137:
The article explains simply that there is no prime minister in the US system of government. It explains however that some people have described different office-holders in the US system as acting in effect as a type of prime minister, notably some chiefs of staff who in day to day matters ran government in much the same way as the French prime minister does, with the
President setting broad agendas (eg. Regan and Howard Baker under Ronald Reagan). Indeed having retired Baker criticised both the presidential 'court' and the prime ministerial-style centralisation of power in the Chief of Staff. So the article is clearly and unambiguously not fabricated nor inaccurate and certainly not bogus. It is a proper, well structured and useful encyclopædic article, as was agreed the last time someone proposed its deletion. So keep, of course.
258:
because I was there, saw the evidence and know the background first hand, unlike any of the goggle links I have found. So frankly, from direct experience, google searches are about as factually reliable as a
Jeffery Archer novel (only better written!). Knowledge has tons of articles on non-existent offices, which explain to those who may not know
295:
There are a couple of problems with google searches. (1) They throw up references without distinguishing between accurate and inaccurate results (eg, claiming the Prince of Wales is 'Charles
Windsor' when his registered name is 'Charles Mountbatten-Windsor'), (2) They throw up modern references which
281:
You're saying that google has been unreliable in proving whether something is true/factual. That doesn't mean it cannot prove whether something is widely used/exists. here, it is important to show that the phrase is commonly used. I don't see how a google test would not work in this case. Even though
148:
article already, so that should be enough. A Google search on "Donald Regan Prime
Minister", excluding Knowledge and its forks, brings up only one hit from a Reuters obit for Regan. If you have encountered it "'regularly' in international media", I worry about what publications you're reading. :) As
329:
they say. The article is simply factual. It does not claim the term is widespread, just that it exists and has done over three centuries in different contexts referring to different people, including US vice presidents, US chiefs of staff and others. As such it is something that is encyclopædic and
315:
REPEAT: The question is not of accuracy. The term itself is inherently inaccurate. We're just trying to prove whether the term is used at all. By saying google spits out wrong info, you've given support for the purpose of my google search - to determine whether the term is used, if wrongly used. If
257:
the Prince of Wales's surname is something it isn't (it took a check with his own staff to disprove that BS!), threw up wrong details about the King of Spain, provided elementary factual inaccuracies about Pope John Paul I, and in one case states as fact something which I know for a fact is 100% BS
245:
shows up only 56 hits, with the top few being from
Knowledge (or a source that uses WP). Many of the rest come from a result of bad English usage "The President and Prime Minister of the United States and France..." I think this article contains good and interesting info, but the phrase just isn't
136:
in a contemporary
Italian TV news bulletin, leading to criticism from Andreotti and the sacking of the journalist who wrote the copy. Many states unused to the US separation of powers and presidential system presume that like many other presidential systems there is prime minister somewhere in it.
324:
No, it states, correctly, that the term has been used in the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries, sometimes as a mis-understanding of the US system of government, sometimes as a manner of suggesting that an office or office-holder holds such power as to be effectively the
266:
factually one of the best sourced on wikipedia, giving a detailed examination of the fact that some people in some offices have been nicknamed PM or have offices that have been seen as so central to presidential governance that they came to be seen as de-facto PMs. (It is largely unconnected with
182:
So cite them, and let's take a look at them. If all they're doing is quoting that one incident from Baker-Regan, then I don't consider it "regular" or widespread use of the phrase "Prime
Minister of the United States." Throwing around accusations like "ludicrous", "garbage" and "how little you
296:
mean that, as SimonP correctly points out, older pre-NET references simply don't show, (3) they operate on a 'snowball effect', ie, something shown up on a google search, even if inaccurate, are presumed to be accurate and replicated, creating more references, leading to a glaring inaccuracy
271:
more encyclopædic than 90% of the lists on wikipedia, many of the biographies (which are heavily POV), most of the rock music articles (which are written in NME house style, not encyclopædic style) and much much else. But then this was discussed at length the last time and voted to be kept.
353:
encyclopædic to point out that fluctuating power centres within US administrations has led to the suggestion that individual administration power-brokers in individual administrations (Regan in Reagan's, Cheney in Bush's) are accused by critics of acting like prime ministers.
378:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages.
252:
Having been on wikipedia for a year I have learnt from experience that Google searches are notoriously unreliable. Google searches for other articles threw up results that got the names of W.E. Gladstone, John A. Costello, Garret FitzGerald and a host of others wrong,
325:
equivalent of a PM. As links show, it is used as recently as to refer to the exceptional power of the current veep in the Bush administration. The only point I made with google searches is that they are next to useless and are evidence of nothing, irrespective of
337:
I daresay it is a waste of my time and eyesight to read that an
Italian reporter has an unclear understanding of the US constitution and called a president "prime minister." That some people have been called US PM because of their
235:
If this phrase really does occur in the media, we'd be doing the world a service by truncating the article after the first sentence, "There is no Prime
Minister of the United States". The rest just serves to confuse the matter.
95:
I read the article and its talk page, and I'm inclined to agree with
Mattworld — there's enough grist for an article on this topic, and the cited flaws are rectifiable/rectified. --
113:
Delete, bogus. In both US and UK media, never have I encountered this term, ever. The article's first sentence: "There is no Prime Minister of the United States..." Nuff said.
243:
73:- although much work has been put into salvaging this article, most of the ideas that it spews forth are dubious at best. This article is fabricated and inaccurate.
288:
Keep. This term comes up fairly often if your looking at 19th century American history, it is less common now which probably explains the few google hits. -
316:
it was used only in the 19th Century, why don't we explain it in the article? The article currently implies that the phrase is common when it's not. --
85:
54:
176:, La Republica, the memoirs of Howard Baker, etc etc as publications you should worry about? The argument you are producing is ludicrous.
70:
45:
215:
Obviously you have not read the article, or you would realise how often and in what context this article is used. Using garbage like
300:
as though it is correct through repetitive through inaccurate usage. (Google says Ireland had a former prime minister called Garret
308:
erald; I know the guy and know for a fact his name is spelt with one 't' and a capital 'G', never ever two 't's and a small 'g'.)
212:
don't exist? The fact the term was ever used mistakenly or as a sort of nickname doesn't warrant encyclopaedic inclusion either.
267:
translations, but with beliefs of concentration of prime ministerial-style power in Chiefs of Staff or others. This article is
103:
17:
205:
29:
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of
201:
132:
but as it was nearly 20 years ago I could be mistaken about the paper.) John F. Kennedy was wrongly referred to as
209:
342:
is, I think, encyclopediable, but that people have been mislabeled that because of their office is not. --
262:
the office doesn't exist and the mythology behind the belief of some that it does exist. And this article
216:
197:
237:
44:
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled
161:
149:
others have mentioned, people erroneously using a title does not warrant a Knowledge article.
282:
I don't think this is as common aphrase as you put it, I don't oppose keeping the article. --
229:
128:, so much so the term was the subject of an article in a British broadsheet (I think it was
107:
173:
157:
74:
89:
84:
a referenced factual base. As an aside, this has already been debated here and on its
343:
184:
150:
114:
30:
169:
145:
129:
125:
219:
shows just how little you understand about the term and about political science.
355:
331:
309:
289:
273:
220:
177:
138:
317:
283:
247:
124:
in the international media. It was used in the 1980s to describe the power of
165:
96:
66:
The votes below show approximately: delete: 5+1 anon, keep: 5, unclear: 2
368:
35:
Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page
102:
I'm inclined to delete. It smells like primary research, which is
57:
rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.
242:
I've never heard of the phrase until now. A google search
62:The result of the debate was to keep the page.
156:So you don't regard Time Magazine, Newsweek,
8:
183:understand" doesn't help your cause either.
196:Delete. Would we want articles saying the
80:Keep -- it's an interesting article, with
25:
246:common enough for this encyclopedic. --
53:Further comments should be made on the
7:
71:Prime Minister of the United States
46:Prime Minister of the United States
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
228:Delete, agree with Fuzheado.
202:Emperor of the Cayman Islands
381:Please do not edit this page
206:President of the Netherlands
398:
210:Queen of the United States
346:16:20, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
292:18:46, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
153:08:32, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
141:23:41, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
110:02:23, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
77:23:14, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
371:04:05, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
334:22:03, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
312:19:31, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
232:08:09, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
223:23:30, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
117:09:07, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
99:00:53, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
92:23:56, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
358:19:47, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
276:22:36, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
187:00:12, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
134:American prime minister
144:It's mentioned in the
120:I have encountered it
104:what Knowledge is not
31:articles for deletion
83:
330:written as such.
162:Irish Independent
81:
41:
40:
389:
26:
397:
396:
392:
391:
390:
388:
387:
386:
174:Daily Telegraph
158:The Irish Times
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
395:
393:
385:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
322:
321:
320:
286:
279:
278:
277:
240:
233:
226:
225:
224:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
118:
111:
100:
93:
39:
38:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
394:
384:
382:
370:
366:
357:
352:
348:
347:
345:
341:
336:
335:
333:
328:
323:
319:
314:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
293:
291:
287:
285:
280:
275:
270:
265:
261:
256:
251:
250:
249:
244:
241:
239:
234:
231:
227:
222:
218:
214:
213:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
186:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
154:
152:
147:
143:
142:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
112:
109:
105:
101:
98:
94:
91:
87:
79:
78:
76:
72:
69:
68:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
50:
49:
47:
36:
32:
28:
27:
19:
380:
377:
350:
339:
326:
305:
301:
297:
268:
263:
259:
254:
170:The Guardian
146:Donald Regan
133:
130:The Guardian
126:Donald Regan
121:
65:
61:
60:
52:
51:
43:
42:
34:
356:FearÉIREANN
332:FearÉIREANN
310:FearÉIREANN
274:FearÉIREANN
230:Maximus Rex
221:FearÉIREANN
217:Jewish Pope
198:Jewish Pope
178:FearÉIREANN
168:of London,
139:FearÉIREANN
108:Minesweeper
75:Kingturtle
351:perfectly
166:The Times
122:regularly
90:Mattworld
55:talk page
367:Keep. --
344:Calieber
208:and the
185:Fuzheado
151:Fuzheado
115:Fuzheado
340:actions
298:looking
349:It is
290:SimonP
255:proved
172:, the
160:, the
88:page.
318:Jiang
284:Jiang
248:Jiang
106:. --
16:<
327:what
304:Fitz
238:Bunk
97:Cyan
86:talk
82:some
369:Wik
269:far
260:why
33:).
383:.
264:is
204:,
200:,
164:,
37:.
306:g
302:t
48:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.