Talk:Presidents of the United States/2018 archive

Deletion

@SelfieCity, AndreCarrotflower, ThunderingTyphoons!: PLEASE tell me you're not going to delete this too! With the info I'm going to add later, this could be the best article I've ever done! Libertarianmoderate (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it has the potential to be a worthwhile travel topic. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a little off-topic if I may say so, but I'm sure there are a lot of destinations in America that are President or former President-related, so this will be interesting. Hopefully, though, this won't become a political debate. Selfie City (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I must express disagreement here. This article is not, it's not, a little off-topic. It's very off-topic and out of scope for a travel guide, I smell "slippery slope" here, just as other Wikivoyagers once smelled similarly the Roman Empire article that is still very unfinished and incomplete, not the least because of the theme's HUGE scope. Having said that, I share Andre's curiosity about how this will turn out, but at the same time, feel the need to express this opinion. Andrew Jackson's statue in New Orleans should be mentioned. Ibaman (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Ibaman, and I think the best thing to do is wait for a while and see how the article does. But if within a month or so this isn't working out, deletion should be considered. Selfie City (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a deletion tag, Libertarianmoderate, which means there will be discussion whether this article should be deleted or not. This doesn't mean that it will be deleted, but it might be deleted, depending on the outcome of the discussion. Selfie City (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Libertarianmoderate, the latest update considering on the vfd this is your work: consensus has been to keep this article right from the first vote, but what's not decided for sure yet is what to do with the list. Selfie City (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Common themes

Hobbitschuster, I find the "common themes" section really interesting, so don't get me wrong, but is it really travel guide related? It's one thing to have a general understand section and another to include information about the Presidents' ancestors. Again, it's really interesting and if there was a place for it that would be great, but I really just don't see what connection it has to travel. Selfie City (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the section here, where it can be discussed.

"Common themes"

"Despite often claiming a humble origin, all Presidents had attained some measure of wealth by the time they ran for the office. Genealogical research has also determined that all but one are descendant from King John of England, the exception being Martin van Buren (Obama's descent from the British Royal family is through his mother). While several Presidents have owned slaves at some point in their lives, only one - Barack Obama (again through his mother) - is known to be descended of one. Presidents get to design and commission (and if still alive at that time inaugurate) a presidential library, which is supposed to honor the president and educate the public about his time in office and the decisions he faced. Only one president has been born outside the contiguous United States (Obama in Hawaii) and the States of Virginia and Ohio combined are the birthplace of a third of all presidents, leading to the quip "some are born great, some achieve greatness and some are just born in Ohio". Despite the pivotal importance of Florida in presidential elections and the overrepresentation of southerners generally, neither Florida nor the deep south have yet produced a president and neither have most of the western states. The nation's largest city during most of its existence - New York City is one of three places to be birthplace of two presidents - T. Roosevelt and D. Trump. Braintree, Massachusetts was the birthplace of John and John Quincy Adams whereas the ninth and tenth president, Harrison and Tyler were both born in what was then Charles County Virginia - albeit on different plantations"

I still don't think this section is very relevant. Selfie City (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if it's length was brought down by 1/2 it would be okay, but otherwise we generally don't include huge trivia sections on this website. What do you think, Hobbitschuster? Selfie City (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Electoral College

Do we have to explain this? If we're mentioning that x and y president lost the popular vote, I guess we're stuck, but that sure is distant from travel. So should we give potted histories of each president at all? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't really think electoral college is relevant — for example, on a travel guide I don't think the reason Trump was elected U.S. President when he lost the popular vote needs to be included. Selfie City (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I can also see where political histories could easily become political debates, so Ikan Kekek, I agree with you on that point as well. Selfie City (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Not include descriptions of political leaders?

I propose that we remove the descriptions of political leaders, since these could easily become subjects of political debate. I think name, party, and year/years of term are enough information for the average traveler. If people want to know the significance of Lincoln's leadership, they can go to WP and find that out. Selfie City (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a fine line between stating incontrovertible historical fact and editorializing. As long as we stay on the right side of that line, briefly explaining the role each president played in history is not only allowable but desirable. Consider readers who live somewhere other than the U.S. and who may not have the preexisting knowledge of American history that those of us who live here do. We don't have to go into as much depth as Wikipedia would, but if there were absolutely no place for background context on this site, "Understand" wouldn't be a standard section heading. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. It's just that the descriptions, even short ones, could easily go in the wrong direction, particularly in the last 30 years or so. Selfie City (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Even in cases like Obama and Trump, there's a clear distinction between actual facts, "alternative facts", and opinions. Might this article become a popular target for revisionist historians adding spurious information and/or trying to suppress information that's embarrassing to their political figure of choice? Very possibly, but it's the traveller that comes first, not the convenience of our editors. As long as all the information in this section is quantifiably and verifiably true, we can revert non-factual or biased edits without having to second-guess ourselves too much. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think as long we keep the descriptions short, it should not be a problem. Selfie City (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If we do this, please refer to the above thread about the Electoral College. Also, isn't it likely that one of the 19th-century presidents was actually born in Canada? I forget which one. But if he was, then it's not true that Obama is the only president not born in the Continental U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The descriptions are already getting longer. Selfie City (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For the record, I see nothing wrong with having plenty of listings, but I think the listings should be the main body of the article, not descriptions of Presidents. If people want to learn about what President George Washington did when he was in office, they can go to Wikipedia. I think an understand section is fine and short descriptions about each President are fine, but paragraphs about each one is overdoing it for a travel guide. Selfie City (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nixon

"Oversaw the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam" is a very misleading statement for Nixon. He campaigned in 1968 on a "secret plan" for peace in Vietnam - and the secret was that there was no plan. He bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Cambodia while presiding over a large-scale torture and murder program in Vietnam, and U.S. troops were withdrawn only because the Democratic-led Congress refused to appropriate more funds for the war. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Eisenhower and civil rights

Yes, he aggressively enforced Federal power in the wake of Supreme Court decisions. But he was known for wanting to go slow on civil rights. What "important civil rights legislation" did he sign? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the most important (and lasting) thing about Autobahn Ike was his implementation of Hitler Highways in the US. I dislike Eisenhower in general, mostly for foreign policy reasons (Mossadegh, Árbenz Guzmán) but this devastated the largest and most profitable railway network in the world. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Interstate highway program should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

w:Civil Rights Act of 1957 but honestly, this is all beside the point. If every effort to improve this section of the article is only going to be picked apart under a microscope and subjected to endless back-and-forth nitpicking, than maybe SelfieCity was right and this page is too much of a magnet for off-topic political discussions. None of this has anything to do with travel; can't we leave well enough alone? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention, AndreCarrotflower. Just looking at the length of this discussion page considering the time this article as been in existence, and the topics discussed, the problems with this travel topic are becoming clearer. Does the average traveler really care about Eisenhower's stance on civil rights or Nixon's actions in Vietnam. Selfie City (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What I first wanted to add was more along the "random pieces of trivia" lines than along the "historical appraisal in three lines"... I think another solution is going back to the former... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you guys really think summaries of presidential terms in office could be posted without discussion? Any such expectation would have been highly unrealistic. There are really two possible approaches: (1) A section that gives only the Presidents' names, political parties and terms in office; (2) A section with brief summaries of their terms in office that are hashed out here and pretty much agreed on early in the process, which is what we're doing now.

My feeling is, once the basic shapes of these summaries are agreed to, they might or might not be a magnet for controversy later, but at least we likely will have done most of the work up front. But don't expect people to just automatically agree with x or y description of history. However short the section is, it should be accurate and never misleading. I'd hope we could all agree to those principles; then we can debate only as much as necessary about what substance should be included and what wording is best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Unsuccessfully impeached"

I don't like that language, because it's really unclear. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was literally successful, but it led to political failure for the Republicans. But isn't it a whole lot simpler to revert to my language of "impeached by the House of Representatives but not removed from office by the Senate"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we also might wish to add that it failed by literally one vote. I will not comment whether bribery played a role but will just point to w:Willy Brandt who retained office because of GDR bribery and ironically later resigned because a GDR spy was discovered among his staff. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The object of impeachment is to remove an elected official from office; therefore, if the elected official is not removed, then the impeachment is by definition unsuccessful. Furthermore, "unsuccessfully impeached" is a lot shorter than "impeached by the House of Representatives but not removed from office by the Senate". As I said above, the goings-on on this talk page are beginning to sell me on SelfieCity's position that the existence of this article is only going to be a temptation for us to bicker back and forth about politics and other non-travel-related issues. The solution to that problem is to focus the article on listings in "See" and similar sections, which we can help do by keeping the "Understand" section as short and perfunctory as possible. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not American & might easily be wrong, but my impression is that w:Impeachment is the House calling for a trial, analogous to a grand jury indicting someone. It takes a conviction by the Senate, which serves as the court in such cases, to remove a president. I do think "Unsuccessfully impeached" should be used.

