This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject United States Presidents page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 90 days

United States: Presidents Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.

I'd like several opinions on whether or not our POTUS bios should link to the White House site. After I noticed User:Rjensen removing the link from several bios, I asked him to pause and discuss. We've discussed, but haven't agreed yet. YoPienso (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yopienso and I agree they are very short and superficial and of mediocre quality. I argue they were not written or endorsed by any White House official. Instead they were prepared by a private group the White House Historical Association. It raises millions of $$$$ for preserving & restoring the White House building and furniture and does not sponsor the study of the presidential administrations. Most are out of date--for example see the surprisingly favorable treatment of Andrew Johnson--who today is seen as guilty of about the very worst presidency: "Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents. Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics. Johnson was no match for them. . . . Radical Republicans in Congress moved vigorously to change Johnson’s program. They gained the support of northerners who were dismayed to see Southerners keeping many prewar leaders and imposing many prewar restrictions upon Negroes." [see online (No scholar uses "Negroes" in the last half century) Wikipedia readers who rely on them for term papers will do poorly. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Rjensen says, we agree on our opinion of the White House biographies. Because they're outdated, he thinks Wikipedia shouldn't link to them. Because they're the official White House biographies, I think we should--and let the reader beware.

I do not endorse using them as sources for any Wikipedia article.

Here's a new proposal: link to them, but include a caveat that they're outdated. (In fact, even though what Rjensen points out is true, the book they're taken from was most recently copyrighted in 2009. Not ancient. But I'd guess only the copyright was renewed without any update of contents. Online archives show they haven't changed since Dubya's term. There may be older archives I haven't found. YoPienso (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it's odd to recommend bad sources--as if it's the reader's job to recognize just which parts are ok and which parts are bad. That will fool lots of students. Those who do link to them will waste study time while missing the really good sources. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To repeat what I said on your talk page, linking doesn't necessarily confer an endorsement (or recommendation).

Per WP:ELOFFICIAL:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.

The White House website meets those criteria.

YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On all presidents before Biden, say Abe Lincoln, the material is ABOUT Lincoln but of course was not written or controlled by the Lincoln Admin. (only the Biden bio is controlled by the coresponsing Biden officials.) Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, User:Rjensen, it looks like nobody's home. We can leave this until/if someone chimes in. YoPienso (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. bye. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A thought crossed my mind after coming upon Category:Mistresses of United States presidents: Would Sally Hemings qualify for that category? Of course it's a sensitive subject what with her having been enslaved by him at the time, but I'm not sure that would disqualify her. The other possible disqualification I can think of is that their relationship began while Jefferson was already widowed, but I see an implication on mistress (lover) that Catherine the Great's post-widowhood affairs could count, so perhaps this could too. I won't add Hemings to the category without consensus because I do think it's questionable and wouldn't want her misplaced, but I think it's at least worth considering. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we need a discussion for that - I simply added the cat. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure I had the definition right first, but if you agree then that's already something. Thank you for the feedback. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to make this a big debate, but I've reverted that because a mistress would be a woman someone begins a romantic/sexual relationship with while married to (or at least already involved with) another person. As far as I know, Sally was Thomas's only non-platonic relationship after Martha died, so adding that category for her is misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to ((WikiProject banner shell)), and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]