Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Numbers Don't Add Up . . .

All of the survey totals seem to be one short . . . for example, CSPAN and Siena have ranked all the presidents except Barack Obama, but yet the total at the top of the table is only 42. Should it not be 43? Ashwin N 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANarayan (talk • contribs)

It's because Grover Cleveland was president for two non-consecutive terms: he was both the 22nd and the 24th president. So although Barack Obama is the 44th president, he is only the 43rd person to be president. Jdhowens90 (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! That makes sense. Thank you. Ashwin N (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Coloring of Historian Chart

Is someone going to finish the coloring of the quartiles on the historian poll chart. It looks half done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Quartiles

The division into quartiles had a couple of errors and was inconsistent with respect to borderline cases. I tried to make things consistent, so that in case of doubt presidents were put in the middle quartiles, with preference to the higher quartile. Here's the division schema I used:

29: 7, 8, 7, 7 (i.e. when there were a total of 29 presidents in a survey, I put 7 in the 1st quartile, 8 in the 2nd quartile, 7 in the 3rd quartile, and 7 in the 4th quartile)
31: 8, 8, 8, 7
36: 9, 9, 9, 9
38: 9, 10, 10, 9
39: 10, 10, 10, 9
40: 10, 10, 10, 10
41: 10, 11, 10, 10
42: 10, 11, 11, 10

If a survey with 43 presidents comes out, it will go

43: 11, 11, 11, 10

Grover cleveland (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Siena Rankings

For the Siena College to rank FDR as the best president while Washington languishes at 4th or better completely misundersands the nature of the Washington presidency. If anything, the very fact that Washington ceded power to his elected successor, the first time a national leader had done so in centuries, is what laid the foundations for all subsequent presidents - the emphasis that the president serves the people and not the reverse. (Mekozak (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

This page is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlesinger 1996

The 1996 Schlesinger poll should be placed on the historian chart. He used a lot of great Historians to put it together. I think its an okay ranking. Please check out the results and get back to me on the answer, thanks a lot!

P.S. Grover cleveland, I think you did the quartiles so i included where they would be.

Quartile 1 1. Lincoln 2. Washington 3. F. Roosevelt 4. Jefferson 5. Jackson 6. T. Roosevelt 7. Wilson 8. Truman 9. Polk Quartile 2 10. Eisenhower 11. Adams 12. Kennedy 13. Cleveland 14. L. B. Johnson 15. Monroe 16. McKinley 17. Madison 18. Q. Adams 19. Harrison (Benjamin) Quartile 3 20. Clinton 21. Van Buren 22. Taft 23. Hayes 24. Bush 25. Reagan 26. Arthur 27. Carter 28. Ford 29. Taylor Quartile 4 30. Coolidge 31. Fillmore 32. Tyler 33. Pierce 34. Grant 35. Hoover 36. Nixon 37. A. Johnson 38. Buchanan 39. Harding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a source for this? Grover cleveland (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/schlesinger.html Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Done. Phew... Grover cleveland (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

War

It's just a point to note that, in order to have a decent chance to be considered "great," a U.S. President seems to have to have served during a period of war (or, failing that, to start one). 66.108.89.8 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Allen Roth

This is not a page for general discussion of the topic. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry S Truman

{{editsemiprotected}} Harry S. Truman is incorrect...there should be no period after the middle initial S, since his middle name was simply "S" -- this is a global edit, and his name should always be listed as Harry S Truman when including his middle name/initial

Aldyn1 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, see Talk:Harry S. Truman/FAQ. • ɔ ʃ → 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is The Times survey really notable?

It was done solely by some columnists for the newspaper -- not by any survey of notable scholars or historians. And quite frankly most of the participants (listed here) are rather undistinguished hacks. Not sure how to make this WP:NPOV but surely there does need to be some line somewhere. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

for example: As if to prove how huge a task this was, Daniel Finkelstein, the Times chief leader writer, pooled resources with his colleague Oliver Kamm while deliberating "to ensure that we knew enough about all the Presidents to deliver a judgment on each". In other words, one of the "expert" judges had to ask one of his colleagues to help him because he didn't know enough about all the presidents. Hardly inspires confidence in the resulting ranking. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Grover cleveland, I agree somewhat, they are a British newspaper, and some of the ranks are a little odd. I truthfully do not think they should be a part of the historian polls, as they are not historians. I would back you in taking them off, but maybe wait a while. In the mean time, at least put it (2008), before the Cspan (2009). I'm kind of OCD ing about that. Thanks :)

And why is a 2008 ranking after a 2009 ranking? --Daniel the duck (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else move the poll to its proper place? I am all tired out from adding the schlesinger 1996 poll :) Grover cleveland (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Guys, I just saw above the chart it says, the Times asked top international and political commentators, I'm not exactly sure what to make of it, the source is just the Times itself. Any ways, I just wanted to let you know.

P.S. Grover cleveland, Sorry about the Schlesinger poll, always bugged me that it wasn't there.

Also, I can't change the Times Poll, don't have access yet.

I think they should put the Rasmussen 2007 rank instead-but if you don't please put the CSPAN rank after Times

Actually, I don't know much about the Rasmussen, not sure if it's reliable, in my opinion both should be off.

I honestly think any poll that covers all 43 (44) presidents that was conducted by a reputable source should be included. But, it also needs to be a poll that ranks from greatest to least or vice-versa. As much as I like and respect the Rasmussen poll, it is not a rank poll. Not everyone voted on every single president. Some Presidents have lower numbers just because less people voted for them. --Diamond Dave (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Times

Will someone please delete the Times ranking from the chart. They only consulted their political reporters, therefore they cannot be taken seriously. No notable historians (American or European) were a part of this survey. When you go to their website the remarks and justification for their rankings are poor and they give no more than about 4 sentences with weak explanations for some pretty strange rankings. They need to be eliminated from the historian polls. Maybe they can be added underneath in the opinion polls, but that's good enough. Please take care of that as soon as possible, anyone who has access to editing protected pages.

Sincerely, someone who does not have access to editing protected pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See the above section of this page suggesting the same thing. Is anyone here seriously prepared to defend the legitimacy of the The Times survey as meriting inclusion? If not, I, or some other editor, should remove it. Luckily it's on the far right of the table, so it shouldn't be too difficult... Grover cleveland (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that my objection to including The Times survey in the main table is purely based on the lack of any participants other than journalists, specifically the absence of anyone who could be called a scholar. Obviously there could be borderline cases, but this is not one of them. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think any poll should be included as long as it is compiled from a reputable source, the Presidents are ranked from greatest to least (or vice versa), and they cover all 43 (or 44) presidents. I don't see the harm and since it doesn't seem to be that many greates to least polls from legit sources that cover all 43, we should take what we can get. --Diamond Dave (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sienna 2010 poll

Sienna College just came out with a new poll, and since it's the first to rank Barack Obama (at #15), it might be worthwhile for someone to add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.101.62 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work to whoever added it! Grover cleveland (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Top 43 Sexiest Presidents

I don't think this should be added to the main list of rates, but might be nice to mention within a separate section of the article. I wasn't sure where it would fit, but I still think it would be a great addition to this article. http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/the-top-43-sexiest-us-presidents --Diamond Dave (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I say no only because Nixon was a sexy beast and he's lower than Quincy Adams on there :b - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should be updating this article based upon what we agree or disagree with. I'd prefer rating the first ladies. Still, I think it would make an interesting mention.

