the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread civil unrest, which many people felt he had mismanaged." How does that sound? The dog2 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Too unspecific and too extreme (there wasn't "widespread civil unrest", contrary to totally false Republican claims about the downtowns of "Democrat-run cities" burning for months). We could add "and civil unrest following the killings of several unarmed Black people by police officers". It wasn't just George Floyd but also Breonna Taylor, Daniel Prude, the attempted killing of Jacob Blake, the man who was murdered by racist white civilians in Atlanta, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ikan - There were George Floyd protests in practically every major city in the country, some of which lasted for weeks, which covers the "widespread" part. As for "civil unrest", the statement that the vast majority of George Floyd protests were nonviolent is true but irrelevant. Civil unrest does not automatically imply violence. It's a spectrum that encompasses nonviolent protest at one end, rioting somewhere in the middle, and literal civil war at the other end. Furthermore, "widespread civil unrest" does not refer only to the George Floyd protests. The anti-lockdown demonstrations were also widespread, albeit not quite as much so as the George Floyd ones, and also were more often violent or at least carried the implicit threat of violence (many of the protesters were armed, for example). So the lack of specificity is at least somewhat by design. The overarching idea those words are intended to convey is that the Trump presidency represented the point in time where America's increasing political polarization, a trend that had been accelerating since the Clinton years, reached the level of direct confrontation in the streets. We can draw the line there and say that readers who are curious about all the different themes around which those confrontations manifested themselves can look elsewhere for that information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

And before anyone gets on my back, I call them "George Floyd protests" because they immediately followed the death of George Floyd, not to deny that the other unarmed killings of Black folks by police also played a role in the reaction. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your points are well taken. So what phrasing do you propose to add? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘When uniformed police riot, it's still a riot. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

My phrasing was intentionally vague in keeping with our policy of non-partisanship. Perhaps 50 years or so down the road when Trump is evaluated by historians, things will change, but as of now, I think we can just acknowledge that there has been civil unrest. Yes, there has been the BLM protests, but there were also white right-wingers storming the Michigan Legislature with their guns in order to protest the COVID-19 lockdowns, and the Proud Boys deliberately going to Portland to start fights with the BLM protesters, so simply stating "civil unrest" convers all these things. Whether or not Trump is to blame for the unrest is not for us to judge here on WV, though it is accurate to say that many people have blamed him for mismanaging the civil unrest too. The dog2 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek, AndreCarrotflower: So what will it be then. How should we cover the unrest? Or should we even mention it at all? The dog2 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here's an attraction in Ballina, County Mayo, Ireland - https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2020/11/11/irelands-new-must-have-photo-op-is-a-mural-of-president-elect-joe-biden/ that could possibly be included when Biden gets added to the article. - WOSlinker (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2, Ikan Kekek: Here's a first draft:

Donald Trump (R), 2017-present — Wealthy real estate tycoon and media personality who was the oldest president to assume office (age 70 at his inauguration), and the first to have held no prior elected or military office. His "America First" agenda involved restrictions on immigration, an expansion of the Mexican border wall, and a foreign policy that emphasized military non-intervention and economic protectionism (culminating in a trade war with China) and saw the U.S. withdraw from the Paris climate accords among other international agreements. An extremely divisive figure, Trump was the third president to be impeached (though he was not removed from office); his single term coincided with widespread civil unrest and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which he was widely felt to have mismanaged.

(For the sake of reducing the blurb's length, I took out the part about him being the second president to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, which, while potentially travel-relevant, doesn't have much to do with his presidency per se. Perhaps his star [and Reagan's] would work better as POI listings than in the blurbs?)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just a few minor changes from me. First, I think we can be more specific and use "billionaire" instead of "wealthy", since it's true. He was in fact the richest person to hold an elected office in the US until J. B. Pritzker got elected governor of Illinois in 2018. Also, I would replace "agenda" with "policy" since he was actually in power, and the word "policy" comes across as less politically charged to me. And for the last sentence, "he was widely felt to have mismanaged" could be contentious because it suggests that the majority of people think he has mismanaged those things. As far as I know, we have no data, so "many people felt he had mismanaged" would be better since it gives no indication as to whether it's a majority of people or not. The dog2 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with the proposed new version of the blurb on Trump. I don't care about agenda vs. policy, but "widely" doesn't mean "by a clear majority" and is briefer and neater than The dog2's proposed edit. Also, I don't think it's a fact that he's a billionaire, so I would oppose stating that he is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the word "agenda" because "policy" appears again later in the same sentence.

Also, notably: we will soon be able to shorten Trump's blurb by removing the "oldest president to assume office" factoid, as Joe Biden will be 78 years old upon inauguration.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the "oldest president to assume office" will need to be removed once Joe Biden gets inaugurated. I have no further points than the ones I previously raised, so if there are no further objections for others, go ahead and update the blurb. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done. I also added POI listings for Reagan and Trump's stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and removed the reference to Reagan's star from his blurb. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Going back to Biden's age, we will also need to remove the part of Reagan's blurb that says he is "to date the oldest president upon leaving office", as Reagan left office at the age of 77 which is already younger than Biden will be on Inauguration Day. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since we're approaching inauguration, I have come up with a draft so we can start working on it and having a blurb ready to run once Biden gets inaugurated:

Joe Biden (D), 2021-present — A former long-serving senator from Delaware and Vice President under Barack Obama. Elected to office amid the COVID-19 pandemic on the promise for a return to normalcy. As of 2021, the oldest person to assume the office, and will be the oldest person to do so when he leaves office.

• 41.43574-75.6362431 Biden birth house, 2446 N Washington Ave, Scranton, Pennsylvania. The house where Joe Biden was born, and lived in until the age of 10. It is still a private residence today and cannot be entered, though it can be viewed from the outside. 

I added "A long-serving senator from Delaware". I think this is enough to cover before he's done anything as President. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

If and when he does anything major related to railroads we can mention him being nicknamed "Amtrak Joe" and why that is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Instead of "on the promise for a return to normalcy," what about "with the [slogan/theme] 'Build Back Better'"? I listened to many of Joe Biden's remarks during the pandemic and I'm not sure he or anyone can be sure of an immediate return to normalcy given the coronavirus, but I think the focus was on making things better than they were once the pandemic eases. And also , "As of 2021, [he is] the oldest person the assume the office" feels more grammatically correct. But otherwise this should work as a draft pending inauguration. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should the fact challenges to the election were dismissed by the Supreme Court be included? Or is is irrelevant? My feeling is that we should avoid discussing it as it is a slippery slope to go into the election challenges. If we want to steer well clear of all that we could just write "Inaugurated as president" instead of "Elected to office" but I don't know how others may feel about that. After all, the goal of this article is not to write about elections, but rather the presidential term, which in his case would last from January 20, 2021 to January 20, 2025. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just one more thing — we need to clarify that he is a former senator. Some reading the article, if they are not from the U.S. and not familiar with the political system, might not know that a president cannot also be a member of Congress. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Biden's promise/slogan: I don't think anyone knows his "slogan". Did he even say it? If he did, he certainly didn't have the charisma to make it stick. I'm not even sure he really made a solid promise to "return to normalcy" but the media pushed that narrative, so I think that one is better.

Regarding election challenge: We didn't mention election controversies surrounding Bush v Gore or Trump v Clinton, so it seems there is precedent to omit such things. If it ever comes out that fraud or rigging occurred and got Biden (or any other president) falsely inaugurated, then it would obviously be worthy of adding, but just saying that the election was challenged isn't itself worthy of adding in my opinion. If doubts regarding the legitimacy of his election actually affect his presidency, we can always talk about adding it at a later date. As a first draft blurb, we should say the bare minimum. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

We should perhaps also come up with POIs to list for Biden so they can go into the article on inauguration day with the blurb. One I can think of is his birth home in Scranton, Pennsylvania (though unfortunately, I don't know the address). There's also probably a few sites in Delaware connected to Biden's teenage years, though I'm not familiar with them. The dog2 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ there's a train station named after him, too. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I added "former" before "long-serving senator". Trump's frivolous, malicious lawsuits and constant lies about not actually losing the election are about him, not about Biden and might be covered under Trump's blurb as "refused to accept that he was defeated in the 2020 elections and filed numerous lawsuits to try to annul the result"; that's a very significant event and definitely could be included in his blurb, though I see no reason we need to change anything, as the blurbs are short and we came to a hard-won consensus about Trump's. But just keep that in mind. And the suggestion that we wouldn't say Biden was elected is preposterous per be fair. We call Jerusalem capital of Israel and Jammu and Kashmir an Indian state, facts which I daresay are much more controversial than the reluctance of some Americans to accept that their Great Leader lost, because this site is reality-based. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of which, I wonder if we should mention that Biden won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. This most recent election was a rather exceptional one though, because Trump actually broke the record for most votes won by a presidential candidate, previously set by Obama in 2008, but still ended up losing the popular vote. The dog2 (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's a notable fact about the 2020 presidential election, but "won the largest number of popular votes in American history" seems to me to be a bit trivial in regard to a presidential candidate in a broad historical perspective. I think the fact that his running mate is the first woman and first Black and Asian-American to become Vice President is more significant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention the fact that this is a record that's regularly broken as the population and median age of the U.S. citizenry continue to increase. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Although the fact that 2020 turnout constituted the largest percentage of eligible voters since the election of Woodrow Wilson won't necessarily be beaten soon. But still, as I said, relatively trivial in regard to Biden, as opposed to the election itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Added a POI listing for Biden's birth house. Please add more if you can think of anything. The dog2 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