The correct terms would be either "impeached but not convicted" or something like "impeachment was attempted bu failed to pass in the House". I cannot see that either of those belongs in a travel guide, though. Pashley (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the section where we go over the historical importance of each president is strictly a necessary evil, and the main concern when writing the blurbs should be to be brief and get the "Understand" part over with as quickly as possible so we can get to the travel-relevant listings that ideally will make up the meat of the article. To that end, it's easy enough for the reader to figure out what we mean by "unsuccessfully impeached" even if, in the most strictly technical of senses, it's not the right wording. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

William H.Harrison's cause of death

I do not think the "it wasn't pneumonia" hypothesis can be considered a conspiracy theory given this. It appears that the pneumonia was an 1840s misdiagnosis. After all, medicine in that era wasn't exactly an exact science. And blaming it on his rambling speech was just too easy... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't we just say he died shortly after being elected? Selfie City (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The "he literally talked himself to death in his inauguration speech" trivia is widespread enough to merit addressing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WHY DOES IT MATTER? This is a travel guide, not a history site. Give the most widely acknowledged cause of death and move on. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't the most widely acknowledged cause of death, though. Unless you want to say "Germany exchanged Heligoland for Sansibar" which is something still often repeated despite the fact that we now know it not to have been the case. We at the very least have good reasons to doubt he died of pneumonia... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of pneumonia and hopefully this debate won't go on forever. Selfie City (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I dimly recall that I purposefully did not add a cause of death when I added in that he died in office. I wanted to avoid exactly this debate (and to regurgitate questionable trivia) Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fair enough. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove section?

Presidents_of_the_United_States#List_of_Presidents strikes me as being out of place in a travel guide.

I'd remove the whole section. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's going a bit too far, I think. We need to provide readers with some degree of context. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's going too far. I think names of each individual, political party, years in office, and a fact here and there would be appropriate. Selfie City (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to keep each little blurb to a maximum of three lines, and preferably less. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd too say we should keep the list, it's handy for us non-American readers who probably are unfamilar with presidents in office before WWII except the ones on the dollar bills :) . The description of each president shouldn't be longer than a few sentences, though. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a bunch of presidents for whom there are no travel destinations. We can put the years and parties beside the names of presidents in the See listings, and delete the list. People who are interested in reading a list of presidents can follow the Wikipedia link. Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is. This will save a time of time squabbles by over how to capture GW Bush's or Obama's legacy in two or three lines. Ground Zero (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If we remove the section, we should move it here, because there probably is some kind of library or statue or something for virtually all of them, and the newer ones will eventually have their own libraries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Another option, which no one has mentioned, is to scrap the usual division of listings into "see", "drink" and "sleep". Replace it with a subsection for each of the 44 people named. Each section would contain the biographic summary and the list of things to see or do for this one person, ie:

===Harry Truman===

The only person in military history to be insane enough to wage nuclear war, Truman took office upon the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

• {{see}} Independence (Missouri), Truman's birthplace at the start of the Oregon Trail, has a museum of some sort....

That would work well for most of the "see" listings, which seem to be associated with one person on the list - and just one person. It would also have the advantage of eliminating individual sections for things like hotels ("sleep"), which seems to be attracting listings for things which wouldn't be noted were they in some other field of endeavour but still associated with one of the presidents on the list. We don't send voyagers looking for "Jimminy Cartah's peanut farm" but we do send them looking for "Donald Trump's hotel" for no apparent reason other than it being a hotel. That's an odd bias.

The one awkward bit in outright replacing the (eat, drink, sleep) categorisation with subsections for each of the 44 would be handling venues like Mount Rushmore, which has four of these guys. K7L (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hotels can be stayed at. If Jimmy Carter's peanut farm can be visited, we should list it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually quite like K7L's idea, although I think there should be a "See also" section of the article for Mount Rushmore and History of justice. Selfie City (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think K7L's idea's is worth exploring, though I'd have to see what it looked like in practice before I gave it my full endorsement. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with the reorg proposal, but per my comments below, I would leave out any attempt to identify in two lines the key elements of a presidency. Ground Zero (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been waiting to see how this article evolves. I still think that it is problematic that the Understand section is disproportionate to the rest of the article. Background is good to jave, but it should be a summary, hot this level of details. There are still a bunch of presidents listed here with no connection to the See/Do listings, which are the meat of a travel guide. I don't think that anyone reading a travel article about Presidents of the USA will need the basic primer on who these people are, and if they do, Wikipedia will do a better job of it than we will. I agree that it is a recipe for time not well spent on summarizing the last few presidents as there are bound to disagreements on these.