I would really like to know why this was taken down. The only reason I got was Truthsort (talk | contribs) (61,128 bytes) (this is an encyclopedia, not GQ). That doesn't seem like very reasonable reason. This article is looking at rankings of Presidents. This is a different type of ranking that should be recorded. --Diamond Dave (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable content. Just because information can be added does not mean we should do so. A poll about the "sexiness" of presidents is IMO not notable. We could fill up this article with all sorts of polls like which president had the cutest pet, which one had the best hairstyle, which one had the best accent and so on. --Vin Kaleu (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a ranking of the first ladies by Siena that would be a nice add in section, I don't know about "sexiness" though, it seems pretty interpretable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

C.D. Strand - Ranking The Presidents (2003)

I found this ranking, but I am having some difficulty adding it with the coding in place. Could someone add it? Here's the link to poll http://www.cdstrand.com/areas/essays/presranks.htm --Diamond Dave (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That could only be added to below section on popular polls. This is because that ranking was done by the opinion of one person, it can't be considered a historian poll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Therealfactor, 1 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please note that all findings and surveys are provided by scholars with a history of liberal interests. This is apparent in the consistent low ranking of President Nixon. Therealfactor (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. That is not an edit request. --Stickee (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can not change the article based on your whim. If scholars have a liberal-lean it's still the best source for historical rankings. Besides that's just untrue. Wall Street Journal rankings and I'm sure a couple more on that chart have a conservative lean (a heavy one). Just because you don't agree wuith them doesn't give you the right to delete this whole page, I for one use that chart for a huge number of things, I do not want to see it deleted because of a whiny conservative like you wanting to push the opinions of the Tea Party on everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.41.97 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Idea

Let's repost that chart that lists all the reasons why each president is listed in such a manner, including wars, good policies, bad policies and other stuff. Who's with me? --Uga Man ☎ 05:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You would need citations from the people who actually voted in the polls, explaining why they voted the way they did. If you can find such citations, go ahead. However, please do not add general "these are the good things and bad things about each president" sections, which would be WP:OR. You can easily find out such information by following the link to each president's article. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I will do so. Please help with the extensive research if possible. Thank you.--Uga Man ☎ 00:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Poll of UK experts

This article is lacking in international perspectives, so I present the first poll of UK experts in American history and politics. Here is a link to the BBC article; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12195111 and the actual list; http://americas.sas.ac.uk/research/survey/overall.htm. I believe this would fit well into the article.--FrankieG123 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's Party

Is it correct to list him as a Democrat? He was elected on the National Union Party's ticket. The article on the 1864 presidential election lists both Lincoln and Johnson as National Union Party. Perhaps Lincoln should be listed as Republican / National Union as well. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has objected, so I'll make the change. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rasmussen Rankings in wrong order?

It seems as though when two presidents have identical favorable percentages, then the president with the higher unfavorable percentage should be ranked below the others. But this is not always the case in the current table. Is this table reflecting decimal percentages which are not shown, or is it incorrectly ranking the presidents which are tied by failing to invert the unfavorable results? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.226.50 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Obama

How is Obama ranked 99 in the TIME poll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.249.29 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He's not. 99 is used as a sort term, so that entries with dashes (i.e., no data) appear at the bottom of an ascending sort. Using the historical average length of service, the sort term value will need to be increased in a little under 300 years. Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Rankings extrapolation

Is there any way to extrapolate all the rankings to 43? What I mean is that Warren G. Harding is ranked 29th (last) in the 1948 poll, but 41st (out of 43) in the 2010 poll. If it's possible to extrapolate values to even them all out, it would be interesting to create an all-time average value. I see from past discussion that averages were decried, but I think since it's just representation of available data, it isn't really original research. In any case, if the answer is still no, perhaps someone can still tell me how I can do that for my personal perusal. Jmj713 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We need a Condorcet method to do this ranking. I've applied Copeland's method which simply ranks the number of pairwise victories minus the number of pairwise defeats. We rank each pair of presidents head-to-head. For example, Lincoln is ranked ahead of Washington in 14 surveys, while Washington is ranked ahead of Lincoln in only 2 surveys. Therefore Lincoln beats Washington head-to-head. Repeat this exercise for every possible pair of presidents, then subtract the number of defeats from the number of victories. I wrote a script to do this ranking, and you get this table:

                     W  T  L  W-L
 1:    Lincoln      42  0  0  42
 2:    F.Roosevelt  41  0  1  40
 3:    Washington   40  0  2  38
 4:    Jefferson    39  0  3  36
 5:    T.Roosevelt  38  0  4  34
 6:    Wilson       37  0  5  32
 7:    Truman       36  0  6  30
 8:    Eisenhower   35  0  7  28
 9:    Jackson      34  0  8  26
10:    Polk         33  0  9  24
11:    Kennedy      32  0 10  22
12-13: J.Adams      30  0 12  18
12-13: Madison      30  0 12  18
14-16: Monroe       28  0 14  14
14-16: L.Johnson    28  0 14  14
14-16: Obama        28  0 14  14
17:    Reagan       26  0 16  10
18-19: J.Q.Adams    24  1 17   7
18-19: Cleveland    24  1 17   7
20:    McKinley     23  0 19   4
21:    Clinton      22  1 19   3
22:    Taft         21  0 21   0
23:    G.H.W.Bush   20  1 21  -1
24-25: VanBuren     18  0 24  -6
24-25: Hayes        18  0 24  -6
26:    Ford         16  1 25  -9
27:    Arthur       15  2 25 -10
28:    Carter       14  2 26 -12
29:    Garfield     12  2 28 -16
30-31: Coolidge     11  3 28 -17
30-31: Hoover       12  1 29 -17
32:    B.Harrison   10  3 29 -19
33:    Nixon         8  3 31 -23
34:    Taylor        9  0 33 -24
35-36: Tyler         8  0 34 -26
35-36: G.W.Bush      8  0 34 -26
37:    Grant         5  3 34 -29
38:    Fillmore      4  2 36 -32
39:    W.Harrison    4  1 37 -33
40:    Pierce        3  1 38 -35
41:    A.Johnson     2  0 40 -38
42:    Buchanan      1  0 41 -40
43:    Harding       0  0 42 -42

Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it! I think you should somehow incorporate it into the main table, or as a separate one. Jmj713 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. There are other methods that could also be used, such as Kemeny-Young, Minimax Condorcet, Ranked pairs and the Schulze method. I presume there is some free software out there to do the tabulations... Grover cleveland (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC

Chap chap, let's get a move on what the hell happened to this idea?