We might want to add something about this to Trump's blurb once the dust in settled since this is really unprecedented. I've never seen anything like it before in a developed country, and never would I have imagined that I would see something like this happening in America, which is supposed to be the world's shining beacon of democracy and freedom. The dog2 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not sure. It's obviously important (there is a warningbox in the DC article) but I don't see the relevance to tourism related to any president. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think The dog2's argument might have merit, but let's let the dust settle first. Other various thoughts:

• SelfieCity, this concerns the descriptive blurb that serves as the section lede to Trump's entry under "List of presidents", not to any POI.

• Is there an argument for adding it to Biden's blurb instead? Something along the lines of "inaugurated despite an attempted coup that sought to invalidate the results of the election he won" or something of that nature. Forgive me if this comes off as offensive because clearly Trump is to blame for the unrest, but on the other hand the unrest is in response to Biden's victory, and Trump's blurb is getting quite lengthy while conversely Biden's could use a bit more padding.

• On second thought, if we do decide today's events merit mention, adding them to Trump's blurb could be done without lengthening it too much. Here's a possible rewrite, starting from the final semicolon of the present blurb:

his single term coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which he was widely felt to have mismanaged, as well as widespread civil unrest, culminating in an attempted coup by his supporters who sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election.

• Are we indeed okay with describing this as an "attempted coup", or is that verbiage too tendentious? I'm especially interested in what ChubbyWimbus, for example, would have to say about that, as I've noticed he's one who tends to push back against the natural inclination of our editor base to skew left, which as I see it is valuable in dealing with a reader base that might not.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy with AndreCarrotflower's suggestion, and I think it belongs more under Trump's blurb because it happened during Trump's presidency. And of course, it was Trump who convinced his supporters to do this. But yes, let's wait till the dust settles before we add anything. The dog2 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks like there was an edit conflict. The dog2, what do you think about my final bullet point, which I added after you had already typed the above comment? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

If there's any pushback on the idea that this is an attempted coup, we could describe it as "armed followers of his stormed the Capitol in an attempt to annul the results at his behest" or something like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with the term "attempted coup". I may not be the furthest left person here, but it is what it is, and clearly they were trying to use intimidation overturn the results of an election, which fits the definition of an attempted coup. But let's also see what ChubbyWimbus says. Perhaps Mx. Granger could weigh in too. He seems to have a knack for avoiding political controversy. The dog2 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I guess but we ought to prepared to see how this all pans out and that may require some changes to the text. It was a tragedy to see what happened in the Capitol today, but I fear it isn't over, and where things go over the next few days is in question. "Attempted coup" may be the best wording for now as we don't know that the goal of the riot was to annul the results, even though that may seem obvious. We don't know what would have happened if somehow the rioters had taken control of the building. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. I'd say there's no rush, and would suggest waiting a couple of weeks to get a better sense of whether this merits mention, how it fits into the Trump presidency overall, and how to characterize what happened. I'm wary of the word "coup" in this case and might prefer "insurrection" or "stormed"/"storming" as more precise and uncontroversial descriptions – but again, let's give it a couple weeks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would say this unique event in American history certainly deserves a mention, but I have no problem with your suggested wordings and also think that waiting till January 21 is sensible, since we don't know what other horrors might take place between now and then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. I agree that it's best to wait as it may not be over and the ramifications also have yet to be seen even if nothing else happens. Of the proposed rewrite, I don't want to lengthen it, but does "as well as widespread civil unrest, culminating in..." sound like the civil unrest was also from his supporters? I don't think "culminating" is necessarily wrong, but those involved in the civil unrest that preceded are presumably mostly different from those involved here.

Regarding "attempted coup", I think that is a mischaracterization as far as THEIR beliefs about what they're doing which is what's most important in describing why what happened happened (regardless of whether they are right or wrong). While those who disagree with them see them as simply trying to overturn an election, they seem to legitimately believe that the "coup" occurred during the election (or the counting). Their motivation is to "stop the steal", as they say. I definitely don't think we should or need to go into details about the controversies surrounding the election, but I do think if we're going to mention this event, we need to properly characterize the motives of these people from THEIR, not our, perspective. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to state it, but I think that, as the description is in the context of the presidencies, the protesters views are not what is essential, but rather that there was (sadly: is) such an extreme divide, and Trump's role in handling it (I would say furthering it, but I am indeed biased). –LPfi (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

ChubbyWimbus, thanks for checking in and giving your views. I don't think be fair means that we need to describe incidents the way those who committed them would describe them; rather, accuracy should be the standard, unless we decide to write an article about "Right-wing conspiracy theorist travel", which I definitely don't think we want to do but which in any case is not this article. Also, do you really contest that right-wing groups such as the Proud Boys, militia organizations and neo-Nazis were part of the civil unrest that happened in instances such as violence and threats in Portland, Oregon, in and around the Statehouse in Lansing, Michigan, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in Charlottesville and in several other acts of terrorism such as in synagogues in Pittsburgh and San Diego? If it troubles you that the culmination isn't from the left, that doesn't change how events have unfolded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am not saying we should describe the events that way; I'm saying we should state their motivations accurately. I find it odd that we would mention the event but hide, omit, or lie about what motivated it. That's essential information. If someone commits a crime, the motivation is the first thing people want to know. Why did she kill her husband? Why did he bomb the marketplace? etc. If your concern is that we would be "giving them legitimacy" or something of the sort, that's not true. Saying that "she killed her husband because she thought he was cheating on her" is not the same as saying he cheated on her. His innocence would not change her motivation.

On the civil unrest: No, I'm not saying right wing individuals were not there, but by all accounts (both left and right sources), the riots were "George Floyd Protests" or "BLM riots" (BLM not being heavily associated with the far right) and the Portland and Seattle unrest and "autonomous zones" were not established by the far right. I am not "troubled" that the culmination isn't from the far left. As I stated, I'm not necessarily against "culminated". my concern is that it sort of sounds like the unrest that preceded it is all from the same people representing the same cause and that's not the case. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for clarifying. I don't disagree with the basic points you're making, but let's remember this is a blurb to describe a president, not the motivations of people who acted on his call to march to the Capitol and prevent the acceptance of the Electoral College votes. But I think the relevant way to describe their motivations is "a mob incited by a commitment to white supremacy and President Trump's repeated false claims that Biden's victory was illegitimate and the product of a conspiracy by Democrats and Republican 'traitors', marched to the Capitol at his urging and invaded it, forcing the evacuation of the building and causing five deaths and great damage to the building and the country's international reputation" or something like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If "attempted coup" is too contentious, maybe we can just say "storming the Capitol during the counting of the electoral college votes". And look, even Fox News called the election for Biden. Only One America News Network and Newsmax, which are to the right of Fox News and so conspiratorial that I would even question whether or not they should be called "news", went with Trump's fraud claims. So objectively speaking, they were trying to overturn the election results. The dog2 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the relevance of the news networks. You are mistaken if you think Fox News dictates conservative thought/opinions. I'm sure they'd like to, but conservatives often roll their eyes at Fox News, and a lot of people at Fox were or were said to be anti-Trump. But anyway, I didn't object to saying that they wanted to overturn the results. I only said we need to state their motivations, so I think your suggestion is decent, because it doesn't editorialize, but to add their motivation, how about (I'll bold it for easy reference): "During the counting of the 2020 electoral college votes, pro-Trump protesters, who believed that the election was fraudulent, stormed the Capital Building with unclear intentions to somehow overturn the election results, which resulted in 5 deaths and [hundreds?] of arrests." I'd like to say more explicitly what the plan was, but my impression is that they didn't actually have a plan. What they did was ONLY bad for them, and I can't even dream up a hypothetical scenario in which what they did ends well for them or their cause. Even people who believe the election was suspect agree that storming the Capitol was stupid. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

That’s good wording but “somehow” unnecessarily makes it vague. Instead of “which resulted,” “resulting” because otherwise it sounds like the election results resulted in five deaths. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's a bit long, so here's what I suggest:

"During the counting of the 2020 electoral college votes, pro-Trump protesters, who believed that the election was fraudulent, stormed the Capitaol Building with unclear intentions to somehow in an attempt to overturn the election results. , which resulted in 5 deaths and [hundreds?] of arrests."