I mean this as no slight to AndreCarrotflower's work, and I recognize how frustrating it can be to work really hard on an article or section of an article and then have it deleted, but the traveller still comes first. Let's leave the encyclopedia material to the encyclopedia. Ground Zero (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ground Zero, you can't judge a new article in progress by which "See" entries it already has. Are you suggesting that there isn't at least one relevant listing that should be in the article for each president, or at least for each president who left office a sufficient time ago for his presidential library to be completed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there should be actions for each president for whom there is a See listing. I think it should include the dates of his presidency, but that an after to identify key points of each presidency will lead to too much background in the article and too much bickering on the all page. Presidential libraries began with FDR, so don't expect one for William Henry Harrison, who served only slightly longer than the typical borrowing period for a library book. Maybe we can find a way to include a link to the Wikipedia article for each president in his section as a way of leading the reader to more information. Ground Zero (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In the end, I doubt there will be any presidents without "See" lsitings. In addition to presidential libraries, most Presidents have birthplaces, childhood homes, etc. that are operated as historic sites, are the subjects of some statue or monument somewhere, have tombs that serve as tourist attractions, or some combination thereof. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think one of the advantages of K7L's proposal is it allows a bit more leeway in expanding the size of the historical blurbs. I think restraining ourselves from going into too much detail is a good policy no matter how the article is structured, but certainly the average length of a Wikivoyage section lede is well over three lines. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritz-Carlton in Moscow

We had an anonymous contributor last night making jokey references to the Trump pee tape which got reverted as vandalism. Now I see it's been re-added as a listing by a trusted contributor. Do we or don't we want to "go there" in this article? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say we don't. The tape may or may not exist, but we will hopefully know for sure some day. Until then, we should not mention it here... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There's more to this than the prostitution allegations, for instance this. I deliberately didn't spell out the details. I am a bit concerned that the structure ("see", "drink", "sleep") has created a bizarre and unintended criterion for inclusion... something can be the next Watergate scandal if there's a hotel at the centre of the fiasco, in a twisted application of can you sleep there? Nonetheless, Moscow is a huge elephant in the room; not the pee per se, but the whole question of Trump's dealings with Russia and their impact on eventual U.S. foreign policy will be central to whether historians are kind to him and his legacy. K7L (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"the whole question of Trump's dealings with Russia"? So why pick one hotel? If we include this, or any Trump hotel, then this article is going into toilet fast. The Watergate has a link to a proven presidential crisis and played a huge role in US political history. The Moscow Ritz-Carlton has no place in a legitimate travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The same could be said of the entire effort to create a Presidents of the United States#Sleep section. A hotel is notable in a national history article just because a president or former president once owned it, slept in it or accepted a franchise payment to have his (invariably, his) name branded onto it? The Watergate complex is notable because of the burglary, the fact that one of the six buildings in the complex houses a hotel is happenstance. We don't create a separate Underground Railroad#Drink just because one of the structures along the route was a tavern in its day, we run itinerary listings in some sort of chronological or geographic sequence which starts at the Mason-Dixon line or the Mississippi and ends in the promised land and freedom. The station in an old tavern is treated the same way as the station in an old house which became a museum. This page isn't itinerary, but it does have a clear and obvious sequence, #1 to #45, which should run in historic order.

I wouldn't be surprised if a reorganisation of this page to use individual presidents' names as the subheadings (instead of using our usual see/drink/sleep categorisation, which was intended for destination listings) caused most of the Presidents of the United States#Sleep section to be scrapped outright – including the original link to the Trump Organization, which was the only listing before I edited the page yesterday. The "George Washington slept here" shtick becomes worthy of "tvtropes.org" rather quickly. The same issues apply to Presidents of the United States#Drink; an ordinary bar taking a name or theme which refers to one or more presidents doesn't necessarily confer historic notability.

There's also the pesky detail that we may wish to limit all discussion of DJT to two or three lines, max, if that's all we've given many historic figures in this article who actually are notable for some reason. K7L (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been bold and chopped down the DT hotels section to what I think is the most relevant. After all, a traveller can't sleep at a hotel that's been torn down, and there was no reason to mention the other Atlantic City hotel and not any of the other Trump hotels. The Ritz-Carlton passage really seemed like agenda-pushing of the sort that will lead to edit wars. I really think it doesn't belong. I made this edit to illustrate how a more focussed section could look and to help this discussion along, but I expect others will want to weigh in too. Ground Zero (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

More to add

These quite a few places listed at w:Category:Presidential_museums_in_the_United_States that need adding. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

this is also an interesting piece of Presidential history. By the way, the mentioned "Dewey defeats Truman"? He held that newspaper in front of St. Louis Union Station, which has been served by Amtrak only until 1978 but has at least regained local rail service... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Also w:Presidential memorials in the United States -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Also https://www.presidentsusa.net/states.html -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We're rapidly speeding toward 99 "See" listings, after which the numbers on the blue icons will be capped. We need to address this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact, when you factor in the ones that don't yet have geo coordinates, we actually already have >99 listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Instead of using {{listing|type=see}}, there is {{listing|type=red}} and {{listing|type=blue}} which, while partisan, would allow listings 1-99 for each type, ie:1 . Kennedy 1 . Lincoln 1 . Washington . K7L (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Template flood

May I articulate here that the "US Party" Template that was introduced here without even a semblance of discussion, let alone consensus goes squarely against our "minimal use of templates" policy and that I am opposed to it? One of our selling points over other wikis is that even laypeople can still read and edit the wikitext. I don't think a pointless template that will only ever be used in one article is worth abandoning this simplicity yet another step further... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've reverted the templates pending the outcome of this discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like the templates were introduced here in a way that is entirely consistent with Wikivoyage:Plunge forward. It is not unreasonable to revert edits when someone plunges forward, but getting upset about someone who plunges forward is kind of ridiculous. Here is an example of an established editor plunging forward and making changes to a policy without even a semblance of discussion let alone consensus. It is not bad form. The templates were unnecessary, though, and go against our policy of minimal use of templates, so I'm in favour of the reversion. Ground Zero (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice the edit summary? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Plunging forward is not bad form. Since any edits can be reverted, the edit summary was not necessary, but it is polite. Plunge forward, revert and discuss on the talk page is how things work, so there is no need to make a big fuss over it. Ground Zero (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh no

Here's another possible political debate. I'd love to see this get resolved — or not — as the case may be. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no debate to be had. Obama is no Muslim, any more than Trump is Rastafari. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but thanks for bringing this racist extremist bullshit to our attention. That poster has to be watched for more of this crap. "Moderate" my foot! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The obvious problem with this article is the political bias and debate that it can cause. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

As we've seen, someone who's a racist can and will spew out their crap anywhere. The article is a reasonable travel-focused one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've brought this up on User talk:Libertarianmoderate. I think it would be a good idea to wait until LM responds, but that's just my opinion. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Also in response to your most recent comment, I don't think the article is the best travel topic subject but at the same time LM's "Obama was a Muslim" edit only makes the Presidents of the US article more problematic. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you say that articles about Holocaust remembrance would be "problematic" if Jew-hating folks start defacing them? I don't buy this. An article is either on a legitimate travel topic or it's not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss it, but I think we're at a point with LM where the next problematic edit ought to involve a userban discussion. There's only so much that can be written off as newbie mistakes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

VFD discussion

It's unfortunate for Libertarianmoderate, who wanted to see this become a travel topic, but this article is clearly not going to work well. I wasn't quite right with my original viewpoint that political bias would make it problematic, but close — it became a history debate instead, of issues extremely trivial like "what caused Harrison to die" and "Eisenhower's stance on civil rights". As the situation with ArticCynda has shown, it's best when Wikivoyage stays away from political issues, especially those that are sensitive with the current political climate. Despite saying that, I'm not strongly in support of deleting this article, but I want to propose deleting this article to the community to see what others think. Selfie City (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose deletion for now. I was a staunch supporter of this article when it first came out, and I still support it now but not quite so staunchly. The issue is that for all the bickering, there's also quite a lot of high-quality and travel-relevant information in the article. I'd prefer to hold off and see if people cool their jets a little bit with the historical and political debates before doing anything rash. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether this is the room where it happens, but I would say wait for it and don't delete it yet. I think there is a place for retracing important spots in the life of a nation or its important leaders. Certainly a similar thing could be said about the life and times of Willy Brandt (who got around quite a bit for the out-of-wedlock-born working class kid he was). I'd say the wiki is wide enough for this article and others. We can still decide to have it taken to Weehawken at dawn in a month or so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This is certainly a worthy travel topic, or at least I think so. On the article's talk page one user was worried about the large scope of the article. We have other articles with huge scopes too, and I can't remember that alone igniting discussions to delete them. Actually, other than articles about very small places, our articles will probably never be so complete that it's impossible to find something to add. So we shouldn't worry too much about getting them complete.

When it comes to "it's hard or impossible to write travel topics related to politics", well, Wikipedia is also a collaborative project that can be edited by anybody, and most certainly their article are edited by contributors holding each and every political opinion there is (they probably have a hundred times more contributors than we do) and they have managed to create extensive articles about each American president and thousands of even more "controversial" topics. I mean, how hard could it be for us to write a couple of sentences about each president? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Seems ok but not sure that it needs the long list of the presidents at the beginning of the article. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - viable travel topic; the bickering is not a reason for deletion, people just need to act like adults and work out problems respectfully. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with User:WOSlinker that the list of presidents should go - this is not Wikipedia. Otherwise, it is a useful list of president-elect travel destinations. Ground Zero (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid travel topic with plenty of sights that are on topic for it. For those who aren't patient with the debate that inevitably occurs on how best to summarize all the presidents' terms in office, there are plenty of other things you can do on or off the site while that discussion takes place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• I disagree with WOSlinker about the deletion of the list of presidents at the beginning. It's important that we don't tip over into overwhelming the reader with too much information, but in the end, why should the reader care about visiting Grant's Tomb, for example, or the McKinley Monument, if s/he doesn't know who Grant or McKinley are? The list of presidents is essential background information for the topic, and the fact that it's not immediately traveller-relevant is of no more import than the fact that any destination article's "History" section is not immediately traveller-relevant. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion so far

What's clear is that people want to keep the article, which is fine with me. But what has become clearer is the real deletion subject is whether to keep the list or not, which we can vote on below so we can keep these two different discussions separate.

Essentially, there are four options:

1. Keep the list and description as they are now.
2. Limit the descriptions to one line.
3. Delete/remove the descriptions but otherwise keep the list.
4. Delete/remove the list altogether.

For now, I'm not going to vote, but everyone else feel free to do so. It seems at the moment that AndreCarrotflower supports #1, WOSlinker and Ground Zero support #4. Others haven't directly voiced an opinion here, but of course can still voice their opinions below or elsewhere. Selfie City (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to do anything other than keep the list and descriptions as they are now, then we may as well just delete the entire article. Wikivoyage articles are supposed to be more than just groups of listings. There has to be some sort of informational framework tying them together. That's especially true in the case of articles that aren't bottom-level destinations, where the common thread uniting the POIs may not be as obvious as a shared geographical location. Eliminate the background information, or reduce it down to just a dry, boring list of names and dates, and the uninformed reader will be left wondering where each individual POI fits into the context of the topic. And if that's the case, then we haven't covered the topic well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comment brought to my mind another possibility: the list could be turned into paragraph form, with a sentence or so about each President. Selfie City (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Plus, not to get personal with it, but I wrote or substantially rewrote about 20-25 of those blurbs myself, and I put a lot of time and thought into them, and I'll be damned if it turns out to be all for naught. I understand this is a wiki and things get changed, tinkered with, added to and subtracted from, and that's fine, but don't just straight-up delete it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, definitely I wouldn't just delete; a lot of work has been put into the list. For example, notice how a list of songs was moved from the article because it was not considered relevant. Despite the work done on that list (including by me), still it was put in the article's talk page. I didn't write too much of that, and didn't bother me too much, but definitely the amount of work put into U.S. Presidents list is a consideration. Selfie City (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There is also another option which is to remove the list from the top of the article and add those short descriptions of each president into the see section for each president before the list of places to see. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I still prefer Option #1 but could live with Option #5. #s 2, 3 and 4 are all unacceptable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Either keep the list as is or put the descriptions in the subheadings. Also remove the other subheadings ("Sleep", "Drink") and place those with their respective president subheadings. The point of the article is to create specialized trips related to a specific president so they should be consolidated, not to just visit random "presidential" places (or at least that makes the most sense to me). I think honestly, this article should only house presidents that don't have enough sites to warrant articles and maybe also recent presidents. George Washington would make a good stand-alone article and I think other presidents would as well. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What if we did an itinerary called On the trail of George Washington or something of that nature? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: kept. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Purple and orange markers don't show up

The purple (Democratic-Republican) and orange (Whig) markers aren't showing up on the map for me. Are other people having this problem too? —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, K7L. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure purple is an inspired choice for that party at any rate... They are after all not a fusion of today's parties of similar names... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the party's official colors were red, white and blue. Perhaps mauve is a better choice, then? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Listings without links

I've gone through the article and added links from each listing to the city or district where it's located. The following listings still don't have a link:

• Tuckahoe Plantation
• Montpelier
• Horseshoe Bend National Military Park
• 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

These attractions don't seem to be covered in any Wikivoyage destination article (with the exception of the Grover Cleveland Birthplace, listed in Nutley, but I'm not sure that's the right article for it to be listed in). For some attractions, an article needs to be created for the city that contains them. Others should be added to the existing article for a city near them. I'm putting the list here in case anyone wants to work on them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Trump

Although I understand this is not a forum for political debate, I think we can all agree that Trump's presidency has been a very polarising one. My understanding is that for the most part, the white working class absolutely adore him, while the blacks and Latinos, except for perhaps some upper class ones, absolutely loathe him. Shouldn't something along those lines be worth some sort of a mention? The dog2 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that is way too simplistic and does not take into account e.g. the recent strikes in what used to be considered strongly "red states". Trump is not a pro-strike guy. Nor is ha a pro-union guy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think Trump is covered sufficiently. This is a travel article about sites related to all the U.S. presidents. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s true that the white working class is more pro-Trump than any other demographic/socioeconomic category, but even in 2016 they were never as overwhelmingly pro-Trump as blacks and Hispanics were anti-Trump. And two years thereafter, it’s clear that his support has eroded greatly, among the white working class as much if not more than other categories. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@The dog2: The key here is "for the most part." The level of nuance necessary here would require more than a couple of sentences, especially when using catch-all words like "minorities" and feelings as extreme as "loathing." ARR8 (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth waiting to see what happens in the midterms, since they'll say a lot about what people now think of Trump. If both the senate and the house go Democrat, we can pretty accurately say that Trump has lost support; if both stay Republican, depending on the outcome, we will be able to say that Trump has kept or grown his support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it will be necessary to say anything. We don't have post-midterm analysis for any other president; the temptation is only there because it's current. ARR8 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's also not forget though that Trump is not particularly popular among the Republican establishment and the traditional conservatives. His lifestyle most certainly does not conform to traditional Christian values, and I'm pretty sure most of the conservative Christians aren't blind to that. I think many of them just see him as a lesser evil than Hillary Clinton, and they would actually prefer Mike Pence as president. He is very popular among the corporate CEOs and investment bankers though because of the massive tax cuts those people received. The dog2 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The dog2 - Regarding the midterms and houses of Congress changing hands, one thing you have to remember is that the House and the Senate is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Every seat in the House of Representatives comes up for reelection at the same time, so barring the effects of gerrymandering, it is indeed a fairly good barometer to determine how one party is doing by comparison with the other. But in a year like this one where there are 26 Democratic seats in the Senate up for reelection and only 9 Republican seats, even simply holding the line (which is what FiveThirtyEight predicts will happen; their projection is the Senate will remain 51-49 in favor of the GOP) would be quite an accomplishment for Democrats, and would be ample evidence in itself of the Republicans' unpopularity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not going to be able to address this in a neutral manner. If there are any locations relevant for travel (Mar-a-lago, Trump Tower, etc) then add them. Otherwise suggest keep away from the political analysis which will not do this community any good and would be irrelevant for the traveler. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that undue political analysis is not needed on a travel guide. There are better wikis for that. Gizza ^(roam) 00:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree with these two recent comments. IMO, it's up to FiveThirtyEight, etc., to decide if holding the House or whatever is good for Republicans or Democrats. Otherwise we're creating our own political debate that's a waste of time comsidering we're a travel guide. But I think everyone's got good points here, whether I agree completely with them or not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not our place to say whether Trump's policies are good or bad here on WV, but saying his support is particularly strong in a particular demographic is not a political statement. For instance, in articles about the UK, we do not state whether or not Margaret Thatcher was a good prime minister, but we do state that she is very popular among the London bankers, but loathed by the working class in the north of England and Scotland. So if Trump has massive popularity among the white working class but is loathed by most blacks and Latinos, it's not a political statement to state that. It only becomes a political statement when we voice approval or disapproval of his policies. The dog2 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's leave the sentence out and try to avoid these political discussions that have nothing to do with travel. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher has not been Prime Minister since 1990. Although she has a mixed legacy with many different POVs, a quarter of a century on we can refer to her time and are not likely to have a divisive debate about it.

Frankly raising Trump like this seems to be a conscious effort to insert unwelcome political debate into WV. Please stick to travel. Please go to any number of other internet sites to sound off about Trump if you really feel the urge. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Lincoln's eyes

Don't worry, I'm not going to be controversial! But does anyone else think the banner looks a little silly, with Abe Lincoln's stony gaze covered over by the article's title text? Is it just my screen resolution, or do other people see it too? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. If someone would like to edit the banner so that the face is all to the right of the banner, that would be great. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing quote to relevant one

“ In America the President reigns for four years, and journalism governs for ever and ever. ”

—Oscar Wilde

I do not think that this is a good quote for the article. It says something about the nature of journalism with the presidency as a reference point.

Can I suggest one of the following?

1. "It's not doing what is right that's hard for a President. It's knowing what is right" - Lyndon Johnson
2. "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader" - John Quincy Adams
3. "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job" - Douglas Adams

There are really no shortage of other good quotes, so also feel free to add some alternatives. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you get the quotes from or somewhere like that? I think the current quote is okay, but if there's something better we should do it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if having any quote isn't itself unnecessarily controversial for this topic, but if we're going to use one, I think "The buck stops here" is the simplest, as long as we can say that it was a motto used by Truman, not actually his original statement. See the story here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we ought to avoid ones like "I'm with Her" or "Make America Great Again" for now... --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

But those say nothing about the presidency, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That is why I think the first suggested quote is pretty neutral and expands on the presidency. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to go with "The buck stops here", that one is good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think a lot of people wouldn't understand it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"The buck stops here" should be relevant because it summarizes that the president is ultimately responsible for the nation. That said I wonder if that is truely accurate given that the United States government ( w:Federal_government_of_the_United_States ) is actually based on checks and balances, so therefore an action taken by the president (the executive branch) is subject to checks by both the legislative and judicial branches. Therefore does the 'buck' truely stop at the president? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It sure didn't seem to during the 2/3 of the Obama Administration when the Republicans blocked everything he wanted to accomplish legislatively. But it's a statement that has to do with taking responsibility for the actions of your administration, at least. We can see that not all presidents do that... Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the current quote is fine. It's a witty observation by an outsider - a traveler, even. Plus, I feel it fits the tone of WV better than 1 or 2, and 3 is about presidencies in general, not just the American one. ARR8 (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The current quote is about journalism, which isn't the subject of this article, hence needs to change. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The quote is about the relationship between journalism and the presidency, one which couldn't be more to the significant than with the incumbent. It certainly doesn't "need to change", you have simply expressed a desire for something else. If others would rather do so, I won't block you.

Out of the proposed replacements, I rank Douglas Adams, then Johnson, then John Q Adams, then Truman as best to worst. Make of that what you will.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't like any of the quotes, and given Trump's constant attacks on the press, I think the optics of the current one are particularly bad. Overall, I am unconvinced of the need for any quote at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So let's just get rid of the quote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously ThunderingTyphoons values the relationship between journalism and the Presidency, but that isn't relevant to the article. If changing to another suggestion about the Presidency itself (which were only suggestions) is so disagreeable I'll go with the new consensus and jut remove. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with removal. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

restaurants famous buildings etc

Swept in from the pub

trump tower is not listed i know this is not wp but we should add info on them. or any restaurant listing make it into an article. ideas? Olp631 (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. Which article are we talking about? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Either Presidents of the United States or a New York City district, I would think. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Presidents of the United States#45. Trump lists the Old Post Office in Washington DC as its one token Trump hotel. The decision to pick one and just one appears to be a conscious decision per Talk:Presidents of the United States#Ritz-Carlton in Moscow. There are also mentions of the Trump hotel chain in individual destinations, such as Chicago and Atlantic City (although, with the latter, Trump has rolled snakes eyes and folded). K7L (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose Trump Tower should be listed in "See" in the Manhattan/Theater District article. It's not that interesting a building, but even before the guy was made president, it was a locally well-known big building. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a big Trump Tower here in Chicago too, and it is known for its luxury apartments and high-end restaurants. I know of many people who have gone on dates in the restaurants there, and it was also a well-known landmark before Trump became president. What makes the New York one the most significant is that that is the one that Trump himself actually lived in. The dog2 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)