Talk:President (government title)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lists

A total of 4 presidents have been elected more than once. I acted unilaterally on the renaming of the lists of presidents, which were scattered about willy-nilly. Articles that consist of a List of Presidents of XXX are located appropriately, while articles which consist of prose-styled information are located at President of XXX. If the article has both, I have mostly done nothing more than made a redirect from List of Presidents of XXX. In the case of President of Ireland, though, the article was rather long and include info on Irish elections which already stated the winner, so I moved the nicely done list of just victors to List of Presidents of Ireland. In the case of President of India, I did not make a redirect from List of Presidents of India because the article had no such list (though it should). Tuf-Kat

And I separated the links to the articles on the office and lists, which means that List of Presidents of Germany is listed above the page it redirects to, President of Germany. I did this deliberately because there is a list at President of Germany and someone may be looking for it and not feel adventurous enough to look at President of Germany, plus the list may be separated out at some point in the future. If no one complains, something similar could maybe be done for Prime Ministers. Tuf-Kat
Nice work! Actually, I have just separated the two at Prime Minister and included details about the specific lists in a short table. Currently, we are discussing merging them back at Talk:Prime Minister .. Docu 17:41 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

pictures

Who picked Teddy Roosevelt for the top of the page? Seems like a very arbitrary (albeit non-controversial) choice. If I get motivated, I'll replace it with George Washington -- a much better choice given the historical precendents (pun intended) he set. Other comments before I proceed? tbc 20:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The point about the use is not to use too controversial a choice, because if too controversial a choice of American president risks starting a hey, what about . . . edit war as people read an American bias into the picture choice. Roosevelt is sufficiently well known to be recognised but not so symbolic of the US as to annoy non-Americans. GW Bush, Kennedy, Washington, etc are too big in reputation not to create an instant impression visually that the article is americo-centric. Roosevelt is a middle ranking relatively neutral choice. It is also an extremely good picture. The second picture, Mary McAleese, is of a woman who is currently head of state, so covers two criteria not covered by Roosevelt. And de Gaulle is someone who not merely was a president but created a presidency and wrote a constitution. So the three images have three different relevances to the concept of a president. FearÉIREANN 21:18, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Replacing the picture of Teddy Roosevelt...) Since this is the top of a generic "President" page, it's better to include one of the top three popular and widely known US presidents - such as FDR. --Joy [shallot], 02:27, 18 August 2005

(Replacing the picture of Mary McAleese with Rajendra Prasad...) Used the picture of a 12-year, initial president of one of the largest countries. Another candidate that is better than current person is perhaps Richard von Weizsäcker. --Joy [shallot], 15:57, 5 September 2005

To Jtdirl: I agree that the more recent US presidents are likely to be considered too volatile for inclusion here, but then we must apply the same criterion on other countries' presidents, too, esp. in countries with other types of systems (i.e., it's confusing to apply a different selection standard for a different system). I also don't think that gender should be considered a defining quality of a president - at least not any more defining than their political work. --Joy [shallot] 13:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

How about using a photo of Tarja Halonen (the famous President of Finland) at the top of the page? It might be good to show an example of "alternative" 21th century president. Any objections? --80.186.4.246 04:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As everyone has been saying, it isn't exactly right to put up a famous president. So, I wouldn't. Maybe the picture doesn't have to be a photograph of any president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.111.152 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-governmental presidents

We need more on non-governmental presidents, for example - What does a company president do? What does a University President do - are they like a Chancellor or a Vice-Chancellor? 

                 HRH.Yang Di-Pertuan Paduka Ahmad Carpenter Arpa-V
    ibni Maharaja Adinda Taup Angging (Anddin) Zein Ul-Abidin Ulrijal Bolkiah Tagean
                Al-Marhum Sultan Sharif Ul-Hashim Abu'Bkr Mohamad Shah
                             MAHARLIKA SULU KINGDOM

