Talk:Presidents of the United States Voyage Tips and guide

The dog2 mentioned it in the Trump discussion, but I think it's easier to discuss independently, so to get all of the blurbs up to date, I propose, using the opening from Thedog2's wording (additions in bold):

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 of a return to normalcy. Concerns over his age and mental faculties led him to bow to pressures to end his reelection bid 4 months prior to the election. His Vice President replaced him as the presidential nominee but ultimately still lost to Trump. As of 2021, the oldest person to assume the office, and will be the oldest person to do so when he leaves office.

Trying to keep the "recency bias" mentioned above in mind, I whittled down the post-Biden part of the election to just who replaced him (his VP) and that the switch out was ultimately still not successful. Previously I had written that he did not seek reelection but realized that that was factually inaccurate, since he went through the entire reelection nomination, so I think it must be said that he ENDED his seek for reelection. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I oppose spending a lot of time re-writing this before his presidency is over. The above text is contentious, and I don't think we should argue over it now. Ground Zero (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

His presidency is now over, so we should update this. With only slight changes from above, I propose (new text in bold):

"A former long-serving senator from Delaware and Vice President under Barack Obama. Elected to office amid the COVID-19 pandemic on the promise of a return to normalcy. Concerns over his age and mental faculties led him to bow to pressures to end his reelection bid 4 months prior to the election. His Vice President replaced him as nominee but ultimately still lost to Trump. The oldest person to ever serve in the office." ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is his age and the ended run for a second term really the most important things to tell about him? That's what people remember now, but after a year, I suppose what he actually achieved (and the circumstances under which achieving much was difficult) will be seen as more important. Is there nothing to tell about that? –LPfi (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

He and the Federal Reserve saved the country from the likelihood of a depression or deep recession, presided over a term in which there was economic growth and an increase in employment every month, remarkable in comparison to every other country, and got huge public works projects passed, notably including the largest one in U.S. history focused on clean energy infrastructure and conversion from a fossil fuel economy. I don't think Trump will be able to annul all of that, but it's hard to know just how much of what Biden did will survive. So indeed, how should we handle this at this point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, something travel-relevant is how much park land and otherwise protected land Biden added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

To answer the question above: Yes, the ending of his bid for reelection is the most important thing to say here. Most presidents serve 8 years, so we don't have to say why they left office, because the answer is simply that they served the maximum time that they could. Any president who serves 4 years (or any amount other than the full 8) should be explained. I agree that it is difficult to say Biden has many accomplishments as we don't know which if any will actually have any long-term affects. I would avoid touting anything about the economy given that the poor economy and lack of faith that Biden could fix it was/is a sentiment felt by the majority of Americans and the refusal of Harris to distance herself from Biden, particularly on the economy, is one of the most commonly stated reasons why she lost. In time, perceptions may change, but I think it would read as very biased to claim that the economy was something he was championed for when it's closer to the opposite.

With that said, some of the other suggestions seem good. If his clean energy bill was the largest in US history, even if it all goes away (or perhaps especially if it goes away), I think that is noteworthy. The largest expansion of park and protected lands is also okay, I think. Taking these factoids, is it better now (new additions in bold):

"A former long-serving senator from Delaware and Vice President under Barack Obama. Elected to office amid the COVID-19 pandemic on the promise of a return to normalcy. Under his presidency, he passed the largest clean energy bill in American history and oversaw the largest expansion of national parks and protected areas by any president. Concerns over his age and mental faculties led him to bow to pressures to end his reelection bid 4 months prior to the election. His Vice President replaced him as nominee but ultimately still lost to Trump. The oldest person to ever serve in the office." ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is fine, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jimmy Carter just passed away, so he is no longer the oldest living ex-president. That needs to be removed. We should instead say that he is the longest-living president in U.S. history, which is true as of now. And speaking of which, Nixon's blurb has a mistake. All Nixon did was to kickstart rapprochement with communist China because Henry Kissinger saw the Sino-Soviet Split as an opportunity to use China to contain the Soviet Union. It was Jimmy Carter that formally established diplomatic relations with the PRC, so that should be mentioned in Carter's blurb, while Nixon's blurb should corrected to just mentioning his meeting with Mao. The dog2 (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with these proposed changes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seeing no objections, I've made these changes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should briefly mention that he met with Mao, since the photos of Nixon with Mao are quite well-known. The dog2 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Separate note (I agree with the proposed changes), but I recently wrote an article about Plains, which is dedicated almost entirely to sites related to Carter. (There is little else there.) Could we add a "See also" to the top of the Carter section with a link to that article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have two listings here for him that seem to be in Plains. If the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site here is identical to the Jimmy Carter National Historic Park there, then I think that linking Plains in also that listing (which now has a link to Classic Heartland of Georgia instead) would be enough and that a see also to a city article could be confusing. –LPfi (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've added a mention of Mao as suggested, and I've adjusted the listing in Georgia. Apparently Jimmy Carter National Historic Site was renamed as Jimmy Carter National Historical Park a few years ago. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great. Thanks for the input and research. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