I think the "unclear intentions" part is unnecessary, because the main point is that they were trying to overturn the election results. How they wanted to do it is not important, and we're also trying to keep the blurbs from becoming unnecessarily long. And I'm also we need to mention the deaths and arrest. The storming of the Capitol in and of itself is unprecedented; this has not happened since the British invasion in 1814, and is the first time it has been done by U.S. citizens. Alternatively, we could mention the number of deaths, which we know is 5, but leave out the part on the arrests, since official figures have yet to be released. The dog2 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Still way too long. Remember, Trump's is already the longest of the 44 blurbs - by a significant margin - even without any of this additional information we're proposing to add. I did the math just now, and even if we used The dog2's shortened version, we'd be devoting over 20% of the text in the blurb to what is only one of a laundry list of shocking, disturbing, and unprecedented events that have occurred in the Trump presidency. I think the text I proposed is the best option presented thus far (and if we can't build consensus around "attempted coup", I like Granger's suggestion of "insurrection", which would even shorten the text a few characters further). I'm not married to that wording, but I would say that anything of significantly more length than my proposal would be overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I'm fine with your proposed wording in full, or with the substitution of "insurrection". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I mostly don't mind it, but still think the motivation is important. This is basically the same, but adds my bit and changes "his supporters" to "some of his supporters" so as to not conflate the two (again highlighted for quick and easy reference): "his single term coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which he was widely felt to have mismanaged, as well as widespread civil unrest, culminating in an attempted coup by some of his supporters who believed his 2020 election defeat was fraudulent and sought to overturn it." ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's worth trying to settle on a phrasing right now. Information is still emerging and further developments are likely before inauguration day. (For example, if Trump is impeached again, that will presumably need to be mentioned.) I suggest we revisit this after the inauguration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm also fine with waiting until inauguration day to finalise this. The dog2 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Trump almost certainly will be impeached, but we of course have to wait until the vote takes place to include that information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

As expected, the House has proceeded with a second impeachment of Trump. This is historically unprecedented and IMO the need to mention it in his blurb is self-evident, and I think this also takes care of any lingering doubts about whether to mention the storming of the Capitol, as it is the factor that led directly to this second impeachment. I will draft yet another new version of the blurb shortly, and then you all can share your feedback before it goes live. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I still think we're better off waiting until after the inauguration to try to settle on a phrasing. There's no need for these historical blurbs to keep up with news on a day-to-day basis, and there's still a significant chance of related developments in the next few days. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Granger. I can't imagine anybody being against mentioning this (was there even anyone in the previous discussion?), but at this point, the inauguration is less than a week away. It's a waste of time to write and discuss a blurb before then. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree, too. I mean, it's fine to write a draft, but it makes more sense to wait until inauguration day or probably a day or two after that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Let's hope we don't have too much to add to the blurb between now and then... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Let's wait until after Inauguration Day to draft a new blurb, but let's also not let this issue fall off our radar screen between now and then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think we can finally close the book on the Trump presidency and can go live with a new edit to the blurb about him anytime. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

How about this? Changes are underlined:

Wealthy real estate tycoon and media personality who was the first president to have held no prior elected or military office. His "America First" agenda involved restrictions on immigration, an expansion of the Mexican border wall, and relatively isolationist foreign policy. An extremely divisive figure, Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice: first after asking the Ukrainian government to investigate rival Joe Biden's son, and again after a mob of his supporters stormed the United States Capitol to try to overturn the 2020 election results. His single term coincided with widespread civil unrest and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which he was widely felt to have mismanaged.

I've summarized several of Trump's policies with the phrase "isolationist foreign policy". While the trade war, Paris Agreement, and so on are important, I'm conscious that the blurb should be kept to a length similar to the other presidents. Thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks fine to me too. The dog2 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

On the whole, that looks good to me, but IIRC (and I suppose I might be wrong) Trump's first impeachment had more to do with his role in the Russian government's interference with the 2016 election than with asking Ukraine to investigate Biden's son. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, maybe we should use the term "relatively isolationist" instead of just "isolationist". Trump came pretty close to starting a war with Iran, arguably paid mercenaries to launch an invasion of Venezuela (which failed), and continued the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, which are certainly contrary to true isolationism. Someone who is a true isolationist would be more along the lines of Thomas Massie, who is opposed to going to war unless America is attacked. The dog2 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with "relatively isolationist" on that basis. As for the reasons for the first impeachment, read the articles of impeachment here and draw your own conclusions. It's always been clear it was not primarily about the 2016 election. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with "relatively isolationist". —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've made the change.

@ChubbyWimbus: Is the wording good for you? The dog2 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it's probably as good and as short as it can be. Seems safe to say the blurb issue has been resolved. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the blurb on Eisenhower, I think we should briefly mention that he was the one who planned the D-Day invasion at Normandy. After all, that was probably what gave him the necessary fame to successfully run for the presidency. The dog2 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just that, or the totality of his record as Commander of the European Theater of Operations? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is a limit to how much we can fit in the blurbs but sure, I guess we could mention both. Or which do you think is more important to mention? The dog2 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anything needs to be added to the blurb about him. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

yeah, George Patton got the big Hollywood movie, but Ike did chew him up and put him aside of the main action, which this movie does not show. He also liked to cook outdoors, and barbecued a lot on the roof of the White House while he lived there.... where would we stop, eh. Ibaman (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are also some important foreign policy events we don't mention, including the CIA involvement with the overthrow of Mossadegh and Arbenz, and Eisenhower's Farewell Address, in which he warned about the military-industrial complex. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Farewell Address is memorable indeed, but paragraph size and spacing are real issues here. Ibaman (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If not for the limited space, I would have mentioned something about Eisenhower's farewell address, though unfortunately, it was not heeded by future American presidents. The dog2 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

No comment about possible reasons for their silence, but since space is an issue, we don't really need to add any of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

There's a new attriction in New York called the "Air Force One Experience" (https://www.airforceoneexperience.com/). It's not directly linked to any presidents as it's only a replica (still a real aeroplane but was never Air Force One). The attraction is not fully open yet, but once it is open, is it worth adding? -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

What pushes me off the fence into the "no" column is that the #Multiple presidents section includes an actual (retired) Air Force One plane that was donated to a museum in Seattle and can be toured by visitors, and strongly hints that others exist as well. A mere simulation of the same thing would strike me as both redundant and, from the traveller's perspective, clearly the inferior of the two options. It's a tough call, though, and both positions have merit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've found a couple other museums we list that have real planes that were used as Air Force One- Museum of the U.S. Air Force has one that was used by Kennedy thru Clinton, and the Reagan Library, used 1973-2001. We also already mention that the Air Mobility Command Museum has a plane that was mainly used as Air Force Two, but occasionally as Air Force One when Presidents visited smaller airports. JakeOregon (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here's an article that lists where all the old aircraft are. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know it is a minor quibble, but Hoover was actually a well known philanthropist before becoming president - this - and ironically a "he can get stuff done" reputation is what propelled him to that office. Among the biggest feathers in his cap are his relief effort for Belgium during the phase of the Great War when the U.S. was still officially neutral. He also had an extraordinarily long post-presidency (he post-deceased Kennedy) and an unusually travel-happy pre-presidency (he'd lived in China for a time). He was also something of a polyglot, translating w:de re metallica into English in an apparently still well-regarded translation. What's a bit sad is that he seems to have bought the hype of his opponents after leaving office (his actual policy vis-a-vis the Depression had actually not been "do nothing") and became something of a Libertarian-Conservative "think tank" leader avant la lettre. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think this is an OK thing to edit, by stating that he was also known as a philanthropist before and after his presidency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Re: this edit: I didn't think we'd be listing houses of presidents' brothers, sisters or what have you, though maybe we should if they visited frequently. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Best to avoid expanding this article's scope given that we're already flirting with the threshold of too many POIs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's a reasonable position, certainly. Any other opinions pro or con? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd say not given how many POIs we already have. The dog2 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:JakeOregon, would you like to argue for the listing before we delete it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reasonable points have been made on the length of this article and unwanted expansion of scope, so no, I don't object now to deletion. JakeOregon (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for understanding. I'll take care of this now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

this has been used by several presidents and candidates for the presidency but if I read WP correctly it is not open to the public. The article makes no mention of Biden's 2020 use of this specific vehicle, which may or may not indicate that his "whistle stop tour" was done with yet another rail vehicle. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nah, Biden’s too busy relying on Amtrak. JTZegers (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I say we should add the portraits, but only put the name in the caption, due to this article's history of political disagreements. I know this is a travel article, but wouldn't the travelers want to know who the Presidents looked like?--JTZegers (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why don't we add more photos of the destinations instead? I think that would be more interesting. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think most people who will look up this article have an idea what the recent presidents looked like. And for those who do not, there is Wikipedia. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