Done now. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The table above for the aggregate rankings was compiled before the USPC 2011 poll. According to my tabulation, here’s the table including the USPC 2011 poll (these aggregate rankings are already reflected in the article):

                     W  T  L  W-L                            W  T  L  W-L
 1:    Lincoln      42  0  0  42        24:    VanBuren     18  1 23  -5
 2:    F.Roosevelt  41  0  1  40        25:    Hayes        18  0 24  -6
 3:    Washington   40  0  2  38        26:    Ford         17  0 25  -8
 4:    Jefferson    39  0  3  36        27:    Carter       16  0 26 -10
 5:    T.Roosevelt  38  0  4  34        28:    Arthur       14  1 27 -13
 6:    Wilson       37  0  5  32        29-30: Hoover       13  0 29 -16
 7:    Truman       36  0  6  30        29-30: Garfield     12  2 28 -16
 8-9:  Eisenhower   34  1  7  27        31:    Coolidge     12  1 29 -17
 8-9:  Jackson      34  1  7  27        32:    Nixon        10  2 30 -20
10:    Polk         33  0  9  24        33:    B.Harrison    9  1 32 -23
11:    Kennedy      31  1 10  21        34:    G.W.Bush      6  6 30 -24
12:    J.Adams      30  1 11  19        35:    Taylor        8  1 33 -25
13:    Madison      30  0 12  18        36:    Tyler         7  1 34 -27
14-16: Monroe       28  0 14  14        37:    Grant         7  0 35 -28
14-16: L.Johnson    28  0 14  14        38-39: Fillmore      4  1 37 -33
14-16: Obama        28  0 14  14        38-39: W.Harrison    4  1 37 -33
17:    Reagan       26  0 16  10        40:    Pierce        3  0 39 -36
18:    J.Q.Adams    25  0 17   8        41:    A.Johnson     2  0 40 -38
19:    Cleveland    24  0 18   6        42:    Buchanan      1  0 41 -40
20-21: McKinley     23  0 19   4        43:    Harding       0  0 42 -42
20-21: Clinton      23  0 19   4     
22-23: Taft         20  1 21  -1     
22-23: G.H.W.Bush   20  1 21  -1

-- Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you take average percentiles, which would probably be the most appropriate method of aggregating rankings that frequently omit some presidents, you arrive at this rather similar list:

1 Abraham Lincoln 95.96% 2 Franklin D. Roosevelt 94.56% 3 George Washington 92.93% 4 Thomas Jefferson 88.26% 5 Theodore Roosevelt 87.52% 6 Woodrow Wilson 82.19% 7 Harry S. Truman 81.64% 8 Andrew Jackson 75.73% 9 Dwight D. Eisenhower 73.69% 10 James K. Polk 71.09% 11 John F. Kennedy 69.89% 12 John Adams 67.46% 13 Lyndon B. Johnson 66.81% 14 James Madison 65.75% 15 Barack Obama 65.12% 16 James Monroe 63.40% 17 Ronald Reagan 63.27% 18 Grover Cleveland 59.06% 19 William McKinley 56.94% 20 John Quincy Adams 54.85% 21 Bill Clinton 52.25% 22 George H. W. Bush 46.67% 23 William Howard Taft 45.79% 24 Martin Van Buren 39.92% 25 Rutherford B. Hayes 39.09% 26 Gerald Ford 35.27% 27 Jimmy Carter 34.05% 28 Chester A. Arthur 33.12% 29 Benjamin Harrison 28.29% 30 Herbert Hoover 27.88% 31 James A. Garfield 27.78% 32 Calvin Coolidge 27.17% 33 George W. Bush 25.96% 34 Richard Nixon 25.72% 35 Zachary Taylor 23.33% 36 Ulysses S. Grant 19.07% 37 John Tyler 16.80% 38 Millard Fillmore 15.20% 39 William Henry Harrison 14.91% 40 Andrew Johnson 10.45% 41 Franklin Pierce 7.78% 42 Warren G. Harding 3.42% 43 James Buchanan 3.24% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.217.66 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Minority non white race views on Presidential rankings

I believe a section on non white alternative views on Presidents is important. For example, in the 1996 Schlesinger ranking 31 of the 32 historians were white and only one was black. Is there any break down on the race of historians in these "surveys"? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Aggregate rankings

How accurate are the aggregate rankings in the article since the criteria in each pole is different and has been ranked by different people? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is dubious

The article, or at least the "professional" rankings, are dubious in the extreme. Other than the Sienna poll, the 1996 Schlesinger poll and the USPC poll, the citations for the other polls all point to dead links (or don't exist at all). This alone is enough to remove these polls. But besides this, there are other problems. Most seem to be polls of fewer than 100 'historians', though many of these (like the Times poll) aren't even of historians. The USPC poll is of about 50 British historians (???). Two of the polls are extremely old. There also seems to be a mix of the views of historians/non-historians. Plus, there is no discussion of the methodological weakness of these kinds of polls (Gordon Wood calls them "silly things"). It would seem that this table then tells you almost nothing of value. I think that table should be eliminated or at least condensed, and the rankings the focus of more discussion.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the table tells us exactly what it should: how each president was ranked. Jmj713 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that their rank in history is set by groups of journalists (as in the times poll) or groups of 50 random historians (or as in the USPC poll, 50 UK historians) is misleading. The table should be condensed, and material added detailing the weakness of this method.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Claiming that their rank in history is set by groups of journalists" is a straw man, so it's not very hard to knock it down, and doing so does not show that the article is dubious. The lead section explains exactly what the title means: rankings by historians, not "rankings" somehow independent of the opinions of people who study the topic. There is no such thing as an august-sounding "rank in history", there's only sourced opinion. The sources are polls of scholars, they're adequate sources, the table summarizes them and nothing more. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A section on crimes by presidents should be included

In my view, 2 of the very very worst presidents were James K. Polk and Andrew Jackson. Since the historians apparently weren't asked about war crimes, the type of question pollsters would tell you would quickly change the direction of a respondent's thinking, whether historian or not, I say Polk and Jackson got off better than they deserve in these rankings.--Rich Peterson198.189.194.129 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan snubbed by article

Every single one of the "popular" surveys shows Reagan among the top 10, and often near the top. Why is this fact omitted from the general overview at the front of the article? Kennedy is also frequently listed in popular surveys 71.190.72.55 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll add it in.--Daniel the duck (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, Reagan is considered great by popular polls more so than scholarly polls. The majority of the polls on the historian chart does not consider Reagan in the top 10 so he should not be regarded as one. Thank You. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Reagan is viewed differently by historians. 65.26.247.38 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree that all these "historian" polls are highly biased against Republicans. Just sort by party and it's completely obvious. GEAH (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of discrepancy between scholar ratings and popular ratings?

There is no summary of how scholarly opinion of the presidents differ from popular public opinion, if they do so. This might be interesting to know. I'm a bit unsure myself how to write such a section. --Vin Kaleu (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you do have access and are just unsure on how to write it, I can help you out. Scholars rank based on success and failure. They take a president's leadership qualities, domestic achievements (civil rights, resolving strikes/crises at home), foreign policy (war and peace abroad), and various other areas they believe are important to the presidential seat. Scholars give special consideration to presidents that led through successful wars (Abraham Lincoln) and presidents who improved the economy (F. Roosevelt). Presidents who really made a difference are recognized more so than do-nothings (or unknowns) like Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, and Rutherford B. Hayes. In conclusion scholars usually present a fair rating because of their knowledge or a wider range of presidents and their understanding of leadership qualities, of course there is still bias. Popular polls are much less reliable for 2 main reasons. 1) People that take part in these polls do not normally know as much about past president, so they focus unfairly on modern presidents over older ones. You will hear most modern Democrats say that Carter, Clinton, or Kennedy was the best. Such as Republicans will say it was Reagan, Bush, or Bush Jr. The same goes for the worst presidents. These people not only have a biased understanding of the presidents but, 2) Popular polls ask normal people who do not have criteria for rankings. Scholars are specially trained to understand these sorts of things, they are experts at what they do and so you will commonly see rankings whether liberal, conservative, or balanced come out relatively similar. (Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington as the top, and Buchanan, Pierce, and Harding as the bottom). These of course, are not always the way it is, but pretty similar. So seeing this, you will notice the differences in the popular poll and the scholar polls primarily being that popular polls place modern presidents (and the most obvious: Lincoln and Washington) at the top, while scholars, having a better understanding of history and criteria for their rankings will present a more diverse top 10 than would a popular poll taken with normal people.

"Scholars rank based on success and failure." As well as their own prejudices. These are people, after all. GEAH (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this helps whoever will write a section like that understand some of the differences. Thank you for bringing up that topic, very important. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be an interesting topic, but we would need to have reliable sources for it: it can't just be the impressions of editors. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity was my summary accurate about the differences? Anyone welcome to reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the Siena 2010 poll

Judging by how this poll ranks presidents (15 for Obama because of upbringing, I'm no historian but aren't presidents usually ranked by their accomplishments and failures? Also peculiar how Reagan ranks 18 despite being viewed highly by the public and historians.) it really shouldn't be added to the list. Also considering how long Obama's been in office and the drastically differing opinions of him (as with Bush, yes his presidency wasn't a total failure like many others). - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Polls aren't removed because individual editors disagree with the results. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Very Sorry, i have to agree with Grover cleveland. Siena is one of the most respected and reliable historian polls, up in the leagues of Cspan and Wall Street Journal. They do have a much wider span of criteria, but that's how they choose to do it. Reagan ranks 18, because despite success with the Cold War, his Reaganomics nearly bankrupt the country and dropped the United States from a world power stance. That is why he scores poorly in Domestic, while much better in foreign. The bottom line is that the historians who came up with these results is a lot more qualified and knowledgeable on the subject than some smart-ass little prick who can't stand that Reagan isn't in the top five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.16.37 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BlagoCorzine 2016, Siena always gives funky results. We should remove it because it doesn't match other results. Also, why is FDR better than Washington and Lincoln? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the duck (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Polls aren't removed because individual editors disagree with the results :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.41.97 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone over how they rank presidents in this survey (background, integrity, LUCK.) and it seems highly unprofessional. Reagan ranks 36 on intelligence for no particular reason (despite being given higher reviews on things like party unification and speaking ability, something which a person of higher intelligence is usually able to accomplish better) with Jimmy Carter placing at 13 on intelligence despite his own "southern gaffs" much like Bush. This also seems to reflect only upon what took place during Bush's second term rather than both, something that should be noted for all two-term presidents listed. I know that the opinion of one user doesn't remove it from the list, but when you look at the "facts" from this poll there doesn't really seem to be any justification for many of the things noted as highs and lows for presidents. Even Siena makes mediocre polls sometimes. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the Siena poll does vary from the other historian ranked polls (notably the CSPAN rankings), it should be left in place because it offers a slightly different perspective and uses different criteria. It would be pointless if all of these rankings showed the exact same results, even if some of the Siena results are way out in left field. A little variety never hurt, and it should stay. --FrankieG123 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sienna poll does not take into consideration the President's civil rights record. Also the Sienna poll judges on the President's family. Meaning if a President came from wealthy slave owning family his ratings go higher. If Washington was rated on Civil Rights he would get low ratings in my opinion since he signed the fugitive slave law and only allowed whites to be citizens. Jefferson might get higher Civil Rights ratings since he outlawed the slave trade, however, Washington was forbidden since the Constitution stated that slavery could not be tampered with until 1808. However, Jefferson gave millions of dollars to Napolean, and allowed slavery to spread in the Louisiana Purchase. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If civil rights is a consideration, FDR is near the bottom. What other President since the Civil War has unilaterally imprisoned a group of people, including American citizens, solely because of their race. By any standard, that alone knocks him off the top. These polls are all about politics, not history or truth. GEAH (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Added USPC rankings by category

I've added the details from the USPC survey as a new section. Ranking by several different categories seems useful, compared with just overall rankings. I can no longer find the USPC data on-line, even at archive.org, but earlier did save a copy of the summary page, which I'll e-mail on request.Septimus.stevens (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that large new table scrolls off-screen to the right. I'd like to abbreviate (or use small font size on) column headers to avoid this, but don't know how.Septimus.stevens (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias in the Ranking Polls

This page should mention the forthcoming study from White House Studies discussing liberal bias in many of the presidential ranking polls. For instance, many of the polls of historians favor modern Democratic presidents over modern Republican presidents by about 10 places on average. This peer-reviewed study shows that this bias in favor of modern Democratic presidents is attributable to the ideological biases of the raters. see http://joeuscinski.com/uploads/UscinskiSimonWHS.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeuscinski (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's because "Reality has a well known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.15.4 (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation: "Certain young liberals live in their own little worlds" Seriously though this report looks legitimate, I don't think it should be ignored.72.198.211.245 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The report's argument is asinine. Why are there so many more liberal geologists and biologists in academia than conservative ones (in the US)? Because modern conservatism is anti-science. When mainstream politicians say that creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution, that may not bother some people, but that's only because those same people are woefully ignorant of science -- I mean as ignorant of biology as a person who can't solve a quadtratic equation is of algebra. You're following me here, right? Joe Sixpack may not care about whether or not creationism should be taught in biology class, but to scientists, reason and evidence fucking matter and they are not going to roll over and deny consensus reality, and the hard-won knowledge of generations, just because some damn fool of a politician is pandering to some ignorant religious people that he himself, deep down, probably doesn't even agree with.

So you get it, right? The GOP is anti-science and anti-intellectual in general. They are the ones who have pushed out intellectuals, not the other way around. Do you think physicists sit around and conspire up liberal results to physics experiments? Well, it's equally stupid to think that climatologists and biologists dream up liberal answers to man-made climate change or evolution. And likewise ridiculous to argue that historians have a liberal bias. The truth is exactly as Colbert is more succinctly quoted above. And you might have noticed that on Wikipedia, reality-denying creationists and climate change denialists tend not to see their edits stick, because NPOV and VER, too, are founded in consensus reality and not some bullshit equivalency. For that reason, I'm removing the groundless NPOV tag from the article unless someone has a decent reason for it. "Historians hate on Bush because they're liberal" is no more a valid argument than "biologists hate on creationism because they're liberal". Modern consrvatism has made itself a hostile place for science. It wasn't this way 50 years ago, but a certain strand became dominant and here we are. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Why are there so many more liberal geologists and biologists in academia than conservative ones (in the US)? Because modern conservatism is anti-science." ---- No, anti-government. The fields of study you list depend on the government for a living. It's really that simple. If you hang out with engineers or chemists, you'll find them to be mostly conservative, at least ones that work in industry.

Wow... you're kinda an angry guy, aren't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.103.31 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Harris Interactive poll

Why would this article cite an online poll? One should differentiate between credible polling firms and those that use "interactive"(voting online) polling. Just as news sources differentiate between Zogby interactive and the regular Zogby polling. Not to say either for Zogby is top notch, but the interactive Zogby polling in often discounted by pollsters, as is Harris interactive. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

I haven't been involved with this article in quite some time, but in the past, it was decided that an attempt to use an average or aggregate rankings summary column in the chart constituted original research, and was thus unacceptable. The "Average" column was then removed by consensus, but I see that it is back (now labeled "Aggr."). The rationale for that decision was: 1. There are no official guidelines or criteria for a poll to be considered "scholarly" or authoritative. 2. It is impossible to include ALL such polls, so the selection of which polls to include in the table, and which polls to exclude, is up to the judgement of the editors, and is thus arbitrary and subject to bias. 3. Some polling bodies, such as Siena, are represented multiple times, giving such an organization undue weight in the average. 4. The polls stretch over a long period of time, so the (understandable) tendency for a president's ranking to change over time is mitigated by an average. In fact, that tendency to change as a presidency is gradually understood in historical context should be an important part of this entire entry, and that is blunted by an average.

It is my suggestion that the inclusion of an average/aggregate score column can not be accomplished while remaining free of OR or POV issues, and so deletion of that column should again be discussed. I know that it is frustrating because that very column may be exactly what drives traffic to this entry, and it is fun to come up with creative ways to tie the data together, but it is undeniable that any such attempt is based on an incomplete and arbitrary set of data. I don't see another way around it, unless there is an authoritative source out there somewhere who publishes a poll index of scholarly rankings that could be added and sourced. Mdeaton (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I believe there is resistance to have any criticism of the "scholar" polls. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is not that criticism can't appear, but that your own personal criticism should not be there. If there are acceptable sources that criticize one poll or the idea of historian polls, then it would be legitimate to include a discussion of it in the article. But, you can't put in criticism just because you think they are illegitimate or because you think the results aren't what they should be. This article reports the results of specific polls. Therefore, including the results of those polls -- properly sourced so people can check out the methodology -- is exactly what should be in this article. 98.212.198.203 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What "sort" icon??

There are no icons atop the columns in the table, "sort" or otherwise.

Would be nice to have, though. Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The icons are in the top fields, the two triangles right to the text. -- Perrak (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Link to Schlesinger's 1948 poll incorrect

The link in the chart to the Arthur M. Schlesinger 1948 poll leads to Schlesinger Jr. This needs to be changed, and a new link added to the 1996 poll by Schlesinger the younger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarwinianLoser (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Bottom Ten" Observation

The article (as of March 3, 2014) contains the following observation:

"The bottom ten (presidents, when discussed by historians) often includes James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, and John Tyler."

This strikes me as vague ("often?") and unsupported by the information in other parts of the article. In the survey results chart, Carter is listed in the fourth quartile only twice out of 16 surveys. Van Buren is only in the fourth quartile ONCE out of 18 surveys. Warren G. Harding was in the fourth quartile in every survey, yet he is not mentioned in this observation. Nor is Grant. And there are other presidents with lower total scores than Carter or Van Buren. This observation, as it now appears, feels like it's based on the author's personal opinion rather than any hard data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.202.206 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Off topic

It's a good ranking shyjayb 22:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Jimmy Carter among the best? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.67.164 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that none of the polls listed in the article rank Ronald Reagan any higher than sixth. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing sourced improvements to their associated articles, not for random discussions about the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Obama since 2010

Amazing really that Obama's not been ranked since 2010, when he was only in office for a year and a half. I really think his info should be updated based on the intervening four years. SteelMariner^Talk 07:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If he's "not been ranked since 2010", how can anyone possibly make an update? Dave Dial (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying he hasn't been, I was only making the point that his "15th" ranking in the article is based on one survey taken in 2010. SteelMariner^Talk 22:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing we can do about that. This article is not about various presidents' ratings (82% think President Fu is swell), this is about rankings (President Fu was judged as better than President Bar but not as good as President Schmo). - SummerPhD (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

WHY was the "blue box" (with colors describing the group in which presidents belonged to in general; i.e, TOP presidents being colored in blue, bottom-ranking presidents being highlighted in red) on the article's front page that highlighted Abraham Lincoln SHRUNK to the rest of the size of the "boxes" along with the size of each of the boxes of the rest of the presidents? Several months ago Abraham Lincoln, being ranked at the top overall and generally speaking, had a LARGE blue box to specifically indicate he was generally ranked as number one.shyjayb 07:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure where/when you are referring to. Which section are you referring to? When? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"General Findings" and Mikeevans64

I don't know how Wikipedia usually deals with these things but the edits to this section by Mikeevans64 are clearly politically motivated (H.W. & W as rounding out the top 10, Clinton and Obama as falling in the bottom 10? please). Anyways like I said, not sure what the protocol is here to prevent further vandalism (I don't even know how to revert his changes) but figured I'd try to draw attention to it as best I could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.26.72 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There's also vandalism and lack of citation from the Democratic side as well. I don't believe George W. Bush generally falls into the bottom 10 on most surveys, and I think most historians actually still refrain from rating him and Barack Obama as not enough time has passed to truly see the full results of their actions. I think that the early paragraph discussing who scholars think are the ten worst presidents is very suspect because it doesn't have any citations, and puts George W. Bush in the bottom 10, which again, is unlikely in a scholarly survey since most don't believe he can be rated yet. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and not sure what can be done to prevent vandalism, but I'd suggest considering removing the whole paragraph and trying to lock down the page if possible until someone can provide a reference to a reputable citation on the subject. 173.25.141.247 (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Table Color

Can someone change the color scheme of the table, because it is really unfair to Lincoln that to those with red-green color blindness it looks like he's in the bottom quartile. I am not proficient enough to do it on my own. Thanks! 98.140.187.205 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How can we tell if the color-blindness issue has been addressed? The saturation levels could be tweaked or perhaps a texture could be added, but I can't tell. However, I think a much larger issue with the table is that the chronological granularity is inconsistent. I think that polls should be grouped, perhaps by the decade, so that each displayed column represents roughly the same amount of time. That would also address the problem that the table is becoming too wide to display easily. The grouped column could be linked to an exploded view for people who want to see the exact details... Shanen (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

New Color Scheme

I do not like the new color scheme at all, with blue, green, orange, and pink. Whoever did that should really consider changing it, it is not only very difficult to get used to, but it doesn't seem right. I don't think it was an improvement whatsoever.

If anyone has an opinion on the issue, please comment. I prefer the green, blue, orange, red, because it makes sense, and I never had any trouble with color conflict, however maybe a Very Very slight lightening of all the colors would not hurt. Anyone?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.41.97 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The pink with white text is totally unreadable. 75.72.168.181 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the pink to red, in response to the above comment, and it is indeed much more readable.--JayJasper (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but don't you agree that green has always been the color of top tier presidents, not blue, why change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.41.97 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The existing color scheme has the colors in spectral order (violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, red), and is by far the most common choice in scientific work. I don't know about historical work, though. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Blue, green, orange, red, is a particularly bad set of colors because it is not a series. It doesn't appear like a gradient in some order. The best is yellow - orange - red - dark red (i.e. almost brown). Look at a color wheel (the outside edge) for the largest swath which actually looks like a single gradient, and it's yellow-to-red. Cyan, for example, doesn't look like a mix of blue and green. I know about wavelengths, etc., but what matters is legibility. 206.176.19.251 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Poll By The American Political Science Association

This most recent poll, conducted in 2014 by the American Political Science Association, called for respondents within its own organization who were scholars and political scientists. It is mentioned in passing in the article, but because the poll was conducted among studiers of the presidency, shouldn't it be included in the table itself? The table is due for another ranking, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrzr (talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the APSA poll, did you double check the math for the table? Some of the rank changes strike me as odd...certainly possible, but caught my attention as possible formula issues. Notable Johnson and Reagan's change in overall agg rank, movement that seems improbable given the add'l data Davey1107 (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I felt some of the aggregates were strange, as well. I just re-wrote the code in a simpler language and it reflects a slightly different ranking. That is disconcerting, but the code looks correct. It compares each president to each other president, poll by poll, incrementing their score if they ranked higher in more polls, and decrementing the score of the overall lower-ranked president. At the end: the higher the score, the higher the rank. This is Copeland's method. Somebody else should probably take a look at the code. Ultimately, not a big fan of the ties. I think we should look into a different aggregate method. As for the outliers, I believe it would be wrong not to include them just because of fear they would skew the data. There should be no bias about the outcome of the data. Ashrzr (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Zelizer in lede

Why has Zelizer been banned from this article? He criticized the Presidential rankings and told people to look into the actual history of the Presidents. That is censorship to edit out criticism of these Rankings. In fact these rankings are used to influence public opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am glad Zelizer was brought back into the article - his observation is accurate, and important being where it is. AndrewOne (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

With great approval

Nice; however, and with very standard colloquial vernacular, you very MISERABLY (this being in reference to the above) state your point. The rankings in the article have, as we can ALL see, recently been changed -and for the better. When YOU talk about the aggregate WE talk about the collective mass as a WHOLE. This Wikipedia article on the rankings attributed to the president of the United States is not ONLY what followers believe - which here is irrelevant to the point - but what sources can back up with proof.shyjayb 07:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

I was wondering, by the way, about that. I thought the last number at the farthest RIGHT in the column was the "overall" ranking presiding, and that that far right total number was the culmination of the averages (in ranking number) of the first 18 columns.shyjayb 07:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The aggregate has got to go.

This has been discussed over and over. The aggregate of the rankings can, in no honesty, be seen as a mere NPOV-respecting summary, but is rather one idiosyncratic and arbitrary approach to portray an overall picture. This goes beyond the question of whether the calculation can be reproduced or not. See above for a good summary of the arguments against aggregation. I'm planning to remove the aggregate from the article and add a comment in its source not to put any kind back. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have undone the deletion of the aggregate based on several factors:

1. I have seen the article linked to and the aggregate cited in several forums, thereby warranting its inclusion.

2. It does not raise POV issues, it is simply one mathematical manner of calculating a ranking from infrequently released surveys. This does not make it biases, it simply makes it one imperfect manner in which to analyze the data.

3. The removal was conducted with no community feedback or input by a user who expressed their opinion and then took over the page. If a chart feature that has been included in the article for years (I have referenced this page for at least four) is to be removed, it should be done so through editorial consensus.

We've been through the math on this one multiple times. The fact that its an odd statistic to calculate doesn't demand that we don't. A better solution would be to identify alternative mathematical means by which to analyze the data and add additional columns calling out their methodology. But until that is done, the existing column has been a widely accepted and legitimate way to quantify the table's data.

Before removing again, please get community support. I don't buy the logic for deletion, and I've seen several people refer to the information. Davey1107 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I appreciate you discussing your revert here, I find the points you bring up problematic:

Whether the aggregate is considered useful elsewhere is wholly irrelevant; it's about what's encyclopedic. "If it's useful, it belongs on Wikipedia" is a notion not supported by policy.
There is definitely a NPOV issue here, because the decision to aggregate the rankings and the choice of how to do it, goes beyond "routine calculation" and takes us firmly into original research territory. In addition, the appropriateness of calculating an aggregate has been attacked on other grounds, like the fact that the surveys have been taken at different points in times and that some surveyors appear more than once.
As I expected any removal to be contentious, I have taken pains to be very prudent, first by adding an inline template and then by giving sufficient advance warning on the Talk page, all with the intent of provoking a discussion here, before being bold and making the actual change. You cannot expect anyone to accept a prolonged silence as some sort of veto. If you go through this Talk page and its archives, you can clearly find various instances where aggregating the rankings in some fashion was deemed to be inappropriate. Conversely, where an editor followed the urge to add an aggregate, it was never accompanied by anything repudiating these earlier arguments; it just crept back in. I find that a dubious form of "consensus".
Moreover, phrases like "has never edited page" or "took over the page" is completely inappropriate, revealing a lack of appreciation of the "no ownership" policy of Wikipedia. No one who is being constructive has more or less legitimacy in editing particular articles.

For an idea of summarizing the surveys in a less contentious way, consider using a line chart. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless this method of weighting and combining these specific rankings are already produced in one or more reliable sources, it's textbook synthesis for a Wikipedia editor to independently decide that this is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I appreciate the intent and the effort behind trying to make a simple summary for readers but unfortunately it's not at all simple to create such metrics and that must be left to professionals who we then cite. ElKevbo (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any more discussion? (No, it's not acceptable to merely revert others' edits without any discussion.) 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

These are called RANKINGS for a reason, so I believe there is. The previously held (some years ago) OVERALL greatest presidential ranking - in this particular article it such that it is Abraham Lincoln AS OF now - got the 'big blue squares', what ever happened to that? shyjayb 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw it out there - an aggregate that's probably as close as you can get to NPOV would be to rate them according to (favorable comparisons / total comparisons). For example, Obama has been in one survey where he was compared to 42 other presidents and was found to be better than 28 of them, and in one survey where he was compared to 42 other presidents and was found to be better than 25 of them, so his score would be $(28+25)/(42+42)=53/84\approx 0.63$ .

This solves the concern that surveys were taken at different times. Also, I don't think it's necessarily a POV problem for the aggregate poll that some surveyors appear more than once. Since a correctly created aggregate poll merely represents the table as it is, the bias in the aggregate comes directly from a bias in the table itself. If a table had 10 rankings from one surveyor and one ranking from another, that table would be biased regardless of whether the bias is spelled out in an aggregate. The bias is an unavoidable consequence of presenting all notable surveys, rather than a consequence of the aggregate.

Also, I don't think this would count as original research. It's just counting. Maybe if it was presented as The Aggregate of Absolute Objectivity, rather than *an* aggregate calculated from favorable to total comparisons. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NOBODY CARES that you can try and fake, or manufacture, a mathematical equation to concur with your BS.shyjayb 05:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Nobody cares about your opinion. I'd care about your arguments, but you don't have any. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Aggregate stays. Opinions change, and right now, the aggregate has support. An Aggregate score isn't original research. You are just being picky and selective with the rules. When there is a table like the one presented here, it is useful to have an aggregate score. Such a score is simple counting and mathematics. Counting and mathematics is not original research. Do not remove this again. Anasaitis (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The aggregate should stay but I think there should be a section describing what the aggregate is and how it's derived. Jmj713 (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

According to reference 23 Copeland's method was used to get the aggregate. It's not, actually, but let me first explain why that method is terrible for this kind of aggregate: bad presidents are severely punished for being in many surveys and good presidents are greatly rewarded for being in many surveys.

The method is to rank presidents by score defined as the number of victories (pairwise favourable comparisons) minus defeats. Let's define a president's "winrate" as the ratio of victories to total comparisons (excluding ties). If the winrate is kept constant, score is proportional to total amount of comparisons, so roughly the total amount of surveys the president has been in. Moreover, if the "winrate deviation" is defined as winrate minus 0.5 (i.e. the deviation from 50% winrate), then a president with T total comparisons and D deviation has the same score as another president with a*T total comparisons and D/a deviation. So if president A has 80% winrate and 500 comparisons, he has the same score as president B with 65% winrate and 1000 comparisons, and the same is true with the winrates changed to 20% and 35%, 100% and 75%, or 0% and 25%, respectively. Let me repeat: if literally everyone thinks president A is the best, he'd have the same score (and rank) as president B with twice as many comparisons and a mere 75% winrate (which means he should rightly be around rank 11 out of 43 presidents). Changing up the ratio, if a president is considered to be absolute garbage with a mere 10% winrate, he'd have the same rank as someone with an unremarkable 40% but with four times as many comparisons.

The problem with Copeland's method is essentially that newer candidates are pushed towards the mean with extreme force. This is why the method is not as catastrophic as expected in this particular instance: almost all presidents have about the same amount of comparisons, and most of the ones with significantly fewer comparisons have middling scores in the individual surveys. But there is one outlier: G. W. Bush would have rank 25 with Copeland's method. Look at the surveys: he gets 23, 19, 37, 36, 39, 31, 35. Now imagine this being represented by a 25. Pretty bad, right? And of course, Obama receives the most middling rank of 21 for only having two surveys.

Looking through the page history, there have been at least three different versions of the aggregate and none of them have used Copeland's method, because Bush's rank has always been around where it is rather than substantially lower which is where Copeland's would have put it. So we don't know which method was used. Strike one against the current aggregate. Also, some guy had arbitrarily changed a value in the table and I undid that change just now, and the current aggregate was calculated after the initial change, and therefore used an incorrect value. Strike two.

I suggested in a post above that the aggregate should be calculated by victories divided by total comparisons (excluding ties), i.e. the winrate. This is a simple and logical way of ranking them and surely better than an unknown method. Strike three. Also, the method is a better representative, even if we use the data with which the current aggregate was calculated. I calculated each president's average by rescaling each survey to 1-43, and then took the RMS of the deviation of each president's aggregate from the average, and this RMS was lower for my aggregate. Same with the average absolute deviation. Strike four. Also, my method is very unlikely to (and doesn't, in this case) produce a tie. Strike five.

So, I took the liberty of changing the aggregate. I changed the footnote as well to describe the new method. Calculated with java; code available on request. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

I am not even an American, but it is a known fact worldwide that Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever.

Is it a joke that in your main table Ronald Reagan is ranked 40th, just above George H. W. Bush?

Also - you have too many different tables. Just use one large table, and make it include ALL the views and opinions. Below the table, supply the details, and specify how it was calculated.

Moreover - the general public polls are not less significant than the "scholars" polls, so no need to separate.

You can also make a "wikipedia poll" among your own readers, and add it to the average rank.

Don't forget to specify, for each president, what are his achievements, that made people rank him (don't assume, just ask them at the poll).

--Volibon (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss Reagan's achievements. Read this. By the way, Reagan's aggregate rank is 15. He is the 40th president because there were 39 presidencies before him.

Different tables have different, incompatible information that cannot be merged into one table. And again, this is not the place to compare the significance of polls. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. That's also why there can be no wikipedia poll. Read this.

However, the ABC poll, the Washington College poll and the Gallup poll all have the same kind of information ("who was the greatest president?"), so they can be merged into one table. The first three recent president polls also have the same kind of information ("were these 9 or 11 presidents good or bad?"), so they can be merged. And the Quinnipiac poll could be one table instead of two lists. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I see that the last column (right side) of the table is the total rank, but nobody gets to notice this columns, which is the most important for the whole topic. -- Volibon (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. 1948 source

There is no source for the 1948 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. poll data in the information box. The 1948 Life Magazine article listed in the refernences does lost list in rankings by numbers. Here is the Life Magazine article link: Historians Rate U.S. Presidents Life Magazine (November 1, 1948) Vol. 25, No. 18 starting on page 65. Presidents are ranked as "Great" "Near Great" "Average" "Below Average" "Failures" The numbers ratings is misleading and inaccurate and could be considered original research. Unless a number ranking source can be found for the 1948 rankings, the 1948 number rankings should be removed from the list. The 1948 Schlesinger article can be discussed in a section but not be part of the number ranking list. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Life only summarizes the 1948 study, but the full results did include numerical rankings. See this article, for example. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This article should be used as a source for the 1948 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. poll. If not the poll data should be removed from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also Schlesinger Jr. puts a racist Woodrow Wilson over Ulysses S. Grant showing that Civil Rights is not being put into ranking the Presidents. His 1962 and 1948 polls are obviously biased and don't take into account Grant prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan. Washington and Jefferson were slave holding Presidents and they get high rankings along with Wilson. Schlesinger Jr. also faults the Gold Panic on Grant rather then Fisk and Gould when Grant thwarted Fisk and Gould by selling treasury Gold. These polls are obviously made to put people's pet Presidents on the top of their lists and have zero historical value, nothing but POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right about the first part: we should switch it to the better citation. The second part is just you being unhappy that scholars' opinions don't align with yours. I'm not sure what you think we should do about that. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes Comegenus. I agree concerning the citation it should be switched and I believe all the polls should be looked at to make sure each poll is properly cited. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is an article on Woodrow Wilson from the Atlantic, as far as I know a reliable source: Racist Legacy of Woodrow Wilson Dick Lehr (November 27, 2015) It seems obvious historians are ignoring Civil Rights and slavery when accessing Presidencies. Grant who prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan and integrated West Point and recognized the first African America governor of Louisiana get second to last place over Harding who died in office and did not even complete a whole term in office, while Wilson a known segregationist get in the top ten Presidencies, that in my opinion is POV and Fringe. Historians can have their opinions on Presidencies, but each presidency should be assessed on equal terms, rather then excluding issues that could damage their reputation such as slavery and Civil Rights. When Grant is assessed on Civil Rights his reputation goes up. Many of these polls exclude Civil Rights and slavery. Here is an article that addressed this issue on Grant: The President Who Destroyed the Klan: Ulysses S. Grant, An Unappreciated and Undervalued Leader Thomas S. Neuberger (March 29, 2013) This is a direct quote from Neuberger: "Thus a careful reading of history should place Ulysses S. Grant in the top twenty percent of American Presidents, a fact that has been withheld from the average citizen who only has heard about a heavy drinking soldier and a scandal or two in his second term in office, scandals which in the 20th Century seemed to be commonplace in a second presidential term." I know that this is going beyond the scope of discussion topic. So I can just leave it at this for now. I have added sources to show that this is not just my opinion or only concerned disagreement. Respectfully. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The citation has not been switched. I don't have access to the full article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done --Coemgenus (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Scholar survey results references

Where are the references for the Scholar survey results section ? Shouldn't references be cited for each ranking poll ? I believe the C-Span 2009 rankings and the Siena College 2010 rankings have been removed from their repsected websites. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Article very out of date

There are polls in here from 2005 up to 2011 that mostly focus on George W. Bush. We're almost two presidents away from Bush now, more than 8 years. Needs more current polling within at least the last 6 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.16.183 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

2005, are you kidding me? I'm pulling teeth here to drop a poll from 1948! --Sleyece 21:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump

Why are there rankings for Trump when he hasn't even taken office yet, let alone been included in any historical surveys? -70.162.247.233 (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I suspect someone was trying to add another row for Trump, though they seem to have failed to format it properly. I undid those edits. Someone can readd Trump when a survey with his name comes out. 104.35.40.176 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that edit, although I don't see why Trump cant be on the table with a blank row. --Sleyece (talk) 09:03, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I don't think Trump should be included until inauguration 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416 (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the President-Elect. --Sleyece (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I added the President-Elect once again, as the Electoral College has met and voted. --Sleyece (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

He still hasn't become president until inauguration, and shouldn't be on a list of presidents. 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Title

"President of the United States" is a title, hence I restored the original capitalization. If you disagree or otherwise think the current capitalization should be changed, please bring it up here first. Dustin (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dustin V. S., I just went through all of this. The change is grammar-rules-based. Titles, or honorifics, are not capitalized on their own, only when preceding a proper noun. Can you please either state what rule of grammar/style you may be using, or change it back? You may need to review the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style Online (see Section 8.92). See also Grammar Girl for a quick summary of when to capitalize job titles. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

::crickets:: GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also note this recent discussion at Talk:Presidents of the United States and control of Congress#Requested move 23 November 2016 which also addresses this issue.GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

Grondemar please note the above and re-read the pertinent MOS section. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, the plural word, "presidents," should never be capitalized (in one of our article titles or within an article); the word "president" is only capitalized when used as an honorific (as in "President Obama" but not "List of presidents who ...") (in an article title or the article itself). The special usage of hereditary titles does not apply here. The special usage of "The President" may be capitalized within one of our articles when writing about a specific president, but even in that case it would never be capitalized in the actual article title. This is basic American English grammar. I ask that you please re-instate my requested D6 for the redirect so it can be moved back to its proper name. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@GenQuest and Dustin V. S.: I did some research on this, and I stand corrected. I believe MOS:JOBTITLES could be significantly clarified, however. I will execute the requested move shortly. –Grondemar 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll write a draft for clarification on this grammar rule and submit it to that MOS moderator, as this is a very misunderstood guide. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps your reasons are correct under current guidelines. If you are going to move this page, then you should also move hundreds of other articles. To not do so creates needless inconsistencies.

Regardless of rationale, I oppose any single-instance title changes barring a project-wide rename of all articles that do not follow such standards. At the present, there are already inconsistencies (which should be addressed), but at least within the "Historical rankings of" articles, there was consistency until the recent page move. Dustin (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support a system-wide correction of this situation. Other stuff does exist, but it can all be fixed, by bot or otherwise. I am willing to help out. How do we proceed? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove 538 ranking & Add 2017 C-SPAN ranking

The purpose for which this topic was created has been fulfilled. — ^Sleyece 17:43:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 538 ranking should be removed. It's not an independent ranking. It's just an aggregate of 4 other rankings, including 3 that are already shown. And it includes the 2008 Times ranking, which was previously removed for being a bad ranking.

Also, there's a new historian ranking by C-SPAN that's in the news today. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, here. I support inclusion of the new C-SPAN ranking. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing Ranks

Several of the listed rankings are missing rank numbers. There are no listed "ties". The missing ranks for each survey/poll are:

Siena Siena Siena R-McI Schl. C-SPAN WSJ Siena

1982 1990 1994 1996 1996 1999 2000 2002

16 18 16 23 20 21 24 23 25

It doesn't seem difficult to match up the missing ranks to the appropriate president for the ones with clear blanks, but I'm rubbish at formatting the colors correctly and can't access any of the original source data. For other lists, it's not clear why there's a missing ranking #, unless they were including the current president in their ranking. Keep in mind that even though Trump is the "45th" president, there are only 44 rows, as Cleveland was #22 and #24.

The doesn't address later missing ranks for Garfield and Harrison. My current theory is that most of the missing ranks were created by deleting values from Garfield and Harrison's rows. For the first set of columns, the values were left missing, and for the latter columns, the values were moved up to get the correct final ranking. Either way, the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

LordQwert (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've tracked down the missing rankings from each of the sources and noted the references in the edit history After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

FDR

The aggregate was restored. — ^Sleyece 03:29:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't understand how the frequency works how does FDR end up ahead of Abe it doesn't make sense and it doesn't really look like an average score so I just don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B118:AFA6:45EA:B6F3:1106:DF6E (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that needs to be changed. Check the section below. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove old polls

I'm of opinion that sections such as "C-SPAN poll" (1999), "ABC poll" (2000) and "Rasmussen poll" (2007) on popular opinion should be outright removed as outdated. They might be keepable in a table of some kind, but occupying as much space as they currently do is very undue. If no objections I'll just go ahead and remove them. Banedon (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support moving the C-SPAN (1999), ABC (2000), and Washington College (2005) polls to a less prominent "older polls" section, but I think the Rasmussen poll should be retained since it has a unique format, asking each person whether they view each president favorably rather than simply asking which president they think of as the greatest, so it isn't really comparable to the other polls. Neow (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)