With the yesterday's changes, we now say that Joe Biden is 'the oldest person to ever serve in the office'. I think that's a bit strange, as Trump (unless I am mistaken) is older now than what Biden was when assuming the office (born in June and November respectively), and if something unexpected doesn't happen, he will be older than Biden at the end of his term. If we mention the age, we probably should mention also the age of Trump or restore the 'when he leave [left] office' –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do we even need to mention that? I don't see how that is relevant to travellers. --SHB (t | c | m) 08:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

What kinds of things do you think are? I thought the idea was to summarize the best-known facts about each president, but if you can think of a way to make all the blurbs more travel-relevant, do tell. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think most of the blurbs are fine, but for something like oldest president, it changes and in this case, needlessly nuanced to mention. --SHB (t | c | m) 09:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly something Biden was known for. But we should wait for all the, um, events of the second Trump term before editing the blurb for him further. If he invades Greenland, we should probably add that...Also, it should be needless to say, but we shouldn't assume he will serve till the end of the term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I 100% agree with you. --SHB (t | c | m) 10:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

As of now, it's true that he's the oldest person to serve in the office. But I'm fine removing it for now. And yes, if Trump invades Panama and Greenland and annexes Canada, that should go in his blurb, but that hasn't happened yet. It is also possible that Trump is just using this threat as a negotiating technique to arm twist Panama and Denmark into blocking China from using the Panama Canal and the Arctic passage for shipping. The dog2 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should Trump serve a full four-year term, he will become the oldest. As of now, the oldest to ever serve served on January 19, 2021, and that's Biden. Purplebackpack89 17:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

John Adams' article contains the sentence:

Lost reelection in part due to the "three-fifths clause" of the Constitution that gave more electoral weight to the South (which supported Jefferson).

That's rather ancillary for a bio this short. I would like to replace it with:

Adams' presidency was dominated by tensions with France and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lost reelection.

Purplebackpack89 15:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with adding your first sentence. I'm neutral on whether the new blurb should be A or B:

A. First Vice President and also one of the founders. Adams' presidency was dominated by tensions with France and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lost reelection in part due to the "three-fifths clause" of the Constitution that gave more electoral weight to the South (which supported Jefferson).

B. First Vice President and also one of the founders. Adams' presidency was dominated by tensions with France and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lost reelection.

If people feel that Description A is not too long and it's important to mention the effects of the 3/5 rule, we should keep it. Otherwise, B is fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I like version B. I don't think the "three-fifths clause" is particularly relevant to a traveller trying to decide whether they're interested in historic sites related to John Adams, so I would remove it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I take your point. On the other hand, would they want to visit historic sites related to him because he imposed dictatorial laws? I guess maybe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems more relevant to me. I might choose to visit a historic site because I'm interested in something the president did, or choose not to visit the site because I disapprove of something the president did. As far as I can see, the "three-fifths clause" doesn't really have much to do with John Adams or his presidency, it's just one of the factors that indirectly led to him losing re-election.

Part of the value of the blurbs is also to jog readers' memory. I might read the blurb and think "Oh right, he's the Alien and Sedition Acts guy". I'd be unlikely to think "Oh right, he's the guy who lost reelection because of the three-fifths compromise". —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's sensible. I agree. So let's make the change if no-one objects within a day or two. It could always be edited again if someone has another suggestion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think if a president doesn't serve 8 years, it's important to try and briefly state why. It's an important part of any president's legacy. I think the new information is fine but the explanation for his loss is of interest and should stay, so I think A is much better. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the case, but I think there are many technical reasons by which one can lose an election, from some state deciding to turn to the winner takes it all (not many left to do that, but resulting in minority-supported presidents) to a change in election district borders (done routinely in odd ways, I've understood). The "three-fifths clause" might be similar in effect to many other reforms or political decisions. Was the clause more important to his loss than some seemingly minor decision he took, which upset some significant minority somewhere? –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't know about the Electoral College, I take it. "Winner take all" is the normal outcome in every state and the District of Columbia and has enabled several candidates to win in spite of losing the popular vote nationwide, most recently Trump in 2016 and G.W. Bush in 2000. And yes, the 3/5 rule was extremely important because it gave the South hugely outsized electoral power and ensured that a civil war was the only way to get rid of the Fugitive Slave Act and its enforcement by a Supreme Court which was stacked with Southerners. That law required Northern free states to arrest runaway slaves and return them to their masters. It was sometimes ignored but was an assault on the "states' rights" of Northern states and made them directly complicit in a form of persecution and theft of work they had abolished locally by popular agreement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree about necessity of stating why they didn't serve 8 years. In spite of several recent presidents serving 8 years, it's actually not that common to serve 8: only a third (14/45, including FDR's 3+ terms and Cleveland's non-consecutive term; will be 15 if Trump serves out this term) of U.S. presidents served 8 years. Purplebackpack89 17:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I do think that it should be added (or clarified) that he successfully prevented the war with France (which many were hungry for). Him being called the "Father of the American Navy" for building up the Navy to compete on the world stage (or battle France if his talks failed), and the aquisition of the Mississippi Territory were also noteworthy. He was also a vocal opponent of slavery. He advocated for gradual emancipation of slaves in order to avoid upheaval in the newly-formed nation.