As discussed on your talk page, I agree with Granger and Hobbitschuster on this. This is how Wikivoyage stands apart from Wikipedia, as a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does its job; Wikivoyage does something different. Ground Zero (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do I understand correctly that this is a proposal to display portraits of every president on this page? In addition to the remarks above, which I agree with, that would grossly violate this site's Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

That policy is obsurd, but I'll go with it for the sake of not driving everyone nuts.--JTZegers (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's not absurd. This isn't Commons, and we don't want a whole bunch of images going past the end of articles on people's browsers, but if you want to try to reargue the consensus on it, do so with something more substantive than a dismissive adjective at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy. Otherwise, a glancing blow at it is not really the best way to engender good feelings here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I digress. Therefore, I won't put in the portraits, and we will have an "era of good feelings"--JTZegers (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think there were portraits of all presidents added, only that the first ones were removed before the last ones were inserted. Use the page history if you want to use them for something. –LPfi (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't wanna get in trouble, so I'll just let it slide.--JTZegers (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added a link to Space in Eisenhower's blurb, since Eisenhower was the one who started the Space Race. I didn't think it would be necessary to discuss on the talk page for a minor edit like this, but since JTZegers reverted, I'm putting that out here. The dog2 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Before you edit this page, a warning says:

“

To avoid having a lot of time spent editing the historical background on each president, any proposed changes to the blurbs must be approved by consensus on the talk page first, before they are made in the article. They are intended to be brief summaries only. Details can be found in corresponding Wikipedia articles. Edits made without prior approval will be reverted.

”

Apparently, you didn't know that. This means that you should have asked for a consensus before adding that link. I seriously thought JFK was the one who started the space race ("We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because it is easy but because it is hard"), but apparently not. I now ask, is it OK to put that link back?--JTZegers (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know the rule, and I was in fact involved in the discussion that led to the rule. But that applies only to substantive edits. Things like grammatical or spelling corrections, or other minor copyedits don't need to be discussed here. We apply the rule with a modicum of commonsense. So I don't think we need to discuss on the talk page simply adding a link. The dog2 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I apologize if my comment was a waste of time, I just didn't know the rule wasn't that in depth. However, I am now convinced that that link shouldn't be there whatsoever, because for people who wanna know what the space race was, enter Wikipedia. And @The dog2:, what discussion were you talking about? I'm just curious.--JTZegers (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

But people might be interested in visiting sites related to the Space Race, which is part of travel and within our scope. And our article on Space covers those sites. As for the discussion, it's the one above on goals and non goals. The dog2 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the link would be non-intrusive and useful for some readers, and agree that there was no problem in that The Dog2 plunged forward in adding it. On the other hand, if JTZegers thinks it isn't appropriate, then there is no problem taking it here either. For the comment on going to Wikipedia instead: should those articles never be linked or read? By approving their creation we implicitly say they can be linked, and Wikipedia can be reached via those articles instead (we don't link Wikipedia inline). –LPfi (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was a better idea to describe the space race on this article.--JTZegers (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

But you did not suggest that. And I think the link is non-obtrusive, while the Space Race cannot be described in one sentence. I don't think writing a paragraph on it here would be a good path (we'd have the blurbs be five paragraphs instead of five sentences). Linking Wikipedia directly might make sense, but we have chosen not to do so (see Wikivoyage:Sister project links). The Space Race is briefly explained in our Space article, and people can go on from there to Wikipedia instead, if they wish. –LPfi (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, let's talk about the 1948 election. It literally says that the upset led to the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline, but should I put down who Dewey was? I just think it could be a little more detailed.--JTZegers (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it's commonsense that Dewey was his opponent during the 1948 election. The dog2 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree with the dog2 here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

For me "won an upset re-election victory in 1948, leading to the 'Dewey defeats Truman' headline" is confusing: why would winning an election lead to a headline to the contrary? –LPfi (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

w:Dewey Defeats Truman; People at the newspaper Chicago Daily Tribune were so sure Dewey would win the election that they went ahead and printed and published it before the result was confirmed. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

(indent)It's like Newsweek's "Madam President" prints in 2016, but I think it could be worded better. Dewey's identity is obvious, but the phrasing is so clunky, it isn't immediately clear what the purpose of the sentence is. How about:
"With a national approval rating of just 36% heading into reelection, the Chicago Tribune distributed newspapers reading "Dewey Defeats Truman" leading to the infamous photo of Truman holding the periodical after his upset re-election."
This gives enough context to understand what "Dewey Defeats Truman" means, as well as referencing the photo, which is really what makes it such a famous and iconic moment and is currently not given reference. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The train station in front of which the photo was taken has a listing, so the details could go in the local description of that listing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I like that. JTZegers (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I recall reading that that election looked so much like a blowout that they stopped doing opinion polls of it several weeks before Election Day, then were surprised by the results. How many days before the election was that 36% approval rating recorded? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe they stopped doing polling of the two candidates but continued to do approval polls? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. That would be odd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek It took a bit of time to find that number, and I thought it was from one of the Wikipedia articles about the election however, now I can't seem to find where that percentage was from. I remember that the page/article that it was from at least implied that the approval rating was around the election however, it did not specify the date of it. It was frustrating trying to find such details about the election to write that blurb and it's even more frustrating not being able to find what I already found. We could say "With a national approval rating consistently under 40%" or something similar if we don't want to use an exact percentage.

I also think that Truman established some organizations such as the CIA, the National Security Council, and the NSA which I think are worth adding to his blurb. They've been strong parts of the US system since their establishment, they're still around, and they are also heavily criticized. These seem noteworthy. At the very least, I think the CIA should be mentioned. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The CIA was the successor to the wartime OSS, though:

On September 20, 1945, President Truman signed Executive Order 9621, terminating the OSS. The State Department took over the Research and Analysis Branch; it became the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, The War Department took over the Secret Intelligence (SI) and Counter-Espionage (X-2) Branches, which were then housed in the new Strategic Services Unit (SSU). Brigadier General John Magruder (formerly Donovan's Deputy Director for Intelligence in OSS) became the new SSU director. He oversaw the liquidation of the OSS and managed the institutional preservation of its clandestine intelligence capability.[66]

In January 1946, President Truman created the Central Intelligence Group (CIG), which was the direct precursor to the CIA. SSU assets, which now constituted a streamlined "nucleus" of clandestine intelligence, were transferred to the CIG in mid-1946 and reconstituted as the Office of Special Operations (OSO). The National Security Act of 1947 established the Central Intelligence Agency, which then took up some OSS functions. The direct descendant of the paramilitary component of the OSS is the CIA Special Activities Division.[67]

