This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Is this still an educational assignment? (sorry very lazy)

it might be helpful to have some citations in this section and perhaps mention or link to some scholars work on executives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.151.252 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

This article needs to be cleaned up. There are numerous grammatical errors, a few of which I've changed, but I don't have time to do them all. This is a really important article and should be of the highest standard! Boliviainfoforum 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first sentence of both paragraphs don't make sense. Additionally, labelling foreign relations as only "symbolically" important is crazy in the current world. Also, it's no surprise that a Foreign Relations budget is 0.7% of the total budget. Of course it is as they aren't a "spending" department like Education, Health Care, Military etc...Oplossing is duidelijk 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The local executive is usually supervised by [Here] As mentioned above  ??? This sentence seems to be missing a piece marked with [Here]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.79.238 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The article was vandalized at 15:13, October 22, 2007 but only partially reverted resulting in a block of type being removed from the article. I have restored the section back to its prior version. Unfortunately this article has been vandalized and reverted numerous times since. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the incongruous sentence "The president controls the armed forces and military." from the introductory paragraph because it presupposes a presidential system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmetCaulfield (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Reply[reply]

…Thank You: very nice articleDavid George DeLancey (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone more qualified than me make a list or flow chart or the Executive Branches hierarchy structure in the US? For example where do Governors fit into the mix in relation to the President? Mayor? Etc...

Perhaps make a flow chart of another government as a secondary example...

I guess I haven't looked yet, but maybe these are already pages in Wikipedia? Rmkreeg (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intro to this article heads straight to define the subject in national rather than global terms. I suggest the perspective be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.19.186 (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the US boilerplate from the page to help correct this problem but it still has considerable problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otonabee (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the above statement the entire article suggests that a if the executive also makes laws this is despotic or undemocratic. This view is totally opposed to many democratic systems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.175.40 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The citations on this page are terrible and all except for one point to the same site, reference.com. They do not sufficiently verify the information on this page (some of which doesn't even need verification, or appears to be original research that I think can't be verified directly). I'm not going to look through the history, but my guess is that the page used to have a ((unreferenced)) template and somebody tried to help by looking at various sentences and throwing key terms into reference.com thinking "well, it's relevant" or "look at the giant entry this one has! That information can't not be here!"

But there's a problem with both of those ideas.

To "it's relevant": Just providing a relevant source doesn't prove anything. Example: Feta cheese is the official cheese of Nascar. Feta Cheese, www.dictionary.reference.com

To "this one has a big entry": Well, that's usually because IT'S MIRRORED CONTENT FROM WIKIPEDIA.

I have removed citations to reference.com that only contained mirrored content from Wikipedia (or in a few cases, no content at all), and I call into question the pertinence of the two I left.Exp HP (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lack of a collective executive, similar to that found in Switzerland, hurts the article. I don't know how to word it or I would add it.

I'm familiar with the term Executive branch, and wondering if the article, and perhaps the title, would benefit from a clearer distinction between the terms executive and executive branch. Shanata (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does "administration" refer to the executive? If so it should probably be mentioned in the lead. Rob984 (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should explain which are the roles of head of state and head of government in a hybrid system like this. --B.Lameira (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the way executive plan 102.89.45.47 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]