Significant post-presidency: After his presidency, he continued to advocate against slavery and was responsible for initiating the vote that led to the removal of The Gag Rule which was passed by the House to prevent discussing issues relating to slavery to maintain "unity" in the House between northern and southern members. His argument was that it violated the constitutional right to petition and was a form of censorship. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're right: these are all very significant. Could you propose a form of words that covers all of this briefly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some of the things you listed are John QUINCY Adams, not John Adams. And it's more verbose than is needed here. Purplebackpack89 17:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here is my proposed blurb (excluding the Gag Rule information which was Quincy Adams). It's not all mine, but I didn't bold anything, because so much is rewritten/reframed:

• First Vice President, one of the founders, and a vocal opponent of slavery who never owned slaves in spite of his wealth. Known as the Father of the American Navy for building up the Navy during the Quasi-War with France. His ability to end the war through diplomacy when much of his cabinet wanted war is often overshadowed by his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Acquired the Mississippi Territory. Lost reelection in part due to the "three-fifths clause" of the Constitution that gave more electoral weight to the South (which supported Jefferson).

This includes all of what was written above (excluding the improper citations and the information about his specific philosophy on the best way to end slavery). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, absolutely not to this version. It's far too detailed for a travel page and, as I said above, the slavery stuff is John QUINCY Adams Purplebackpack89 22:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying John Adams didn't oppose slavery? I'm ok with this blurb, with 2 exceptions: I'd suggest deleting the last sentence, as it's the least important thing in the list, and I'd delete that he didn't own slaves in spite of being rich, as it was normal for rich people not to own slaves in Massachusetts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Purple: Nothing in the new version relates to Quincy Adams. John Quincy Adams was not the only president to oppose slavery. John Adams and many others also talked about "slavery stuff". On it being "too detailed", it's 5 sentences (possibly 4 if consensus is to remove one). If we can define a presidency (it includes the good and the main critique) in so few sentences, I don't see the need to be so aggressively anti-informative. We shouldn't take for granted that readers already know what he did and what was significant about him and his presidency (or any other president and presidency). We need to say those things. That's what will inspire travel and interest in the president. That's what will make someone take the time to look at the listings.

Ikan Kekek: Could we remove "in spite of his wealth" but not that he never owned slaves? I believe that was a unique characteristic of him. Other founding fathers who voiced opposition to slavery all seemed to have owned slaves at some point, so it seems notable that this one spoke out AND never involved himself in it. He spoke openly about that being a moral and conscious decision rather than just happenstance or inability to afford them. When you say "the last sentence", are you circling back to the argument to remove the 3/5 compromise or do you mean MY last addition about the Mississippi Territory? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ChubbyWimbus This isn't Wikipedia; it's not this project's job to provide detailed biographies Purplebackpack89 16:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm saying in this context, the sentence about the 3/5 rule is the least important thing, so I'd remove it. On owning slaves, who among the Founding Fathers from Massachusetts or New England generally ever owned slaves, and which Northern presidents ever owned slaves? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's fair; New England was NOT subdivided into plantations and Adams was less landed than the Virginians. But that's too in the weeds for a travel article; plantations vs small farms is probably more appropriate in the articles about Virginia and New England than here. Purplebackpack89 17:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm saying opposition to slavery wasn't a major tenet of the senior Adams' career, especially not in the way it was with his son. Purplebackpack89 16:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek: I'm okay with removing the ownership details, and although I do find the 3/5 compromise information to be interesting and I do prefer having the descriptions say why someone was not reelected, but there is at least a weak consensus to remove it, and I do agree that it's the least personal thing to Adams there, so I'll cross it off as well.

Purple: This is the "Presidents of the United States" article. Presidents are people. Information about people is going to be biographical in nature. It's now just 4 sentences long but appeals to a lot more potential travelers (those interested in slavery, the US Navy, diplomatic successes, Mississippi, Alabama, US expansion). I think the 4 sentences do a lot for travelers and don't constitute such a length that would be described as "too detailed" or a "Wikipedia biography". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to put the most recent proposal here, because I think striking it out from above makes it harder to follow the discussion, even for myself, and I want to be clear about what is or isn't agreed upon:

First Vice President, one of the founders, and a vocal opponent of slavery. Known as the Father of the American Navy for building up the Navy during the Quasi-War with France. His ability to end the war through diplomacy when much of his cabinet wanted war is often overshadowed by his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Acquired the Mississippi Territory.