And here's what w:National Security Agency says: "Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Harry S. Truman in 1952." I'm not opposed to mentioning them, but I'd be concerned about oversimplifying their origins. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Given that the OSS was only established a few years earlier, namely for WWII intelligence, I think that establishing the CIA as an integral part of the US government beyond WWII intelligence gathering is important. I think the OSS origin can be given mention, though, as well as the NSA. They were both very new, so although I don't know if these organizations were given a lot of thought beyond WWII, but I do think Truman's decision to keep, consolidate (in some cases), support, and promote these organizations has significance. I agree that we don't want to mislead by implying that intelligence gathering itself was Truman's doing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that the establishment of these intelligence organizations was important. If it can be summarized in an informative, accurate way, I would support mentioning it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it was sufficiently brief and can be summarised in an accurate and informative way, I'm fine with adding it in. AndreCarrotflower seems pretty adept at creating these kinds of summaries, so would you like to give it a go? The dog2 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Before you edit this page, a warning says that you must get approval before editing a blurb. @The dog2: made an edit to Eisenhower's blurb without approval, adding a link to the space article. However, he has stated that he knows the rules, and was part of the discussion that lead, however didn't know that some people would think that would be unfair to have it only apply to substantial edits. But only substantial edits? I'm sorry, but no. I propose the rule applying to minor edits as well, [with the exception of spelling corrections, grammatical, or punctuation mistakes. Meaning that I propose applying the rule to adding links, changing the wording, etc – later addition].--JTZegers (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think this is one of the classic "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" disputes. The point of having that rule in place is so that the blurbs do not get too long, and people do not keep fussing over them. In addition, it also ensures that we can come to a suitable compromise so the blurb doesn't come off as politically charged. If we need to discuss every minor copyedit here, I feel that we'll just be wasting people's time. I just don't see the point of needing to bring it to the talk page everyone you want to correct spelling, grammatical or punctuation mistakes. These are commonsense things, and I don't see how any user acting in good faith can disagree with such edits. The dog2 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: You're missing the point, again. I'm not talking about correcting typos, I'm talking about adding links, changing the wording, etc. However, you're right on the waste of time part of your argument; typos are commonsense things, and discussing them would just be a waste of time. I don't propose that, I propose the rule applying to adding links or changing the wording.--JTZegers (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Generally, changing the wording by a lot will count as a substantive edit. Of course, whether or not an edit counts as substantive is sometimes debatable, but we can and should apply a modicum of commonsense to how we enforce the rule. As for links, new articles are being created all the time, and adding links to the blurb and redirect readers who are interested in that particular subject to the article. In addition, it doesn't lengthen the blurb or lead to a clutter or too much text, so I don't see the point in discussing every single link to be added. Of course, if you disagree on a particular link being added, as always, you are free to bring it to the talk page. The dog2 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict] Use the rule when you need it. If you don't have the sensibility to know what changes might be controversial, then suggest changes here. If you are sure nobody would disagree with you, then just plunge forward. If you get annoyed feedback, then be more cautious next time. If somebody makes a change you disagree with, take it here, if you don't, then you don't need to make a fuss about it. We don't like rule lawyering. –LPfi (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi:Yes, that's what I mean. And @The dog2:, you're still under scrutiny. To me it feels like adding that link was an example of poor judgement. I'm watching you.--JTZegers (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why do you say it's poor judgement? Someone reading the blurb might well be interested in visiting sites related to the Space Race, and the Space article is where we cover them. The dog2 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2:It felt that you didn't understand the rules, but now I know you do. Sorry for being so harsh.--JTZegers (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict] As I wrote above, I find the link unproblematic, not an example of poor judgement. Do you still question the link? Then please make your case there. –LPfi (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: I see many things wrong with it! The link was, in my opinion, useless, owing to Wikipedia's article on the Space Race. In addition, Wikivoyage only has exhibits related to the Space Race, which brings up my point on the Wikipedia article. I thought the better idea was to describe the space race on this article, instead of putting the link in to the Space article.--JTZegers (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to have a read through the discussion where the community decided by consensus to implement this rule. To me, it seems to be a violation of our tenet of Wikivoyage:Plunge forward. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nelson Ricardo 2500:Thanks for your curiosity, it's the one above on goals and non goals. I agree with your statement. It violates the Plunge forward policy, but it's goal is to not violate the Wikivoyage:Be fair act.--JTZegers (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I sort of agree with JTZegers here. This rule is sort if useless and it violates the plunge forward policy. If we can't handle that, then page protect it permanently. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's useless at all. Things may have calmed down now, when the article isn't new and Trump isn't president, but for articles that attract frequent not-so-well-though-out edits it is much easier to just revert and cite the rule than try to accommodate the changes, or start an argument on whether or not the addition adds value. Protecting the page is much less flexible, and makes the site feel like ruled by a cabal. –LPfi (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Plunge forward is not an invariable rule. For those who think it is, have you actually read the page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek is right. The page states directly that "plunge forward" can be or is likely to be impeded on high visibility pages (might apply here) and controversial edits, citing political edits and personal causes (which definitely apply here). Even with the discussion rule, there have been quite a bit of changes made to the article, so it doesn't seem to be hindering progress in the article. On the contrary, I think it makes people think twice about whether their proposed additions are truly necessary and encourages editors to put their energy and focus into creating listings, which are what actually make this a valid topic to begin with. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Yes, I have read the rule, and it means you have the right to edit whatever you want, however, I'll say this again: the rule's goal is to not impede the Wikivoyage:Be fair policy. It's goal is to have the history blurbs not be too long, and to protect against political disputes. "Don't worry about not being good enough"? I'm sorry, but the rule is basically promoting things being good enough, which is clearly against the policy. "Experimenting"? Well, I'll give you that. "Doing what's OK right now"? Once again, that means you need approval before it's OK, which is a waste of time. "Go ahead" before approval? Absolutely not. It violates three out of four principals in that rule, with the exception of experimenting. Besides, looking at my argument with The dog2, it seems he understands that the rule is there to prevent political disputes. But what's the point of that? All you need to do to prevent political disputes is to shut up about recent politics in the first place! It's commonsense, people.--JTZegers (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

First of all, plunge forward is not a rule, as in "You must plunge forward!" It's a suggestion. But in order to interpret the suggestion (guideline, whatever) the way you do, you have to have ignored the second section of that page, "...But don't be reckless!!" I suggest you (re)read it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Keep in mind these rules still only apply to the blurbs.

• Keep applying the rule to substantial edits, but also political disputes, promotional material, and personal causes that went on in American history. Watergate, Lewinsky, Teapot Dome, you name it, we'll talk about adding it.

• Only add links if you think they are useful, and if someone else disagrees, like what happened earlier, they have the right to remove it. This is inspired by my conversation with The dog2. If you think the link is useful, add it. If you don't know that or think it's unnecessary, don't add it.

• Expand the limit from 5 lines to up to 5 or 6 sentences. I originally said "1 paragraph", but a good point brought up by Ground Zero is that they don't have to be long paragraphs, so I changed it to 5 or 6 sentences.

• Keep the consensus part of the rule, for substantial changes to the blurbs, adding certain links, and controversial topics related the first one.

I guess this is one of those support/oppose conversations now. --JTZegers (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

"1 paragraph" is an imprecise rule that will lead to a lot more time spent editing and re-editing the descriptions. This is not a good use of anyone's time. We are writing a travel guide here, not an encyclopedia. Time would be better spent on writing about places that readers can visit related to this topic. Paragraphs are not limited in length. They can be as long or short as anyone wants. This is a recipe for a lot of squabbling. Ground Zero (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: You got a point, they don't have to be long at all, as long as it's enough to convey the information. Do you support the other ones?--JTZegers (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think that the "no edits without consensus" rule should continue to apply to the blurbs about the presidents. This is a travel guide. Endless fussing with the blurbs is counter-productive. We are not teaching history here. Adding in "massive" opens the door to spending more time writing about history (and arguing about history) than writing about travel. We don't need to go there. Ground Zero (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: These rules will still only apply to the blurbs. I understand this isn't a history textbook, and treating it like one is a recipe for disaster. I'm trying not to go that route.--JTZegers (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Controversial edits" is not a phrase that means the same thing to everyone. Are the existing blurbs really in need of editing? Ground Zero (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: Now you're just pushing my luck. These rules are just there in case they do, and I think some of them could use improvement. These rules are for the sake of everyone, not just me, and I think they're a little too far.--JTZegers (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with allowing edits to blurbs without consensus. I don't think we need to spend more time on them, and I think opening it up will lead right back to endless arguments. But let's see what other contributors think. Ground Zero (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: That's the opposite of what I just said. I'm not saying we should open it back up entirely, I'm saying that we should apply it to political disputes and change the limit from 5 lines to 5 sentences, just so it could meet the Plunge Forward policy, which this rule violates. I've already been involved in three arguments, adding that link, expanding Truman's blurb, and this, this week! The goal with these amendments is to prevent that.--JTZegers (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Plunge Forward is not scripture. This is a reasonable exception created by the special circumstances arising from this article. How long is a sentence? This 1000-page novel has 8 sentences. We don't need a rule to encourage people to write long, complex sentences that are out-of-place in a travel guide.