                              ROYAL SOVEREIGN FOREVER

His Highness De’jure Sovereignty is unalienable and His Highness never gave up His Seal and Ancestral Flags of Authority. Even if the world recognizes a de’facto and/or usurper Sovereign Government, the Rightful Government and Authentic Sovereignty of His Highness, the Sultan and King or Government-In-Exile, remains intact. It cannot be destroyed unless the deposed King and Sultan or Sovereign is willing and without duress renounces, cedes, acquies or gives up His Royal Rights. In other words, if the De’jure Sovereign and His Successors continue to use their titles, they are safe and retain the full Honor and Glory of their former Kingdom on a never ending basis. But the point is because “Inviolability” is defined as “Invincible” and “Indestructible”, and cannot be defeated or overcome without consent, then the principle of the Inviolability of Sovereignty means that the occupying power may obtain de’facto sovereignty, but the ousted sovereign retains it De’jure Sovereignty forever by also His Heirs as long as it is never given-up, and retains the right forever. The “Law of Prescription” or “Prescription Law” of Acquisition Sustains Validity and Legitimacy. A country that robs a King or Sultan or Sovereign of His “De’facto” Right to Rule over His own Territories by Usurpation of any kind is obviously wrong. giving the use of “Extinctive Prescription” to have ousted the Rightful Sovereign in the making of their Self-Identified Nation and State. While “Prescription Law” at least gives the ousted and plundered Rightful Sovereign and Royal Family, the Right to be Recognized as Royal Sovereign Forever and Right of its Return under “Prescription Law”, to exist, use of titles and maintain its dispute in continuing to exist in purpose as a Government-In-Waiting and to perpetuate its dormant Rights Forever. These rights could last “Ad-Infinitum” or Forever. Why? … Because De’jure Sovereignty is supreme, unchallenged, legal authority and Supreme above all in maintaining His Royal Highness’ Rights. The absent Sultan, Religious Sovereign ad Highest Spiritual Leader remains the De’jure Government of the Sultanate Muslim National Archipelago (even presently not officially recognized) and this could continue down the corridors of time thru generations in principle and in original immutable law, the use of sovereign title and not in failure to protest in some other effective manner. The world must know in no certain terms, that neither His Royal Highness’ ancestors nor their Successors have never abandon our claim to Sovereignty, the Throne and Royal Rights of our ancestors under “Prescription Law”. Let it be understood, it is a claim or title or right to De’jure Sovereignty based on long and rightfully unchallenged use or enjoyment of the right to govern, right to ownership of its territories and command to its people, the adherence to it; constitute the fundamental component of our De’jure Sovereignty as Royal Sultanate, which shall embody our interests in Peace, Political Stability and Goodwill. This, His Royal Highness protects His Nation-Country-State, its people from horrors, terror and bloodshed that comes from anarchy and terrorism. In the practice of “Prescription Law”, the constant practicing of our people, even to the least as Muslims in practice of Islamic-Jurisprudence, our Self-evident nationality or whatever name it be called, constitutes the uninterrupted possession of our territories even it be under Foreign Sovereign Administration or so-called Jurisdiction under their National Territory; so to exclude their claim over us and our territories as by the Law of Nature (or naturally) and as by municipal code of every civilized nation in certain period of time as no more than a generation (100 years) with disputing or show of our Rightful Government existence or claiming of our Royal Rights left to us by the authority and leadership of our forebears and/or forefathers. Our sovereignty to be redeemed or returned, established and maintained as by “Prescription Law” supporting towards our returned of government or the re-establishment of it. “Prescription Law” in other words, in Practice, the most important criteria on earth to legitimize a nation-state, even irrespective of Foreign Sovereign Powers’ jurisdiction upon us, or so-called so, is an important legal doctrine that legitimizes our Royal De’jure Sovereignty and title through the passage of time; Moreover, when a passage of time has not lapsed. Today, “Prescription Law” is increasingly recognized as a powerful doctrine which has earned Worldwide respect and admiration for being practical in not only solving property problems, but for sovereignty issues for territories and whole nation-state. But “Prescription Law” can also destroy Sovereignty, Royal and Sovereign Titles, and privileges indefinitely or “Ad Infinitum”. That is why “Prescription Law” is so important, as a center point, in determining true or false claims, especially in regards to those whose ancestors or forebears failed to maintain their rights having gone to parallel sovereignty losing their rule due to foreign sovereign administration and usurpers ceding upon the territories. Likewise, descendants, if any, loses their rights as renounced and having deem abandoned it in a treaty or agreement. Inasmuch, as the true Heirs, even having gone to Parallel Sovereignty, did not forfeit in any way or in writing, their rights; or by silence or implied waiver, renunciation or estoppelle never giving-up His Highness’ Seal and Flags of Authority and Legitimacy as the Rightful Heir and Rightful Government. The silence of His Highness’ Royal Family lest than 100 years particularly during foreign encroachments (Spanish and American), the Japanese occupation in World War II and during Martial Law times, and either due to duress or deception by usurpers and/or authoritarian government administering upon the territories thru either threat or some other, does not presume His Highness or the Royal Family’s renunciation by their silence. Sovereignty was never null or abandoned, as by law. Countries should restore or return what they had or are in possessed of, for the Sultanates’ is proved to be the Rightful Owner and Rightful Government. His Highness, the Sultan Suluk Negara did not forfeit the character or Royalty or Sovereignty and Title, merely by the loss of His Highness’ Kingdom-Lands and Territories to foreign Sovereign Administration, or so-called, jurisdiction from their stand and point of view. Neither the loss of His Highness Country’s De’jure Sovereignty nor of His People, even if His Highness is unjustly despoiled of it by usurpers or by rebels or by de’facto government who had become the authoritarian government or by another sultanate recognized entity. His Highness, the Sultan Suluk Negara, H.R.H. Sultan Sharif Maulana Paduka Ahmad Carpenter Arpa – V Ibni Maharaja Adinda Taup Angging (Anddin) Zein Ul-Abidin Al-Marhum Sultan Sharif Ul-Hashim Abu’bkr Mohammad Shah, preserves His Rights to Sovereignty and Royal Sovereignty title as the direct vassal of the 1842 Sultan Mohammad Fadlun or better known as Pulalun and the 1859 Maharaja Adinda Taup, the latter being Sultan Pulalun’s heir-apparent and His Highness’ great-grandfather. His Highness, a direct vassal- sovereign of his kingly ancestors and of His Nation-State and country, although His Kingdom under foreign sovereign administration, is not subjected to any superior authority. The practice of our Islamic-Jurisprudence and Sultanate principles and policies eventually will render political impotence to foreign administration and usurpers. His Highness’ and His People’s Islamic-Jurisprudence is the “Prescription” to the return of our Total Sovereignty as a country-state, and not terrorism. Terrorism is not attributed to the religion of Islam, just as other terrorism is not attributed to any other religion of non-Muslims who commits it. In His Highness’ State of Affairs, His is a Government-In-Waiting while Muslim Ummahs and adherents are spearheading His Highness’ cause. As a sovereign, His Highness is entitled to due respect and honors as such, and all protocols in His State-of-Affairs as a “government-in-waiting” and functioning as such. Wah Billahi Tawfiq Wal-Hidaya, Wassalamu Alaikum Warahmatullah. H.R.H. Sharif Maulana Paduka Ahmad Carpenter Arpa-V ibni Maharaja Adinda Taup Angging (Anddin) Zein Ul-Abidin Ulrijal Bolkiah Tagean Al-Marhum Sultan Sharif Ul-Hashim Abu’Bkr Mohamad Shah Maharlika Suluk Negara) Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo-Sabah and Territories as by consanguinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.6.187 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Presidents of British Commonwealth-associated countries.

I see that you have forgotten to add in the following lists;

When are you going to add in these to the Presidential Chronologies list? These places are (or were) republics in their own right. - (Aidan Work 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

I've added Dominica to the list, and have also added South Africa before Mandela (as the difference between "State President" and "President" is purely semantic), but the rest probably shouldn't be in the listing of "Presidential chronologies", as that listing only contains existing and/or recognised countries. Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei and Venda were all Bantustans, i.e. they were never recognised by any other country than South Africa (and were never members of the Commonwealth) and they also no longer exist (except as regions within South Africa). Regarding the Orange Free State and the South African Republic, these countries no longer exist, and Somaliland has not yet been recognised by any other country. To make the limitations of the listing more obvious, I've modified the title to "Presidential chronologies of existing, recognised countries".
However, both "Presidential chronologies" and "Specific information" below it need a clean-up, as they both often link to the same articles. Thomas Blomberg 17:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: it has not been the "British" Commonwealth since 1946. Hu 03:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cross Correlation

For US Presidents descended from Other major global figures or Countries see- Jesus's Presidents ISBN 0595333001, Mohammed's US Presidents ISBN 059537901X, China's US Presidents ISBN 0595377092,India's US Presidents ISBN 0595379001,The Bush Family ISBN 0595332692 (descend from Mid East,Europe, etc)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.7.106 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

1st Internationally recognised President

In the article it says "The first internationally recognized president was the President of the United States of America". As the definition of President is given as "a title held by many leaders of organizations, companies, universities, and countries" surely this is wrong. The first internationally recognised President I can thnk of is William Brouncker, the first President of the Royal Society as that body (& therefore its president) was recognised internationally & carried out correspondence with individuals & government sponsored bodies throughout Europe (such as Accademia dei Lincei & Académie française). AllanHainey 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now changed this in the article. AllanHainey 11:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

"Praeses"? Isn't it just the latin verb "praesedere", to preside? Stevage 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

attention needed

There are two sections named Presidential systems which talk about different things. need someone to chage that .SYSS Mouse 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this to clarify.

General edit

there was a call to improve the text. I've edited the main sections on history and types of presidency just to make a little clearer. I haven't really changed any of the basic info. Also some typos corrected to the rest and a cut to the Latter day Saints section which strayed off the point a little.

Presidents of non-independent countries

Where is the list of the presidents of non-independent countries? Catalonia, for example, have Presidents since XIV century. I'm sure that exist other presidents of countries that aren't reconocited for the international comunity

List of Presidents of Namibia

This list has been omitted. - (192.190.108.19 07:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

Done.--Damifb 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Call to watch for Vandalism

Somebody has definitely been tampering with this page: "intiates the weapons x program bureau. Starting in the mid 1900's the president began to be injected with a super serum allowing to speak dead presidents before him....In rare occassions he is chose by a man known as the sentry who governs the powers of the sun."

13 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.72.160 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This page had the name "Charlie Murphy" posted numerous times within one of the early sections of the article. From reading some of the history of this page, it appears that this is not the first time the page has been vandalised. Maybe the page should be locked from editing if this continues.

RaiderTarheel 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pay

Can somebody find out how much do presidents get paid? Because i've heard they get almost nothing, but all their expenses are paid for. But other sources say they get about 200k a year. I'm talking about european/american/russian presidents, not dictators or something :P

From 1969-2001, US Presidents were paid $200,000/year. This was bumped up to $400,000/year in 2001 (Incidentally, as of 2003, Vice-Presidents get $198,600/year).[1] And you are correct, their expenses (housing, transportation, food, utilities, etc.) are paid-for by taxpayers. -Rhrad 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But the presidents get as much of that to keep as they want because A. they don't have to pay taxes B. they get all their bills, service, foods, and other things paid for by taxes so essentially all that money is theirs to keep and spend on new cars.

Republic or Democracy?

The United States of America is a Republic. Why is The U.S. refered to under the Democracy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.48.200 (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

main section hack

{{editsemiprotected}}If you have not noticed, someone has hacked the following into the beginning of this page and at the least the entry for Executive Branch: "presidents ar3 gay fags and stupid i hat3 every presedent exept aboma cuzz he balck yah no wait whit3 folks |}"

I don't have time to remedy this but it should be cleaned up.

Probably reverted - not there now. SkierRMH (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

main section hack revisited

{{editsemiprotected}} I made the change akin to this hateful language under the entry for Executive Branch: "presidents ar3 gay fags and stupid i hat3 every presedent exept aboma cuzz he balck yah no wait whit3 folks |}"

The change was simply to remove "{{Executive}}"

I am not auto-confirmed so cannot change this page. Please remove this entry from this page. If you know how to find similar on other entries, let us know how so we can be vigilant about cleaning these items out of our wikipedia.

Done :) It wasn't even in the edit code for the article, so all I had to do was simply click the edit button and submit the changes-after that it was gone. Very odd. I'll be sure to pass this on to an admin. --Flyingbox (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The vandal had changed the Template:Executive. Reverting that edit fixed the problem with this article.Silverchemist (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that, I wouldn't suspect it at first glance. --Flyingbox (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

"Putin however did not cling to the greatest position in Russia, however he did the next best thing, Putin appointed a pupet, President Dmitry Medvedev to stay as front man while Putin...."

Not a Putin fan here, but these are weasel words nonetheless. I'm too lazy to think about what to put in its place Masterblooregard (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Woman president

I just thought I'd punch in these two words and find a nicely written article about the whole subject of women in politics as leaders, especially a list of countries in chronological order of having their first elected leader being a woman would have been interesting. Just so I'd know who was the first woman president, and such. But all I got was a list of articles about women presidents. Now is there really no such article (what I find hard to believe) or is it just named something rather unorthodox? And normally, this article should link to it. And I won't be getting bold with this one 'cause I just don't know social sciences, politology and the position of women in society included. Thank you for your time.--Mátyás (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it! List of the first female holders of political offices--Mátyás (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Corporate President

The corporate definition of a president seems pretty weak in this article. I wonder if it should be split into two articles, one for political and one for business? JettaMann (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

About Presidents

It's stated, "It's also adopted by many dictators". Blunt statement if you ask me, don't think it should be in the "definition" of what president is. And I would think dictators call themselves "leader" more than they call themselves "president". So I'll just delete the unnecessary and inaccurate statement Nlionel (talk) 09:58 p.m, February 8th, 2011 (UTC)

Presidents in democratic countries

This entire section is about as biased as you can get. While I don't necessarily disagree, this certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I propose we simply delete the entire thing, since it offers no real information.Noz92 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I've re-written it completely.LukeSurl t c 09:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Average cost of a President

Anybody knows of studies made on this? Seems like a hot topic on countries balancing between making a choice between a monarch and a presidency. Thank you. --SvenAERTS (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New image

I do not believe the image added to this page by VKFP (talk · contribs) is appropriate, as I don't believe it's related in any way to the article's content. Any thoughts?--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Presidential cronologies

The Presidential chronologies section is quite bulky, can I suggest this is moved to something like List of Presidencies of Nation States? LukeSurl t c 09:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidential term lengths

Was wondering about a section with examples of different term lengths for different nations. Idea came as I was trying to research this very subject to see how different countries do this. For example the US has 4 year per term, 2 term limit. What about other countries. And I know you can look up each individually. But when you are looking for examples of the different kinds of examples, a small list of examples could be helping jump start for people looking for idea, and they can do more work if they need further examples. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_(government_title)/Archive_1&oldid=1159609905"