Is this okay? I think it reads better and in the case of this president, covers basically all the major points of his presidency in just a few sentences. I also think the additions are of interest to travelers or potential travelers. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm ok with it. I'd add "Also" at the beginning of the last sentence, just so the paragraph could flow a bit better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Currently it reads: Calvin Coolidge (R), 1923–1929 — Presiding over a politically uneventful economic boom, Coolidge's economic policies (tax cuts, disdain for government regulation of business) had much in common with today's Republican Party; his relatively outspoken support for civil rights did not.

I think the last sentence should be reworded for a few reasons: 1. The factual accuracy is disputable and not worth debating when it isn't even about the president.

2. Conflating civil rights issues in the 1920s with modern social issues is deceptive and sloppy writing.

3. Inserting modern political commentary into past president descriptions is unnecessary.

4. We advise against using dated language. The use of "today's" dates the statement.

I think the message that it's trying to get across is that he may have been a true "fiscally conservative, socially liberal"-type and I think it's better to state that outright rather than inserting modern politics. I also think adding the context of entering and exiting makes it more complete, so I propose changing his blurb to (changes in bold):

Calvin Coolidge (R), 1923–1929 — Harding's Vice President who became president after Harding died while in office. Presiding over the Roaring Twenties, a politically uneventful economic boom, Coolidge encapsulated the fiscally conservative, socially liberal archetype with his conservative economic policies (tax cuts, disdain for government regulation of business) and relatively outspoken support for civil rights. He served 2 years in Harding's place plus an additional 4 years after winning his own election but did not seek reelection, stating that 10 years was too long.

To be honest, I think a lot of our descriptions are very choppy. The ones that state why they were elected (or in this case how they became president) all read better to me than those that spurt out random events that occurred. I also think the quote from the Adam's discussion about making the descriptions "relevant to a traveller trying to decide whether they're interested in historic sites related to [president]" would require a lot of rewrites if that is a goal. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The entire current blurb is one sentence long. Here's the sentence:

"Presiding over a politically uneventful economic boom, Coolidge's economic policies (tax cuts, disdain for government regulation of business) had much in common with today's Republican Party; his relatively outspoken support for civil rights did not."

Who in today's Republican Party is an outspoken supporter of civil rights? The statement is factual. And in any case, the virtue of the current blurb is its brevity. Your suggested substitute is overly long, especially for a fairly insignificant presidency. I could get behind using your first sentence minus the parenthetical phrase if others agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the current version to Chubby's proposed version. Chubby's is too long and mentioning that Coolidge did not seek re-election in 1928 is not necessary. I would also exclude "socially liberal" as it's forcing a modern term before it was used; a better way of saying it was that Coolidge believed in limited government. Purplebackpack89 17:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The present-day Republican Party is not opposed to Civil Rights, either and per point 2, lynchings were one of the most prominent civil rights issues during Coolidge's presidency and one that he addressed. "Today's Republican Party" would also not support lynchings, so they align with Coolidge on that. But again: What is the need to insert "today's Republican Party" references at all? As I said, trying to define the modern Republican Party in order to write a description for Calvin Coolidge is unproductive and unnecessary. We shouldn't need to define and parse through civil rights issues and try to find out where each current Republican representative stands in order to write a blurb for a president that served 100 years ago. And dated language is still not permitted language, so it needs to be changed either way.

Regarding "Brevity", the point should be not to get too into the weeds by trying to write essays about every little thing that happened in an entire presidency (as well as to avoid partisan political descriptions). I think the brevity argument is being misused when we're saying you can't say the most basic facts, like clarifying if they died, lost, or chose not to run for reelection. We should still try to make the descriptions interesting enough to potentially inspire travel, too, which will require words. Each president is it's own subheading and topic for readers. Honestly, facts like "He was known as "Silent Cal" are the sorts of facts that travelers and "fans" would like to read.

Taking into acount the above as well as addressing most of my issues, here are my new proposals (changes bolded), B contains the Silent Cal fact:

A Harding's Vice President who became president after Harding died while in office. Presiding over the Roaring Twenties, a politically uneventful economic boom, Coolidge operated with conservative economic policies (tax cuts, disdain for government regulation of business) and was a relatively outspoken supporter of civil rights. [He did not run for reelection.]

B Harding's Vice President who became president after Harding died while in office. Nicknamed "Silent Cal" for his brevity in speech, Coolidge presided over the Roaring Twenties, a politically uneventful economic boom. He operated with conservative economic policies (tax cuts, disdain for government regulation of business) and was a relatively outspoken supporter of civil rights. [He did not run for reelection.]