Anyway, if you make substantive edits that other editors disagree with, it will just result in your edits being reverted and having to discuss them on the talk page anyway. Given the history of this article, it is better that you get consensus on the talk page before making the edits. If you think improvements are needed, propose them here. But let's see what other contributors think. Ground Zero (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero:Ok, here's the last thing I need to say. I understand what it is, and I'll change the amendments to match what you are saying.--JTZegers (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) As far as I know there is no consensus for a "5 lines" rule. I would oppose such a rule as unworkably ambiguous – five lines on one screen may be only one or two lines on another screen. I agree with Ground Zero's general point that we should avoid wasting time on the blurbs. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

We all seem pretty agreeable, opposing the five-sentence part. @Ground Zero:, @Mx. Granger:, and future contributors, I ask you to place your vote below each rule (below). I know this seems unnessecary, but in my opinion, it's easier to move on to the next step (final draft of this) if you do so.--JTZegers (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The point of keeping the blurbs short is that readers shouldn't have to wade through a long, unreferenced biography of a president to get to the travel information. Granger is right that we don't have an absolute quantity limit, but requiring consensus for additions and changes is the way that we can prevent the blurbs from becoming too long. I think it would be better for you, JTZegers, to propose changes here first, rather than try to change the rules without other editors knowing what sort of changes you want to make. The fact that your changes led to arguments in the first place demonstrates the need for getting consensus first. It wasn't the rules that caused these disagreements, it was your changes. Ground Zero (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero:, please. It was actually The dog2's changes that caused the first argument, and I actually asked for a consensus before the second one.--JTZegers (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, JTZ. There is a lot to read through here, and I missed that. I don't mean to suggest that you are a problem here, only that given the history of the article -- way before you joined us -- disputes over the blurbs took up way too much time -- much more than they warrant-- and that is why I am opposed to relaxing the consensus rule or expanding the blurbs. Ground Zero (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: Yeah, no problem. No one is perfect. See, you only supported one of the rules, and the reason why you opposed two of them was my choice of words, but that's not a problem at all. It's only your opinion. We're all different sometimes. By the way, "substantial" was already in the rule. But let's see what everyone else thinks.--JTZegers (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and @Ground Zero:, is that person with no signature on #3 you? If so, add the signature; it's required on talk pages.--JTZegers (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm referring to the rule at the top of the edit screen: "... any proposed changes to the blurbs must be approved by consensus on the talk page first, before they are made in the article. They are intended to be brief summaries only. Details can be found in corresponding Wikipedia articles. Edits made without prior approval will be reverted. Other parts of this article aside from the historical background blurbs may be edited without restriction." Ground Zero (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: Ok, I'll give you that. But The dog2 said it only applied to substantial edits. I was talking about what he said, not what the article editing screen said. I apologize for the confusion. However, I'm glad you support extending the rule to controversal stuff. We still need more people in the decision-making process, but I'm sure they'll come.--JTZegers (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a need to change the wording. As I said, we apply the rule with a modicum of commonsense here. And the edit that sparked this off was just me adding to link to the Space article, which does not lengthen the blurb, and does not introduce or remove content. It's simply adding a link to another of our articles for readers who may be interested in that topic and want to see sites related to it. I really don't see why my edit is so controversial. To me, this is a minor edit that is along the lines of correcting typos, and nobody else seems to be so nitpicky about it. But as I said, you are very much free to argue why the link is inappropriate if you feel so strongly against it. The dog2 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: I didn't find it to be useful. That's all. As I said way too many times already, there's already a Wikipedia article on the Space Race. That's why it's so controversial. However, there's no need to convince me; I'm afraid I'm already a lost cause and I'm tired of having to bring it up.

In addition, @The dog2:, what caused this debate was actually my understanding that arguments kept happening despite this rule, and being involved in three of them really wasted my time. I'm doing this for the sake of WikiVoyage, not because you're in trouble, which you're not. I didn't mean to sound harsh. I am not the nitpicker on WikiVoyage; I am the always improving guy on WikiVoyage, who also happens to be a nitpicker. You are free to vote below.--JTZegers (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JTZegers, The dog2, Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, LPfi, Mx. Granger, Nelson Ricardo 2500: one question, why does this article exist now, when it was created by Libmod? Wouldn't it have been deleted by now? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 14:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Libmod created a list of presidents severwl years ago. This list was not controversial. The article was substantially created by other editors. Libmod made only a few edits, and I doubt that many of them have survived the very active editing this article has seen. Now, because of the experience with AC, we adopted a more aggressive approach to letting unwelcome editors know that we don't want their contributions by deleting articles they have created. If Libmod were to come back, we would do that with any new articles he created, but I don't think there is any merit in applying this policy retroactively. Ground Zero (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I also believe that this article exists because people might want to view attractions related to a specific commander in chief in American history, which I am okay with. This is, after all, a travel guide. However, people spent too much time on the history blurbs, and I think some of them are still too long. I also don't know what Libmod did wrong to have his account shut down. I'm kinda curious about that. I'm talking to you, @Ground Zero:. The rest of you can all convey your thoughts on why it exists now.--JTZegers (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JTZegers: here is that discussion. In short, he created a bunch of low-value articles on places in war zones, wrote stuff that was very politically slanted, and when he was called out, he went full-on into bigotry and vandalism. It was an easy decision. He may have started this article, but it was others who made it into a worthwhile travel article. Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero:, and his username sounds very poltitical. So there's that too. Anyways, back to why you think my proposals are a bad idea.--JTZegers (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, JTZegers, about a month ago, he created an account called Midwestern social democrat, where he created about two or three crappy articles, which were deleted per VFD. Then, on the same day, he created another account called User:Resident of Roberto and using that account, he created Roberto (Illinois). A few hours later, there was a discussion on the pub saying Roberto is not a real town. If you look at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, there's a full explanation. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What’s next? Anti-Trump Republican? He’s obviously out of his mind!—JTZegers (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You should also read this edit of his which came in bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 14:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

That explains to me what this dude was doing. Conspiring against people to try and shut down Wikivoyage. In addition, when he was called out, he went out to vandalism. He’s a dangerous man.—JTZegers (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. This adds "substantial" to the rule, which is not going to be interpreted the same way by everybody, and creates more room of edit conflicts. I don't oppose extending the rule to the other stuff listed. Ground Zero (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Substantial means major, according to most people.--JTZegers (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, so what’s the definition of major? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity: Any edit that's not minor, obviously. Big edits.--JTZegers (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

People can label "minor edit" as they choose. For example, would this be a major edit because it wasn't marked as a minor edit? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity: Not at all. But examining each edit would be a waste of time. We just need consensus in case someone does something large or controversial.--JTZegers (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is the status quo. I don't know what opposing it means. Does the proposal include adding this text somewhere? Or does it implicitly mean changing something else? –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: it includes changing the text on the warning when you go to edit this page.—JTZegers (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

In an unspecified way, then, as this wording is not appropriate for that warning. So after the vote we'd be arguing on how to change the text. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: I can come up with something. But for now, I'll just let it slide.--JTZegers (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Okay. Ground Zero (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Okay per GZ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 22:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Totally unnecessary, as anything can be objected to or taken to a discussion without any additional guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: This article has a history of political disputes, and they're mostly gone. The rule just doesn't go far enough, and that's why I'm proposing these changes. In addition, I am not the only part of the problem. I would like to add "However, if someone revokes it, don't make a hassle out of it."--JTZegers (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not adding useless links is common sense, we don't need policy for that. And reverting useless additions, and unnecessary ones, is also common practice. Here the threshold for reverting before discussing is lower than in other articles. We do not want language that excuses adding links from the general guidelines, as that would be something trolls would use. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. We don't need to encourage long sentences just to stuff more information in. Let's continue to control the length of the blurbs through consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Whoever this is, five lines on one screen may be two on another.

As Granger pointed out, we don't seem to have a "five line" rule. Ground Zero (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose per Ground Zero. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 22:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per others. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. Again, adding in "substantial" is problematic. Ground Zero (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, I mean major edits. And @SelfieCity:, that means big ones.--JTZegers (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose, per GZ. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 22:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• I oppose all these proposed changes and consider the assertion of an alleged need to change an alleged rule a total waste of time. Let's please avoid treating the discussion of Wikivoyage guidelines as tantamount to arguing about trivial points of law. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: The rule was there to prevent arguments. Arguments kept happening.

There's no way to absolutely prevent arguments. I think you created the problem this time by aggressively nitpicking in a legalistic way over a single link, but that aside, the consensus on this talk page has worked very well. You weren't here to see how things went before we came to the consensus, but I'm sure I won't be the only one to tell you that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I didn’t create the problem, I just felt the rule didn’t go far enough to avoid political dispute. Instead, the rule violated the "go ahead" Wikivoyage:Plunge forward policy with it's limit of lines, and violated the "changes to policy" section as well. We won't have that. Furthermore, it’s not “alleged”, it’s there for a reason. Sometimes being too smart is too dumb. JTZegers (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I agree with IK 23:21 UTC. What is needed is a sensibility for where consensus lies. Just discuss the proposed changes to the page instead of proposing changes to the rules. Only when people get bothered with having to discuss trivial changes, we might want this meta-discussion. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, that was a swift consensus. Turns out, most of my proposals faced swift opposition, as most people didn't like my choice of the word "substantial" or extending the limit. The only amendments that will pass are:

• Extending the rule to political disputes, promotional material, and personal causes. (passed 1-1, I broke the tie)
• If a link is added, it must be useful. If someone revokes your edit, they have the right to do so, however, you will face scrutiny if you make a big hassle about it. (passed 2-1)

Thank you for your time, even if it was a waste.--JTZegers (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wait. WV:Consensus is not about a majority vote. If an established user such as Ikan Kekek has strong opposition to the proposal, this should be addressed before amendments are passed and made into guidelines. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, @Ikan Kekek:, how about this. I expand the rule to political disputes, promotional material, and personal causes, but only if they are controversial. We stop rule lawyering. If you think a link is useful, add it. If you don't think a link is useful, don't add it. And if you think a link is going to be viewed as added unfairly and someone makes a big hassle out of it, don't add it in the first place. And don't even think about wasting anyone's time by discussing something that should have been discussed ages ago, or addresses one of your personal issues. I will be the first to admit, I am part of the problem. That's why I made these proposals in the first place. You like that?--JTZegers (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why do we have to have a consensus within two days? There’s no need to write aggressively to other users; just let the discussion continue for a while for consensus to develop naturally. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity: We don't, but this is one of those cases where it is pretty swift. And the way I write to the users isn't aggressive, it's just making sure they get my point. I'm just double-checking. And then they write aggressively to me.--JTZegers (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be in your best interests not to leave any more comments on this thread for a couple days. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

And the discussion continues!--JTZegers (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the reason for any change. When was there a big dispute on wording before today? Has it been years or just months? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: In 2019, when the rule was made, but it wasn’t until now when I realized that it’s been months, and yet we keep having political disputes with Trump. JTZegers (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As I said, I don't see any need to change the wording. And we had a discussion here on Trump's blurb earlier in the year when Biden was taking over, because we need to ensure we have a blurb that is sufficiently brief, fair and nonpartisan. And while the discussion was admittedly a little heated given how divisive a figure Trump is, we managed to come to a suitable compromise that all good-faith editors can live with. Since then I don't think the issue of Trump has really been brought up at all (but correct me if I'm wrong). Of course, if you want to make any changes to the Trump blurb, you're free to bring it up for discussion here. Biden's blurb will naturally have to be revised some time further into his presidency as we have a clearer view of his signature policies and achievements, but it's barely a few months into his presidency, so I suggest waiting until maybe the mid-terms for us to have a better idea on how to revise Biden's blurb. The dog2 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JTZegers: Please slow down! There's no rush. I suggest taking a step back and giving others time to consider and discuss. Don't try to ram changes through before everyone has even had a chance to comment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I oppose all of these. There have been no issues with the curating of this article thus far under our current guidelines. Rather I think our guidelines have proven to work well for this particular article. I don't see a purpose or benefit to any of the proposed changes and I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change, so if there is ambiguity regarding the consensus on any points, count me opposed on all accounts. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess you're right.--JTZegers (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

T. Roosevelt and F.D. Roosevelt have their initials in their section titles, the other presidents with shared surnames do not: John Adams & John Quincy Adams, George H.W. Bush & George Bush, William Henry Harrison & Benjamin Harrison, Andrew Johnson & Lyndon B. Johnson. Should this be addressed? It would be most helpful in the table of contents on the page banner. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll take care of that. That's kind of a no-brainer.--JTZegers (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do we really need to be listing individual golf courses? The "Trump 45" section, now that he's been fired, should be cut back to the same length as other one-term wonders like "Carter 39" at most. The Hollywood Walk of Fame should be moved to "multiple presidents" (as Reagan's on it), as should Mt. Rushmore (four presidents). The listings for Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower could be retained, with the rest of the Trump listings dropped as non-notable. The paragraph blurb could be left as-is.—The preceding comment was added by 66.102.87.40 (talk • contribs)

I’m not sure number of terms needs to affect blurb/section length. For example, Harrison’s blurb is as long as that of Monroe, even though one was in office 96 times the length of the other. Mt. Rushmore is not under any section currently and is kept in a separate article, though we could move the picture. I’m not sure Trump’s residencies, post-presidency, ought to be included as they are not open to most tourists at the moment (and the golf courses are not related to any presidential duties). The New Jersey residence should be removed I think. I’ve never heard of the state park before and it sounds interesting, though I’d assume it will be renamed (maybe Eric Adams Park or something) in the not so distant future and would then be removed from the list as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

They are associated with Trump to such a degree that his name is on them. If other presidents like Obama or Bush owned a golf course, a vineyard, a coffee shop, or even an abandoned building with their name on it, I think we would definitely list those. They would be valid tourist stops for someone interested in those presidents. As a businessman, Trump simply owns more visible stuff than others. If Trump's name is removed from one or more of the listings, I think removing them would make sense, but as long as they bear the Trump name, they're of some interest. To address what may be the heart of the inquiry: Time in office and your apparent dislike for this president are not valid reasons to delete information or listings. Adding these digs just makes your purpose seem entirely petty. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

A few things:

1. First, I agree with ChubbyWimbus that the way you've (IP user) presented the above comment is concerning, if not in outright violation of Wikivoyage:Here to build a travel guide. I didn't pay this too much attention during my first comment but it's best to stay travel-focused on this website and avoid statements that amount to personal disputes. Please remain civil on-wiki when discussing public figures, whether or not you like them.
2. Your actual point is valid. This article is about the presidents and presidential duties. Previous careers and ventures such as real estate don't belong in this article. You'll notice that — using your example, Carter — there's little mention of his peanut farm, since it's not important to his presidency. Reagan's article doesn't even mention his acting career apart from "movie star," though he was known as an actor until he became governor of California. I don't agree with Trump's section, or any other president for that matter, focusing more on his life as a celebrity than the focus of the article, which is the presidents.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm with SelfieCity here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The attitude around this article seems off to me. Maybe it's just veiled Trump hatred, but I don't see the point in NOT wanting listings related to the presidents in their subheadings or to limit it so much as to make it difficult to add anything for most presidents. This is a response to what is written above, but I think there is a clear disconnect between editors and travelers in terms of what they care about and how an article like this could be useful or even the more basic question of who this article is meant for or if there is any traveler in mind at all.

To me, the article is about the presidents wholesale, and each president's listings should consider what might be of interest to someone with an interest in that particular president. Lots of childhood homes are listed, for example. The limits proposed of keeping it limited to their presidential terms would suggest deleting these. There have been no 10 year old presidents, after all, but these are extremely popular presidential tourist spots. People interested in all or specific presidents want to visit these. What about the statues and monuments? Carter's peanut farm (brought up above) is very well-known. If it still exists and is not off-limits, I would consider that to be a good addition. People interested in Carter would almost certainly be interested in it. Not listing it because it's not "presidential" misses the spirit of the article from a traveler's perspective to me. Curating the article should not be the focus of the article. Not a lot of important political events take place outside of Washington DC and foreign countries, but people want to learn more about or feel "closer" to presidents by visiting more personal locations. Limiting it to their presidential terms and specifically places where they did something politically significant goes against the spirit of the article and I think goes against ttcf. I did not add any of the Trump listings, but when I read them, they all seem to be within the scope of the article if I consider whether or not they would be of interest if I were someone looking into Trump-related tourism/places of interest. It's really not a very big list (and more listings doesn't mean "better president" nor does less mean "worse president" if that immature sentiment is driving this). If it were to get "yuge", we can do what we always do; give Trump his own article. The attitude surrounding this article seems antagonistic towards the traveler's interests. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Time for In the footsteps of Donald Trump ;) I'm not sure presidents should get their own articles anytime soon. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with ChubbyWimbus' remarks above except that no way would I want this site to ever put its fingers into a light socket by having an article specifically concentrating on Donald Trump, not because of what I think about him but because it would entangle us in controversy that can and should be avoided and isn't needed in a travel guide. But coverage of points of interest related to Trump in this article is totally appropriate and shouldn't be limited for any political reasons.

However, I think the IP user is right that the Hollywood Walk of Fame and Mt. Rushmore should be listed under "multiple presidents". I also think that there may be cases of presidents who were famous in other roles, such as Eisenhower, for whom there are so many points of interest specifically relevant to their pre-presidential role that they are best listed in other articles, with links to those articles in their sections here. I'm not saying we necessarily need to do this with Eisenhower, but we can deal with this pragmatically on a case-by-case basis.

As a side comment, I don't agree with the IMO very harsh remarks about User:66.102.87.40. Sure, it's definitely best to avoid unnecessary political rhetoric, but that's because political arguments are off-topic and an unhelpful distraction from the work of improving a travel guide, not because Wikivoyage has a policy of finger-wagging against negative remarks toward any public figure and requiring "civility" toward them, which would be a dangerous policy a lot of regimes would love to use to censor accurate descriptions of violence and corruption in the countries they rule. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't have an issue with moving Mt. Rushmore and Hollywood Walk of Fame information to "multiple presidents." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I support moving Mount Rushmore to multiple Presidents but oppose moving the Hollywood Walk of Fame there. Reagan and Trump were former actors, but this is a unique trait for both of them.--JTZegers (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's a reasonable position. I have no strong feelings about this; either way is defensible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

What JTZegers says makes sense to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Trump wasn't an actor. He was just a reality TV host, and that is what he got his star for. But that said, I think leaving the Hollywood Walk of Fame stars under each individual president makes sense, given that it's quite long, and people who are interested in Reagan or Trump will want to be able to find the precise locations of their stars. As for Mount Rushmore, I support moving it to "multiple presidents". The dog2 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, I agree with moving Mt Rushmore to "multiple presidents," and I can follow the reasoning of others who would oppose moving Hollywood Walk of Fame listings. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

And by the way, I also agree with ChubbyWimbus that we should add a listing for Carter's peanut farm if it can be visited, or at least viewed from the outside by the public. The dog2 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above to keep the Walk of Fame listings under those presidents. In addition to what was said above, Trump's star was often vandalized/destroyed during his presidency by his detractors, so his star actually gained some political relevance beyond honoring him for his career in entertainment. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ChubbyWimbus: Why don't you go ahead and add the listing for Carter's peanut farm, since you seem to know most about it. And I think there is also a Carter peanut statue somewhere that people might be interested in. The dog2 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Carter's peanut farm is well-known trivia (or was when I was in school at least), but I don't know the details about it that would be needed to give it a listing. I don't know where it is located, who currently owns it, if it's still a peanut farm, nor if it's accessible. I did add the peanut statue, though. That's what comes up when trying to search for the farm. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware that Biden surrendered Afghanistan, rather I thought he has withdrawn troops, followed by occupation of some cities. Has "surrendered" terminology been widespread or is this factually incorrect? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, he has effectively surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban, but our travel guide isn't improved when unregistered editors add inflammatory opinion-based political comments to our articles. I reverted it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for the second opinion. I’m pleased to see this user has moved onto starting a travel topic, Enclaves and Exclaves, which has potential, although we’ll need to watch this isn’t a returning user. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Biden is the current president and these events are ongoing. Just like we did with Trump, we should avoid trying to write a live play-by-play. Biden's blurb should remain relatively generic and eventless until he is out of office and we can look at the totality of his presidency, his policies, public opinion, the effects of his presidency/policies on the US and the world, etc. I don't think now is the right time. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree with GZ here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The events aren't "ongoing", nor is this merely "the occupation of some cities". It's over. NATO lost. The Taliban won. The Untied States of America has been defeated, much like it was defeated by the Viet Cong in the 1970s. We don't need to wait three or four years to decide whether a disaster worthy of the Fall of Saigon will be part of Bidan's legacy; it *is* Biden's legacy and is now part of the history, regardless of whatever else he accomplishes or doesn't accomplish in his lone term in office. The question isn't whether to mention this, it should instead be how to word this to put this information in its proper perspective next to the other vital data on this page, such as the list of golf courses which are here only because they bear Trump's name. Q788771 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It was the Afghan government that surrendered and their troops that didn't fight. The U.S. is withdrawing, not surrendering, or at any rate, the point could be argued. What would be uncontroversial would be to state that Biden "completed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, honoring an agreement made by Donald Trump". But that withdrawal isn't completed yet, so at least wait a few days. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with waiting a few days, and that we should avoid using the word "surrendered" because it is politically contentious. Let's just keep the blurb factual, and say that he completed the withdrawal. The dog2 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Biden completed the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, leading to that country's near-immediate defeat at the hands of the Taliban". To mention the withdrawal and not mention the rest of this is too incomplete to be useful, given the near-Saigon conditions around this withdrawal. Q788771 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Look at Nixon's blurb, and we just mentioned that he withdrew U.S. troops from Vietnam, and don't go into more detail. Yes, we know what happened, but realistically, this was going to happen whenever the U.S. withdrew, whether it's now, in 5 years or in 20 years. The Taliban are terrible and I'm no fan of them, but the Afghan military were better equipped, better trained and had superior numbers to the Taliban but still lost without putting up a fight, so that tells you everything you need to know. The dog2 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with The dog2, we don't need detail here. Biden obviously has responsibility for this, but so does Trump:

""[B]y the way, I started the process. All the troops are coming back home. They couldn't stop the process. 21 years is enough. Don't we think? 21 years. They couldn't stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process ... It's a shame. 21 years, by a government that wouldn't last. The only way they last is if we're there. What are we going to say? We'll stay for another 21 years, then we'll stay for another 50. The whole thing is ridiculous. So we're bringing our troops back home from Iraq. We're bringing troops come from Afghanistan." -- Donald Trump, June 2021

So how about we not argue about the Biden legacy during the Biden presidency? We don't have to worry about providing a "complete" description of anyone's legacy. Readers aren't looking for astute political analysis in this travel guide, so let's focus on being a good travel guide instead of political commentary. Ground Zero (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. For the record, The West failed in creating a society that would unite the Afghans, that would be universally thought of as possible to maintain and worth fighting for. Do the real local leaders in Afghanistan think the Taliban are worse than any warlord not their own? We did give hope and a better time for many women, girls and some other people. but we never succeeded in creating working democracy (and thus in getting anybody to believe in democracy) or in fighting poverty (did we even try?). With the Taliban Afghanistan may at last get peace, which at least younger generations have never seen. I don't blame the Afghans not wanting to give their life for eternal war and rule by warlords as the alternative to Taliban rule. –LPfi (talk)

I'd say none of this stuff should be included in the blurb, at least right now while the situation is changing daily and its significance in the scope of Biden's presidency is unclear. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

We do have to update George W. Bush's blurb though. For all intents and purposes, America has lost and the Taliban has won, and it doesn't seem like Biden is going to send troops back to continue the fight, so it's no longer "ongoing". Whatever U.S. troops remain are just to coordinate the evacuation through Kabul airport, but they'll probably be gone once the evacuation is complete. The dog2 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

In all due caution, we should wait until all U.S. troops are well and truly out of Afghanistan before updating that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I updated the W blurb by removing "and still ongong", which is no longer correct in the case of Afghanistan, and isn't needed in the case of Iraq, although it isn't incorrect in the latter case. Ground Zero (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would have waited. I hope we don't have to change either back. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Looks like the evacuation is over, and the U.S. has completely pulled its forces out of Afghanistan. Should we update Biden's blurb then? The dog2 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Does Biden think the massacre at the airport was paid for with the drone raid? If not, I suppose USA is still militarily engaged in Afghanistan. –LPfi (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is it important that we report on the day-to-day changes in the situation, or should we focus on travel information? I do not see the need for providing this commentary, even if it is accurate. Is "and still on-going" essential for understanding the presidency of GW Bush? Readers wanting to know more about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should not be looking to Wikivoyage for this information. Ground Zero (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's really not important to update the blurbs on a daily basis. Let's revisit this in a year or three. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am objected to yet another link added. This time, for good reason. There has been a link put on Monarchy of the United Kingdom, but I don’t find that we need they here, since this article is about historical sites related to US presidents and US presidents only. We need a concensus: should we keep the link or should I revert it? JTZegers (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Revert, and the same with the corresponding link you allude to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

rvv per Ikan. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You folks have this listed under FDR. Shouldn't it be under "multiple presidents" as, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Astoria_New_York it was also the residence of Herbie Hoover for thirty years after his retirement? According to the Encyclopaedia Galactica entry over there "The most expensive room, the Presidential Suite, is designed with Georgian-style furniture to emulate that of the White House. It was the residence of Herbert Hoover from his retirement for over 30 years" —The preceding comment was added by 204.237.90.222 (talk • contribs)

That makes sense, thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, I was only aware of its connection to FDR. But if it was the residence of Herbert Hoover too, then yes, it makes sense of move it under "multiple presidents". The dog2 (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to make a small change to the policy on requiring that all blurbs have to have consensus. Namely, I'd like to create an exception for the following:

1. MoS fixes, such as tdf fixes, or capitalization
2. Fixing typos (which isn't exactly MoS related).
3. Fixing syntax (in a technical sense)

Current policy says that all blurbs need to have consensus, but surely this has to be an exception. I don't think I even need to explain why. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Restored Mansion at James Madison's Montpelier.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Metadata credits Kenton Rowe, a professional photographer, doesn't match the uploader name (Thomas K. Madigan?)." Seems like it has to be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Very likely a copyvio. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply