Talk:List of presidents of the United States by military service

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

Merge discussion[edit]

The result was no consensus to merge. – Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Only one needs to exist with the contents of both. Based on naming conventions of the other POTUS articles in {{Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents}}, the "List of Presidents of the United States by ..." would be the preferred article name. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the latter (chronological) list is more useful and matches the other presidential lists. How about adding the rank insignia to the chronological list? Fishal (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think both lists are useful and should be kept separate. Each research project is different and some users may want the ability to search Presidential military service by rank while others may need to see the list in chronological order. Jharm55 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE merger. The one list that begins with the Current President (Obama) and goes backwards (Down) to the first president seems to leave a lot of details out. The List that begins with highest military rank (I.E. Washington at 6 stars then to the next president, Eisenhower at 5 stars and so on,) Clearly contains a lot more information Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support the merger on the grounds that the data from both lists be merged into one. --Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the merger, the information from both articles could easily be combined into one. --Flyguy33 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Footnote 3[edit]

Footnote 3 is original content with a particular point of view, making it inappropriate for Wikipedia, and it is also confused; I recommend it be deleted.

The footnote begins: "George Washington was posthumously appointed General of the Armies of the United States on July 4, 1976, at which time Congress specified that 'it is considered fitting and proper that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington.' As we will see, this proved a gross misunderstanding of the history of the grade, as four serving officers had held this grade, one a 110 years before Washington's posthumous elevation."

It is obvious that this is an opinion more suited to an expository essay.

Moreover, since the rest of the footnote attempts to demonstrate only that Congress's appointment did not result in Washington's outranking every other soldier, while the Congressional statement quoted only states that no other soldier should outrank Washington, the whole discussion is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.123.172 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that footnote is not properly formatted or cited and has been removed. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush and Footnote 1[edit]

The reference is an opinion piece marked "opinion" and labeled "a critical analysis" in the web address. It also states that it is original analysis and opinion of internet articles by a retired Army Colonel. The comment referencing it under "Active Service" for "George W. Bush" is also irrelevant to the article and appears to be placed in the article to present a specific bias.

The comment says that "There are no records of his serving in active duty for multiple stretches of time".

1. No such comments seem to be necessary for any other President.

2. The comment appears to be in error as The Washington Post notes that "his son not only avoided Vietnam but was able to spend much of his time on active duty in his home town of Houston" and "Bush graduated from Combat Crew Training School on June 23, 1970, having fulfilled his two years of active duty." [1]

3. The comment is irrelevant and appears to be an attempt to discredit the subject's service. This article is not meant to credit or discredit, only to list.

It further says "He was removed from flying status in August 1, 1972 after failing to take the required annual flight physical.". Is this a biography and analysis of presidential military service? This is primer for an information war on "why" which does not belong in this article, and neither does the comment.

the last sentence says "His commitment was shortened to permit his leaving the air guard in 1973." [2] Again, the accuracy, intention, and relevance is disputed. The previously cited Washington Post article states, "early departures were quite common and, in Bush's case, appropriate because his unit had phased out the F-102s. Bush was transferred to a reserve unit in Boston for the rest of his time"

Recommend removal of the footnote and removal of the entire comment under "Active Service" for "George W. Bush" mentioned on the list with the exception of, "Stateside service during Vietnam War (1968–1973)" 68.63.19.44 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm
  2. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

Bill Clinton[edit]

Under "Active Service" for "Bill Clinton" it states, "Signed an agreement to join Reserve Officer Training Corps at University of Arkansas during Vietnam War, but subsequently withdrew and entered the draft. Was not drafted and did not serve."

There is no reference noted, however, this is an obvious hint to the controversy of Pres Clinton's draft status and a biased attempt to call that into question and raise controversy. CNN reports here that enrolling but not joining ROTC was a way to avoid the draft as noted here [1]

The comment appears to be a bias and thinly veiled attempt to raise controversy that is not suitable for the article, is not cited, and is irrelevant.