The last sentence is in brackets because there is opposition, so if ambiguity is preferred for whatever reason, and the previous sentences are okay, someone can say "Okay but without the brackets" instead of having a separate proposal. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the sentence in brackets is needed, though I'm not strongly opposed to it or anything like that. The rest seems fine. (Parenthetically, I'd observe that some current-day Republicans have called for the return of lynching, and would also observe that there's a difference between supporting an increase in civil and voting rights from an existing baseline and supporting a decrease in such rights. Republican presidents and legislatures through G.W. Bush supported and enacted extensions of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans now oppose that and are against restoring the provision the Republican Supreme Court annulled.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now that I see A and B, I prefer B and congratulate you for a great blurb! (I still mildly favor not including the bracketed material.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. It raises BLP concerns
2. Their legacy and history have not been written yet
3. Most are polarizing figures in this country
4. Biden and Trump's houses aren't museums; they are still domiciled there
5. Biden and Trump haven't erected their presidential libries Purplebackpack89 18:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Yes. There are sites people may want to visit, and I think it would be stranger to omit than to list living current and former presidents. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   By the way, BLP is a Wikipedia acronym. From memory, it means something (bios?) of living persons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Yes, it's not just an acronym, but also a policy which we don't exactly have on this site. //shb (t | c | m) 10:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Wikivoyage:What is an article? strongly discourages against creating a travel topic for a living individual person. I have abstained from creating Jan Guillou tourism and Journeys of Greta Thunberg for that reason, among others. We have yet to settle on a policy for description of living individuals; one way is to keep it minimal. Consider Harry Potter tourism which very briefly mentions the author, who is today a controversial person. In Jewish Stockholm tour I tried to minimize mentions of living people, while the recently dead musician Georg Riedel got more attention. /Yvwv (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   This article is not on the subject of living individuals, though; it just covers them as necessary for the topic. Would you suggest making their blurbs more minimal than they currently are, and if so, could you propose a new form of words? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   I don't think a new form is desirable, just keep it factual and free of the political B.S. A shorter form for very recent presidents might be appropriate, but after a few years, the rawness of unpopular policies will likely wear away and no rational person will be much bothered by a previous but still living president. Today, nobody really gets their buttons pushed when someone mentions Bill Clinton or George Bush. Most of us realize that being president is a hard job that's often unpopular, and regardless of politics, we thank our former presidents for their service and wish them a peaceful retirement.

   I recommend we list all presidents and don't change anything. Mrkstvns (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   G.W. Bush still pushes my buttons, but I'm (a) a New Yorker, so the security lapse affected me in a more personal way than most people outside of New York and D.C. and (b) I'm unusual that way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speaking on behalf of non-Americans, we prefer it when you elect presidents that don't push buttons. Ground Zero (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Many people who visit Chicago are interested in having a look at Obama's house there. You can't go in but the Secret Service guys guarding it usually don't make a fuss if you just want to snap a few pictures from the outside. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with going to Biden's birth house in Scranton and posing for photos on the outside so long as you do not trespass or invade the privacy of the occupants.

We'll have to wait and see about Trump, but the sense I get from listening to geopolitical analysts is Trump's tariff war is very unpopular among liberal college-educated elites, but is massively popular among the masses of blue collar voters in the Rust Belt and Appalachia, as they feel that the WTO system has screwed them over, and are grateful to Trump for what they see as fighting for their jobs by dismantling WTO. He might end up being the most consequential U.S. president since Reagan because no future president, not even a Democrat, will dare reverse his tariff war for fear of alienating blue collar voters in the swing states. What I've been told is that white poverty basically did not exist in America from the 1950s to the 1980s, even though higher levels of racism meant that poverty was widespread among non-whites. Apparently, back then, a white male just had to finish high school, and that would secure him a job in the local factory that paid well, enough for him to buy a nice house in the suburbs, raise a family and enjoy a comfortable middle class lifestyle, but that is no longer possible today, so many of these blue collar voters want to go back those days. Of course, until the dust is settled, none of that belongs in a travel guide. The dog2 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"What I've been told is that white poverty basically did not exist in America from the 1950s to the 1980s". You've been told a lot of nonsense! Yes, the 50s were a time of prosperity (and not incidentally, strong unions), but a majority of poor people in the U.S. have always been white, and please look into the history of Appalachia and the rural South before you accept such utter bullshit. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should that include Jefferson Davis and Sam Houston? Purplebackpack89 18:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, only leaders of the United States of America should be mentioned as presidents. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Taken to its logical conclusion, we should ditch the "other presidents" section entirely Purplebackpack89 02:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should keep that section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Associated with the "Big Stick" foreign policy of more aggressive intervention in foreign affairs, and a "strenuous life" that included ranching in North Dakota and big-game hunting in Africa.

I was surprised that there was very little mention of Roosevelt's foreign policy or public image Purplebackpack89 02:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please suggest a phrasing for us to read and consider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The phrasing I'm suggesting adding is: Associated with the "Big Stick" foreign policy of more aggressive intervention in foreign affairs, and a "strenuous life" that included ranching in North Dakota and big-game hunting in Africa. Purplebackpack89 14:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, then, I believe this is your suggestion:

Spanish-American War hero who rose from the New York governorship to the Vice-Presidency to the Presidency (after McKinley was assassinated) in only three years. A popular president famous as a progressive "trust buster" who opposed the corrupt practices of big business, and as a conservationist who championed the establishment of many national parks and other protected lands. Associated with the "Big Stick" foreign policy of more aggressive intervention in foreign affairs and a "strenuous life" that included ranching in North Dakota and big-game hunting in Africa, he was the youngest person to ever assume the office.