Recommend the comment be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the word "None" consistent with other entries. 68.63.19.44 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm the one who added Clinton's ROTC experience to this article. I was not trying to hint at anything or call anything into question. I was trying to accurately capture his Vietnam-era experience with the military. This is similar to noting, for example, that Grover Cleveland hired a substitute to take his place during the Civil War. I'll defer to the consensus of the group if one forms, but I want to make clear that my motivation was nothing more than striving for accuracy. I can add references in the meantime. Billmckern (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/skeletons/draft.shtml

Sorting[edit]

Maybe a more experienced Wikipedian table-editor than me can weigh in on this: is there a way to add a more logical rank column that's sortable by the rank level, rather than the alphabetical order of the rank NAMES (as it is currently)? Sorting by rank shouldn't port General below Private :) Jm3 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Presidents of the United States by military service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents without military experience[edit]

This article is just to list which presidents have or do not have military experience, and if they do have it, to describe it further. If a president does not have military experience, do not explain why he does not: it's not pertinent. All that is required to be said is that they don't have military experience. If, as in the case of Bush Jr/Clinton, there is a relevant article about this controversy, link it in the notes section. Otherwise, don't write anything other than "none". FirefoxLSD (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only President to command troops in the field[edit]

Article says Maddison but I could have sworn it was Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion. Will edit it to mention whiskey rebellion and for Maddison I will add "during a for against a foreign nation." Emperor001 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stateside?[edit]

Why use this word? Firstly, it is slang and parochial. Secondly, what is the significance of saying that a President only served within the USA?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee militia[edit]

Billmckern (talk · contribs) piped Tennessee militia with Tennessee Army National Guard. The former is sourced in this article, but at the TANG page there's no mention of the word "militia" at all. Is there a source we can include to say that the Tennessee militia of which Polk was a soldier is the same as the TANG? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: "Our History"; "The Birth of the National Guard – The Birth of a Nation"; "The State Militia". Billmckern (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, excellent! I've created that redirect, and copied your sources to Talk:Tennessee Army National Guard#militia history. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Howard Taft[edit]

I added William Howard Taft to the list of presidents with military service only because another Wikipedia article, "List of presidents of the United States by military rank," did as well. If others feel that Taft's service as Major General in the American Red Cross should not count as military service (and I'm inclined to agree), then please edit both articles accordingly. However, Taft's service in the Connecticut Home Guard/Connecticut State Guard could qualify him to be included on the list as well (a better argument than the American Red Cross). The only thing I have issue with is the inconsistency between the two articles. One listed the number of presidents with military service at 31, the other at 32. If facts are facts, the two figures should agree. Personally, I would think service in a state defense force should qualify as military service, so I am inclined to favor Taft's inclusion in both articles, but I'll defer to the experts. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the Taft entrant in this article is explicitly cited to The New York Times as not having served in the military ("… 12 Presidents -- several ranked great or near-great by historians -- who were never in uniform: […] Although Taft did not wear brass, he did serve as a Secretary of War"). Hand-waving away the Red Cross is easy: it isn't a military. If Taft was in a state militia, the Times may be differentiating between his actually having served and simply holding a down billet with his name. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln & Billmckern[edit]

Billmckern (talk · contribs) is asserting that the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs is incorrect. Lincoln served in the Illinois Militia's 31st Regiment, the 4th Regiment of Mounted Volunteers, and one other unit. They included a URL to Google's online library, which I cannot access, verify, and—most importantly—actually source and cite the article. Does anybody have the details about the source (book? magazine?) Billmckern says supports their edits? If there's an equivalent at the Internet Archive, I'll head over there to get the details to thoroughly and necessarily cite Billmckern's changes. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: The reference is Record of the Services of Illinois Soldiers in the Black Hawk War, 1831-32. It was published by the Illinois Adjutant General in 1882. Page 100 lists Lincoln as commander of Abraham Lincoln's Company, 4th Regiment of Mounted Volunteers with the rank of captain in April and May of 1882. This reference indicates that Lincoln served in the 31st Infantry Regiment; when he was elected captain, his company was assigned to the 4th Mounted Volunteers. Page 174 of "Records of the Services" indicates that Lincoln served in Elijah Iles' Company of Illinois Mounted Volunteers, a state unit that augmented federal troops. Page 183 shows him as a private in Alexander White's Company of Mounted Volunteers, another state unit that augmented federal troops. Based on all this, it seems to me that Illinois State Militia is more accurate than Sangamon County. Billmckern (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't have access to Google's online library, but I trust your data on that and have updated the article accordingly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

On 25 August 2023 at 21:35 UTC, Asperthrow (talk · contribs) made a number of different edits to the article, only summarizing them as Removing doubling spacing and editorialised material about Donald Trump.

Firstly, double-spacing after full stops is permitted by MOS:PUNCTSPACE. MOS:VAR then says, Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that 'When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.' As such, I replaced the spacing.

As for editorialised material about Donald Trump, I'm not sure what editorializing they mean. All Asperthrow did regarding the Trump prose is remove examples of the candidate's interactions with military service and veterans, examples used by the source to illustrate how military service and deference to veterans no longer holds weight in US presidential elections (as it once did and was expected to). All of this analysis is sourced and cited to Matt Gallagher. I replaced this prose, saying, + replacement of sourced military-related examples re: Trump & dissolution of military–presidential cachet

As for Asperthrow's reversions not explained, they:

  • changed a sentence to inexplicably imply that prior service isn't a requirement during a president's tenure as commander-in-chief; I reverted, saying, + revision of language for concision & clarity
  • changed tenses to suggest an ongoing status not supported by the source, which I reverted, explaining, + verb-tense & {{as of}} agreement

Then, instead of beginning this discussion IAW WP:BRD, the editor just reverted my edits wholesale 23.75 hours later, saying Undo, d/m/y is not appropriate for an American article, PUNCTSPACE is petty, use of the word ‘despite’ implicitly suggests a point of view *in Wikivoice*. Whether "petty" or not, it falls under MOS:VAR; {{use dmy dates}} (which they didn't change?) is IAW WP:MILFORMAT; and patent disputes about single words take place here, not in edit summaries. Given this explanation, BRD, and only those three objections, I am reverting Asperthrow's reversion and look forward to their contributions on this talk page.

As for their subsequent two edits: changing "US" to "U.S." runs afoul of MOS:USA & MOS:VAR, and de-italicizing The New Yorker fails MOS:CONFORM. As such, they have also been changed along with the second-level reversion mentioned above. The remaining changes are largely inconsequential rephrasings that occasionally run verbose, but I don't object nor wish to incur further slings & arrows from their author. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prim and proper formatting. How enthusiastic of you.
The use of the word ‘despite’ in conjunction with “bragging about evading the draft, slandering Senator John McCain, and publicly feuding with Gold Star parents Khzir and Ghazala Khan” suggests, in Wikivoice, that Trump ought not to have won the election due to these actions. A few weeks ago, I won a similar appeal - that is, to have the word ‘despite’ replaced with ‘while’ - on the Donald Trump article itself. In the second paragraph of the lede. To accuse him of defamation seems highly inappropriate given that no court has established that this occurred.
MOS:MILFORMAT makes mentions of only the “modern US military”, leaving debatable this article’s inclusion. However, this has been long-standing, and I have no interest in challenging it. Asperthrow (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gallagher's analysis is that, in the past, such actions by a candidate would've sunk their electoral prospects, yet modern candidates (e.g. Clinton & Trump) were elected despite them. If you'd prefer that you or I wrote that sentence with more-overt in-text attribution to Gallagher, I don't object. Perhaps: "Gallagher specifically called out how Trump was elected that November despite bragging…"
I don't know in what contest you were competing and won, but congratulations. I also don't know to what "defamation" you're referring; that word isn't used in this article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_military_service&oldid=1209864039"