It's good, and he was an important president (and a top-5 best one, in my opinion, and in spite of serious flaws - they've all had some), but is it a bit long? I'll consider some tweaks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made a couple of slight tweaks. I guess it's longer than some blurbs. I would tend to support it, but if anyone would like to propose any edits, I'm all ears. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think I'm ready to make the change. Discussion seems to have petered out and there's no objection Purplebackpack89 16:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Established Amtrak to end the terminal decline of America's (freight) railroads."

I wonder if this sentence is confusing, since it gives the impression that freight railways were struggling. Freight rail in America has always been extremely profitable. Even today, the U.S. still has the longest track mileage in the world by a long stretch, far ahead of second place China, except that most of it is used exclusively for freight, so passenger service does lags that of China. The railway companies were bleeding cash on passenger services, even while freight rail remained profitable, so Amtrak was formed to take over the loss-making passenger services so the private railway companies can focus on the massively profitable freight business. The dog2 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe just say "Established Amtrak" Purplebackpack89 16:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It's definitely not something I associate Nixon with, but it's travel-relevant and should be kept. I think I'd suggest "Established Amtrak," pipe-linked to "Rail travel in the United States". Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd have a slightly longer sentence: "Established Amtrak to take over passenger rail services from the railroad companies." The dog2 (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why is an internal link insufficient? That said, if a longer sentence is judged to be truly necessary, I'd suggest: "Established Amtrak to maintain remaining long-distance passenger rail routes." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It just feels a bit weird to me to just mention Amtrak without any context as to what it is. But sure, Ikan's statement works for me too. The dog2 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Side note: Amtrak currently is a redirect but probably could have its own article.Purplebackpack89 04:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't believe so, because Wikivoyage has a resistance toward giving articles commercial names (some necessary exceptions were given to articles about Disney parks and such). That's precisely why Rail travel in the United States is used instead of Amtrak. See the article's talk page (and probably talk page archives). Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, so if nobody objects, let's go with Ikan's longer phrasing. The dog2 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest adding the following:

"More than his policies, Taft is remembered for being the heaviest President ever, to the point that furniture and bathtubs were custom-built for him. Taft was also the first President to own an automobile and the first to throw out a ceremonial baseball pitch". Purplebackpack89 18:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You may be asking, "what's the point?

1. Several places, such as the Mission Inn, display artifacts related to Taft's corpulence
2. Taft was part of the Nationals Presidents Race due to his history with baseball Purplebackpack89 19:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, even though throwing out the first pitch is of no importance at all in terms of real historical effects on anyone, it is a significant event a visitor can see. So let's look at a full blurb:

Taft was Roosevelt's heir apparent. Though he was initially popular, his policies so disappointed Republican leaders as insufficiently progressive that they caused a split in the party, and he placed third in his reelection bid. However, Taft is more widely remembered for being the heaviest President ever, to the point that furniture and bathtubs were custom-built for him. He was also the first President to own an automobile and throw a ceremonial first pitch at a baseball game. He later became the only ex-president to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and served as Chief Justice.

I made some edits for grammar and style, but is it too long? I think probably not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, we're doing this Purplebackpack89 13:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. Sites for the purple presidents (i.e. Jefferson) aren't on the map at all
2. The numbering continues for sites associated with the red and blue presidents, instead of restarting with each president

Purplebackpack89 13:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed the purple sites – thanks for pointing that out.

As for the unified numbering, I think that may be a good thing. If Obama and Clinton both had a blue 1, it would be harder to tell which was which from a glance at the map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest Lincoln be modified to read as follows (New text in bold):

Lincoln was born in Kentucky, raised in Indiana, and lived most of his adult life in Springfield, Illinois. His 1860 election as an anti-slavery Republican led 11 Southern slave states to secede, causing the American Civil War. However, he led the remaining U.S. states, called the Union, to victory over the Southern states, and abolished slavery nationwide. Assassinated in 1865, the first of four U.S. presidents to suffer such a fate, memorials to Lincoln exist all over the United States. Purplebackpack89 15:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Memorials" should be the start of a new sentence (not a comma splice). I'd also suggest "triggering the American Civil War". Otherwise, I'm fine with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Suggest rewording to the following (New text in bold):

Pierce was a native of New Hampshire, known more for his good looks than successful policies. Presided over the "Gadsden Purchase" of what is now southern Arizona and New Mexico, land that was supposed to be used for a southern transcontinental railroad that was not constructed until decades later. Pierce was President during the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, and other instances of sectional strife that he did little to prevent, leading to him traditionally being rated as one of the worst Presidents. Purplebackpack89 17:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm OK with this, but I'd like User:ChubbyWimbus' views before we really consider making the change. I agree that he was a bad president, but I'd like to know if we have a consensus to say that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm hesitant to approve giving direct indicators of rankings as I don't want us to get into debates around it. Case in point, his successor, Buchanan, is who I have always heard referenced as the worst and if I were to choose who to put such a thing in writing for, I think Buchanan would be my choice. Although Pierce did set up a lot of what Buchanan bungled (I would actually place Bleeding Kansas under Buchanan over Pierce given how a lot of it was under Buchanan and Buchanan's "solution" was so bad), Pierce at least has SOME positives (Gadgsden Purchase, Treaty of Kanagawa with Japan, etc). I don't think Buchanan has any clear positives. If he did good things, they are certainly not well-known. Although our description of Buchanan is negative, it reads much more positively than I expected. Beyond avoiding debates and in spite of what I just said about Buchanan, there is a delicate balance between being honest and putting the traveler first. Most presidents DO have fans, and we should consider them in our writing, given that our audience is people who WANT to visit sites related to these people. These two however, may be genuine exceptions to that. They are pretty much universal viewed unfavorably. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. So where do you ultimately come down on the proposed wording? Would you prefer to change anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would remove Bleeding Kansas to place it with Buchanan and remove "leading to him traditionally being rated as one of the worst Presidents" for the above reason. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure the beginnings at least of Bleeding Kansas were in 1855, under Pierce, not Buchanan... Purplebackpack89 20:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

w:Bleeding Kansas and w:Presidency of Franklin Pierce confirm that, and it's worth reading the 2nd paragraph of the latter:

"Pierce vetoed funding for internal improvements, called for a lower tariff, and vigorously enforced the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Influenced by the Young America expansionist movement, the Pierce administration completed the Gadsden land purchase from Mexico, clashed with Great Britain in Central America, and led a failed attempt to acquire Cuba from Spain. Pierce's administration was severely criticized after several of his diplomats issued the Ostend Manifesto, which called for the annexation of Cuba, by force if necessary. His popularity in the Northern free states declined sharply after he supported the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act, which nullified the Missouri Compromise. Passage of the act led directly to a long and violent conflict over the expansion of slavery in the Western United States."

Furthermore: "Pierce is viewed by presidential historians as an inept president, whose failure to stem the nation's inter–sectional conflict accelerated the course towards civil war. He is usually ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history."

I think we would be remiss to avoid including information about Pierce's bias in favor of slavery and its enforcement over the objections of majorities of the white inhabitants of Kansas and - due to the Fugitive Slave Act - the North as a whole. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I'm not disputing his unpopularity or that Bleeding Kansas began during his term. As I said, Pierce set up many of what Buchanan botched. Bleeding Kansas was part of that. It was Buchanan who endorsed and brought the Lecompton Constitution before Congress to make Kansas a slave state. It passed with Kansas' statehood but was paused when fraudulent votes were found that ultimately led the citizens of Kansas to overwhelmingly reject the Lecompton Constitution (10,226 to 138). Buchanan was also trying to make Kansas a slave state against the will of the people and his was meant to be the final solution. Pierce and Buchanan were both pro-slavery and pro-South. They both escalated tensions and pushed the country towards Civil War. When Pierce is ranked lowest, Buchanan is second lowest. When Buchanan ranks lowest, Pierce is second lowest. My issue is that if we say that about Pierce, we should say it about Buchanan and does it end there? Is someone going to suggest we also mention some number of "best" as well? How many count as noteworthy? It is these types of conversations that I think we should avoid. Is giving presidential rankings in the article a worthwhile endeavor or should we just leave that to the readers? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we should avoid mentioning presidential ratings in our blurbs, because we are not going to want to get into fights about where current-day presidents rank. However, a statement that Pierce aggressively enforced the Fugitive Slave Act and supported the pro-slavery side in Bleeding Kansas is incontrovertible. If you'd rather not mention Bleeding Kansas for two presidents, I'd propose this as part of the blurb for Pierce (quote from Wikipedia plus additional text in bold):

"His popularity in the Northern free states declined sharply after he supported the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act as part of a policy that aggressively favored the protection and extension of slavery to more states." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the above is okay. Mentioning Bleeding Kansas directly is fine, too, but I'd rather mention Bleeding Kansas for BOTH then, because the initiation under Pierce pushed the nation towards Civil War but I don't think all of it can be put on Pierce given that Buchanan's solution greatly exacerbated an already bad situation which pushed the nation further towards war. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because it was such an important episode in the country's history, it's good to mention it for both presidents if that can be done briefly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

• There seems to be a consensus around everything except the final clause, and discussion seems to have migrated to Buchanan. Purplebackpack89 19:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is largely being proposed due to the Pierce discussion and that I think the statehoods are of interest, so I'm putting it here to include Bleeding Kansas and to put into context just how Buchanan set the nation up for war. As much as he angered the North with acts that seemed clearly pro-slavery and pro-South, he was not seen by the South as supporting them at all. He made tensions worse on both sides setting the stage for Lincoln's election and the Civil War, so I think it's important to show that in the framing of his presidency:

Chosen largely because he had been abroad during the time the debate over slavery got heated. He angered the South by declaring secession illegal while angering the North by stating he had no authority to prevent secession and attempting to end Bleeding Kansas by pushing for Kansas to be a slave state against the will of Kansas citizens. Minnesota and Oregon became states, with Minnesota's statehood being delayed by the situation in Kansas. Several members of his Cabinet became openly pro-secession during his lame duck period, with Buchanan doing nothing to stop it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I won't oppose this phrasing if there's a consensus behind it, but I'm confused by the idea that saying it's illegal for states to secede helped increase the chances that they would secede. What I'm reading here is a statement that merely stating that secession was illegal without doing anything to stop it increased animosity toward the Federal government on the part of secessionists. It seems more logical to omit that and state the facts about what he actually did and failed to do in the face of secessionists who demanded the continued complicity of Northern states in enforcing slavery through the Fugitive Slave Act and the extension of slavery to new free states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to sum up Southern shifts in attitude and how he also fueled tensions there as succinctly as possible, but I'm not married to the wording if you have something better. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know enough about how Buchanan disappointed the South; I just don't understand the phrasing you used. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I'm sorry, but I would word Buchanan completely differently. I think the suggested edits are too wordy and emphasize the wrong things. I'm also confused as to how much of this is pertinent to a TRAVEL GUIDE. If it were up to me, I would word as:

Buchanan was a Pennsylvania bachelor who had held several offices at home and abroad prior to election to the Presidency. As President, he inherited the Bleeding Kansas controversy, which had devolved into slave and free governments each seeking admission to the Union. Other controversies, such as John Brown's Harper's Ferry Raid, indicated that the United States was barreling toward disunion and Buchanan was doing nothing to stop it. Buchanan was unable to stop secession, which occurred in the closing months of his presidency.

Purplebackpack89 19:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you stop using "not pertinent to a travel guide" to dismiss framing that you dislike? None of what you wrote is directly pertinent to travel either, so I don't see it as a meaningful response. I find your statement that it's too wordy and that you believe the focus is off way more helpful and conducive to improving the description.

With that said, I like most of this and am willing to work with it however, I'm not a fan of the framing that "Buchanan was doing nothing to stop it". It makes him sound very passive, like he just watched things happen and had no part in it whatsoever, but he wasn't passive. He made a lot of decisions, such as the Lecompton Constitution, and they all seemed to fuel tensions. He probably is unfairly blamed for things that were already spiraling out of control and even expecting him to prevent war when it may have already been too late itself might be unfair, but I don't know if portraying him as passive is the way to acknowledge those things if the intent is to cut him some slack.

To me, Buchanan contributed to the "barreling toward disunion" and he was not "unable" to stop secession; he refused to do so, because he did not believe the president had the authority. It was an active choice. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek It's probably on you to reconcile the differing versions here Purplebackpack89 15:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Isn't Chubby right about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed previously that the Mississippi Territory had not been added before it was approved and added a few weeks ago, and today when reviewing information about Buchanan noticed that Minnesota and Oregon statehoods are not listed. Land acquisition and statehood are of clear relevance to anyone born in, living in, or with an affinity towards a particular state. I think if anyone notices any states or territories missing, those should be added. Are there any objections to adding those states to Buchanan or to adding statehoods in general? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the more important geography to add here is where all the Presidents were from and lived. Are there tourist attractions related to James Buchanan in Minnesota and Oregon. If not, what's the point? California went in under Fillmore and, except for a few Fillmore Streets here and there (usually in combination with streets named for other presidents or dignitaries), there's precious little about Fillmore out here. Purplebackpack89 17:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage should focus on places to visit related to presidents, rather than on trying to summarize presidential history. Wikipedia does the latter better, and we shouldn't try to duplicate that. Ground Zero (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The question is whether it's good to include this information in the brief blurbs we give them. I'd be fine with determining that on a case-by-case basis, as we indeed are not trying to duplicate Wikipedia, with its vast coverage of the details of presidents' lives and careers, and want to avoid bloat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

There may not be anything in the territory itself related to the president however as I stated above, knowing the president who added a state that you were born in, lived in, or have love for could spark interest in that president and sites related to him. For someone who is not a presidential travel fanatic, that could easily be the difference between adding a presidential site to an itinerary or not. Targeting favored presidents is not the only way to use this article. Another way is to look at the map and see what's around your destination and who it relates to. For California/Filmore, a Californian in the Buffalo area might take the extra time to visit the Filmore Museum if they see that he made California a state. Lots of people are more interested in things when they relate to themselves or things they love. I don't see that as farfetched or "too Wikipedia". To me this has clear and direct travel relevancy and can be stated directly without explanation so as not to add bloat. Specific places that directly relate to the president should be in the listings rather than the presidential description. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sympathetic to your point, but let's see if it can be addressed without bloat. Ikan Kekek (talk) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reword to:

The only President to run without a party affiliation, also Considered the father of the nation due to being the commander of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and the 1st President of the United States. Was a gentleman Virginia planter prior to his presidency. Was elected unanimously twice without party affiliation. Many monuments, schools, an entire U.S. state and the federal capital are named in his honor. Purplebackpack89 17:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply