Talk:White House/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

"Paraplegia" inappropriate

"Paraplegia", which is generally thought of as involving loss of sensation, is a misleading term to use about FDR. He had the results of polio, which does not entail loss of sensation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.237.113 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

YesY Done - changed to his paralytic illness, since it might not have been (only) polio. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the basement have a name(s)?

I notice this building's above-ground floors have proper names (and highly appropriate ones, for the higher two), but the two-storey basement is called just that. Is there no official name for either of the basement floors (even Basement Floor A & B)? Are there unofficial names? Codenames? Former names? If there are no names, why not? If someone here could find and add these names, that'd be a small, but significant, improvement. Right now, the phrasing just begs these questions. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in the White House

Does anyone else think this information would make a good addition to the article? 11 people have died in the White House.

  1. 1840: Rebecca Van Buren (President Martin Van Buren's granddaughter)
  2. 1841: William Henry Harrison (President)
  3. 1842: Letitia Christian Tyler (First Lady, wife of President John Tyler)
  4. 1850: Zachary Taylor (President)
  5. 1862: William Lincoln (Son of President Abraham Lincoln)
  6. 1873: Frederick Dent (Father-in-law of President Ulysses S. Grant)
  7. 1883: Elisha Allen (Congressman)
  8. 1892: Caroline Harrison (First Lady, wife of President Benjamin Harrison)
  9. 1892: John Witherspoon Scott (Father-in-law of President Benjamin Harrison)
  10. 1914: Ellen Wilson (First Lady, wife of President Woodrow Wilson)
  11. 1952: Margaret Elizabeth Gates (Mother-in-law of President Dwight Eisenhower)

Thismightbezach (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A Politically Incorrect Remark to be Amended

I spotted a politically incorrect remark in a sentence within the first paragraph under the subtitle, "The White House since the Kennedy restoration," that offends women. My correction for this politically incorrect sentence has an added word that makes the sentence politically correct and this added word is italicized below.

In this paragraph, change the sentence, "Charged with maintaining the historical integrity of the White House, the congressionally authorized committee works with each First Family — usually represented by the First Lady, the White House Curator, and the Chief Usher — to implement the family's proposals for altering the house," to "Charged with maintaining the historical integrity of the White House, the congressionally authorized committee works with each First Family — usually represented by the First Lady or Gentleman, the White House Curator, and the Chief Usher — to implement the family's proposals for altering the house." Brenton J. Willingham (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Already done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not politically incorrect or sexist to say "First Lady", as there is yet to be a "First Gentleman". When there is a First Gentleman, the statement can be amended. Until then, it is factually inaccurate to "usually represented" by a (so far) non-existent entity.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the First Family be described as Tenants?

The box on the right at the beginning of the article describes the First Family as The Current Tenants. Would it not be better to just describe them as The Current Residents? Out of curiosity, I wonder if the President pays a nominal rent.184.151.190.27 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "residents" would be a more appropriate term.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bookseller's entrance?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/politics/flotus-kids-state-dinner/index.html says "The kids, ranging in age from 8 to 12, even got to experience an arrival ceremony in which they were officially announced as they made their way through the booksellers' entrance of the White House."

I had not seen the phrase "booksellers' entrance" before. Google 'site:www.whitehouse.gov "booksellers"' shows that the room exists but not where it is.

  • [1] has a picture of a "Bo the dog" statue made from pipe cleaner that's in "Booksellers."
  • [2] has a picture captioned "President Barack Obama views a section of the AIDS quilt on display in the Booksellers area of the White House, July 18, 2012."
  • Google images for 'White House booksellers' shows many pictures. They are easy to spot as the floor has a pink/white checkerboard.

I don't know if it's reliable but this page says "The BOOKSELLERS is an area at the end of the EAST COLONNADE just before the casueway (sic) leading in to the main rooms of the executive residence." I don't know the layout well enough to translate that description to where it may be.

Should we have anything about the booksellers area/hall in this article or one of the sub-articles about the east or west wing? --Marc Kupper|talk 10:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Renovation since end of the 2000s

Isn't the white house under renovation since 2008 or at least since Obama is in office? Why isn't that mentioned yet? That renovation is one of the mostt profound since Truman's time taken into account that they are at the moment replacing century-old plmumbing, for instance. --49.145.35.206 (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The end of the 2000s doesn't occur till after 2999, perhaps you're referring to the renovations that began under the West Wing in 2010? If that's the case, I agree they should be mentioned. This is a project that is estimated to cost in the 300 million plus range, and is more likely the true reason why White House tours were cancelled, and not because of sequestration staff shortages. Yeah right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Franklin not Theodore

According to the footnote, it was Franklin Roosevelt not Theodore Roosevelt who had John Adams' prayer carved in the State Dining Room.

John Feb 13, 2014 Alfred899 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Franklin not Theodore

According to the footnote, it was Franklin Roosevelt not Theodore Roosevelt who had John Adams' prayer carved in the State Dining Room.

John Feb 13, 2014 Alfred899 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Extended content

Norfolk NE BIGOTRY AN DISRESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENT

I am appalled at the disgraceful spectacle exhibited at the Norfolk NE Independence Day parade. Those responsible for disgusting display of bigoted, twisted and arrogant patriotism should be tarred and feathered and paraded through the streets for all to see. Come out your outhouse you faceless, spineless bigots. The Country is waiting to see what a coward looks like.

A PROUD WHITE VETERAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.59.125 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

Under "Evolution of the White House", Section "Early use, the 1814 fire, and rebuilding", the fourth line states that Theodore Roosevelt had John Adams's prayer carved in the mantel , but after reading the source that this line refers to, (footnote 22), I noticed that it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who had it carved, not Theodore Roosevelt.

198.178.167.7 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Good spotting with that! Stickee (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

infobox image

File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG was replaced with File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg. IMHO, the original photo was of better quality (lighting, angle, crop, etc.) I've restored the original image. APK whisper in my ear 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was reverted. The consensus at Talk:Washington, D.C.#White House photo was to restore the image on that article for the reasons stated above. APK whisper in my ear 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG is the better of the two photos and I've put it back. But I think a photo of the north portico, which is the more well-known of the two, would be preferable. We just need a better quality one. -- Calidum 00:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
What about this one? (although the sky is kind of dark) I'm amazed there are no Featured Pictures of the White House (at least none that I can find). APK whisper in my ear 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
That one looks good. -- Calidum 00:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll change it. APK whisper in my ear 01:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just wondering, who put the two of you in charge here? You do not create a consensus in under 2 hours between 2 users. The two photos you nice user offer are old, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Nither reflect the current state of the building, and the photo I offered, and that has been here since November is of the North side, that side most people see, it reflects the current state of the building and it has some activity, in so far as you can see agents at the door, and yard work in progress. This is real word, not a art gallery and it would make far more logical to have a accurate representation rather then a aged "pretty" low res one. talk→ WPPilot  03:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with the decision to substitute the better north portico photo, and have no trouble with the speed with which the decision was taken. JohnInDC (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And you also think that a photo of a bridge, should be a lead photo about a large, well known NY city. Thanks for chiming in! talk→ WPPilot  04:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
This isn't an art gallery, but it's also not your personal art exhibit where you try to insert your photos as lead images on highly viewed articles when they're inferior to the current ones. As already mentioned at User talk:JohnInDC, your argument about a picture being a couple of years old is pointless. The White House looks the same as it did in 2006 and 2008. The Washington Monument (you swapped a Featured Picture for your own) looks the same as it did in 2006. The Empire State Building (you swapped that photo with a aerial shot of New York City, for some reason) looks the same as it did in 2007. I know the United States Capitol is being renovated, but you swapped that Featured Picture with your own without discussion and was reverted. You're taking this too personally. We know you take photos, some of which have been promoted to Featured status. Kudos. But that doesn't mean all of your photos are the best ones available. Your photo of the White House is crooked with poor lighting, and the Andrew Jackson sculpture in the foreground is a distraction when the subject of the photo is the White House. Also, how exactly is File:White House Washington.JPG (4,163 × 2,440 pixels) low resolution? It's almost the same size as your photo (4,782 × 2,710 pixels). APK whisper in my ear 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not at all. I do not put a picture in unless I as a professional with over 25 years and thousands of publications that have published my work, feel that the picture is a better depiction then what is offered. I agree the aerial pic of the Empire State Building last week was not up to the other, and did not challenge that. The White House photo that was on the page before I placed mine here was from 2006. It was not in any way a accurate depiction of what the building looks like today. The photo that is on the page now, when you zoom in, is low res, or just a real soft focus/ lack of. What struck me when I saw the building was all the NEW security towers and stations, that NONE of these pictures show. It looks alive. The slight skew when you center the flag pole is a optical illusion that, according to the editors from Getty Images was alluring. AgnosticPreachersKid, I do not know how much you know about photography, but if you want to be a critic please join and vote at the Featured Photo board to learn what good photography is all about. talk→ WPPilot  04:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
APK photographic contributions at Commons (one page of them anyhow): Link. JohnInDC (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, consensus here and at Talk:Washington, D.C. is against your opinion that your photo is superior. Your photo is crooked and poorly cropped, no matter what the (name drop) editors at Getty say. You haven't addressed the fact the sculpture in the foreground is a distraction, but it doesn't matter anyway, consensus is against your photo being displayed in the infobox.
I'm well aware of the Featured Picture candidate page. Would you like me to comment on your recent nomination? APK whisper in my ear 04:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You said you don't replace photos unless it's better than the current ones, but in the next sentence, you admit your photo was not as good as the original, yet you still replaced it. Confusing. APK whisper in my ear 04:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what you do, you try to dominate this topic to assure your perspective is the only one that provides foundation for a consensus. That is not how it works, and that is a gang mentality. If you are goig to threaten to go after my contributions on FP out of spite you go right ahead and I will not go near your sand box any more, ok! Wow. talk→ WPPilot  04:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't threatened to do anything, just pointing out the fact some of the photos you think are so great, aren't. (judging by the opposes) I don't want to pile on there. APK whisper in my ear 04:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You two are tweekers

At least it looks like you trying to learn. If I may make a suggestion, the Canon PowerShot S90 really is not much better then your phone. But I do respect your efforts, keep it up. My agent is Getty Images. My work has been featured in everything from National Geographic to Sports Illustrated in just about every country, on the globe. You guys look like your on something, as this is the fastest censuses on a photo EVER. Take that Canon PowerShot S90 over to the White House and get yourself a nice new photo of what it really looks like. talk→ WPPilot  04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/yacht Zapata II Sure do another hit of what ever it is that your on and go ahead and vote on my current nomination. Then find a nice bridge that looks like a city and replace the lead pic with it! talk→ WPPilot  04:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you need to refamiliarize yourself with WP:NPA. If you think calling us childish names will solve anything, oh well. Or if you think your attempts at insulting an amateur photographer like myself will hurt my feelings, oh well. I feel sorry for you. This just goes to show how personal you're taking all of this. APK whisper in my ear 04:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I had to look up "tweeker" (I don't really run in those circles) but having done so - yeah, WP:NPA is a good thing to know about. WP:Civility is also instructive as well. JohnInDC (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have never seen such viral and non stop ranting over something. You can not DRIVE HOME a consensus, in a few hours and just execute a summary judgment like this, but your convinced this is how it is done and that is all there is too it. Tweeker is not a childish name, it refers to people that are trying to do things really fast. Your edits were so repetitive I was shut down 4 check, 5 times in a row with your edit conflict. That has never happened before to me and it is clear that your dead set on your POV regardless of anything else, and your resorting to attacking words in the effort. In the end I still go flying tomorrow and you will still be convinced that a bridge, looks like a city!talk→ WPPilot  04:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm commenting following a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. As for any building, no single image is sufficient to depict it, so inevitably there is no perfect lead image. Besides technical quality (resolution, sharpness, exposure, etc), its encyclopaedic value (how much information does the image convey) and its artistic quality (compelling images make the viewers want to know more) are to be considered. For this subject I would expect to see the building being white (not grey or pink), with the flag clearly visible. Both the north and south facades appear often in the news and are recognisable, but the south facade is more likely to be well lit, and is more distinctive. I think the image that was in the article before the disputed edits File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG is quite a good choice. File:Executive Mansion2.JPG has high EV but is also low quality. There is also File:White House lawn.jpg that is an FP on Commons for its high technical quality and could be cropped, but on the minus side there is a distracting vehicle in it and the flag is behind the poll. --ELEKHHT 04:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the original image (File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG) or a good one of the north side. (whether it's the current one, or something else, but not File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg for reasons already stated) File:White House lawn.jpg is really nice, but like you mentioned, there's a truck in the way. APK whisper in my ear 05:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ELEKHH in that no one photo of this building is going to make a clear representation of it, for the lead. I think it should have a montage like other large city's and more important places do, that shows all the views. I am going to insert my photo, below in the gallery as it is the MOST CURRENT photo of the building regardless of what the antagonistic preachers kid thinks. talk→ WPPilot  05:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"antagonistic preachers kid" - How cute and mature. APK whisper in my ear 05:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I preach the truth, your communications have been "antagonistic" I am sorry your so unaware of it. talk→ WPPilot  06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't troll my user page with homophobic insinuations and leave the discussion here. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 06:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It is the holiday season, you have a vivid imagination or your paranoid, I offered you a slice of cake that is in my fridge and you turn it around into some kind of homophobic insult. Your a troubled soul. Good luck with your quest, I have better things to do then deal with your lack of civility, discretion or normal sensibility and your clearly trying to create a fight here, one that I will have no more to do with. ciao! talk→ WPPilot  06:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
WPP, spare us the false outrage ("what's wrong with giving someone a fruitcake?") and remain civil. You are pushing the envelope. JohnInDC (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get away from the sniping

File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg is definitely not the best image: the colors are poorer due to the cloudy day, the image is tilted, and the statue is both an obstruction and a distraction. If we want a north-facade image, it has to be File:White House Washington.JPG, unless someone finds a yet better image. However, I'm more in favor of File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG, as in my experience the south facade is more the scene that comes to mind. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Either. Both are attractive, colorful, well-balanced and representative. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. APK whisper in my ear 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In my mind, an image in the lead should be characteristic of the subject (depicting an instantly recognizable, iconic or complete view without extraneous matter), be visually striking, and as with all images, preferably be free. It need not depict the most recent look of the building, so long as it is the view of the building most relevant to the reader, which might well be a historic one. File:White House Washington.JPG shows an iconic view and is excellent in quality, but unfortunately the White House isn't white in that image. File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG also shows an iconic view and is excellently composed, and the fact that it's not as sharp as the former image is made up for its better color balance. Of the three named (and I have not looked for others), that would be my preference. By comparison, File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg just isn't very well-composed; the building is askew and the reader is mislead into associating the statue with the White House. The author's prior work is, in any case, completely irrelevant to whether this particular photograph of his should be included. Knight of Truth (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Since there are two (main) iconic views of the White House, why not use a composite of the north and south facades? I agree with Knight of Truth on the three images (and have not looked at lots of others). So File:White House Washington.JPG and File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG in a composite with a clear caption explaining that these are the north and south facades seems like the way to go (or can the box handle one of the multiple image templates)? As for WPPilot's photo, while it is nice, I agree with the others that it is not the best for this purpose. If someone uploads a better N or S view, it can be used. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ruhrfisch: If you want to do that, here's the image. APK whisper in my ear 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, I have added the composite photo to the article. I am not offended if it is reverted and please ping me if the discussion goes further here. If anyone wants to send me a $20 bill with its picture of the White House for my brilliant idea.... ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 Not done Payments are only doled out for montages of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing facilities, natch. ;-) APK whisper in my ear 20:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a great solution to me. Thanks for thinking outside the box! Knight of Truth (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

*The* White House?

I'm wondering if this article should at The White House and instances of "the White House" changed to "The White House" when referring to the building.

  • "White House" seems awkward by itself without "the".

Question: Which is proper, writing "the President lives at the White House", or "the President lives at The White House"? Is "The" part of the proper name?

Looking through news sources, I do see lots of "the White House", but it's hard to tell if those uses refer to the building itself and not the goings on inside. Jason McHuff (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:THE, which addresses this issue (" United States does not include the article 'The', because sentences such as 'California is part of the United States' are written with a lowercase 'the' ")--NextUSprez (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I read that and linked to it, and agree that "the" should not be capitalized with United States. But it seems that's because the United States refers to a group of things and "the" isn't a part of the proper name. Jason McHuff (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. I really don't know whether "The" is part of the proper noun in this case. There's no "The" in titles such as House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument, Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, etc. Maybe someone a little more grammer-savvy could weigh in on this?--NextUSprez (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Movies

I think that it would be nice to have a section which tells readers the movies it has been featured in? Especially since this building has been around for more than a hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

White house - Wörlitz Castle (Germany)

In Germany there is a saying, that the White House is build according to the example of the Wörlitz Castle (build approx. 40 years before the White House) which looks totally the same: - same structre - comparable dimensions - same number and structre of columns - same number and arrangement of windows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dessau-W%C3%B6rlitz_Garden_Realm

Maybe its worth giving some words on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.244.245 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for —66.87.121.210 (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The request was incomplete, but the coordinates are fine. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 07:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

98.167.88.8 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on White House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

MIssing Design Influence: Palais de la Légion d'Honneur (Paris)

Hello, I think the section about the design influences for the White House is missing a major one: the Palais de la Légion d'Honneur in Paris. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson was familiar with the "Hotel de Salm" at this location while he was the American ambassador in Paris. The heavy influence of the French building in the design of the White House is undeniable. Moreover, it is a fact constantly repeated to tourists in Paris during boat or bus city tours. Thank you.--Phoenyxfloyd (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

George Washington Portrait

The article states that the Portrait of George Washington in the White House was saved by employees and slaves during the War of 1812 when the British burned the White House. Dolley Madison, First Lady at the time is credited with saving the painting although she did have help from White House workers. As there was no time to remove the large painting as the British advanced on the city, Dolley had it cut from the frame and removed to safety outside of the city.Traveler333 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

Citation number 14 does not exist on the website listed and comes up as a 404. It's an important bit of history that notes who physically constructed the White House and I am searching for a replacement link. As of now however, citation 14 is no longer in existence. Sunnymamatee (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Found updated version: https://www.whitehousehistory.org/african-americans-in-the-white-house-timeline EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edit to improve a poor sentence

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article's introduction currently reads as follows:

"The house was designed by Irish-born James Hoban[2] and built between 1792 and 1800 of white-painted Aquia Creek sandstone in the Neoclassical style."

The sentence suffers from being long with no interior grammatical pause. Also, reference to the Neoclassical style of architecture would be best placed with relation to the designer instead of construction material specifics. For example I would suggest as a revision:

"The house was designed in the Neoclassical style by Irish-born architect James Hoban. Construction took place between 1792 and 1800 using Aquia Creek sandstone painted white."

Best wishes

2A02:C7D:44DE:C400:88D:4C83:734D:ED62 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your correction reads better, but the citation attached to Hoban doesn't say anything about Neoclassicism. I would change it somewhat, to:

The house was designed by Irish-born architect James Hoban[1] in the Neoclassical style. Construction took place between 1792 and 1800 using Aquia Creek sandstone painted white.

Dhtwiki (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "History of the White House". WhiteHouse.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2012.

Croatian stone?

There seem to be a number of sources that say that the White House was made from white stone excavated from the island of Brac in Croatia. But there is nothing about it here? Is there any truth to this? Icemuon (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please insert the official white house logo in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.93.118 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

New White House proposal

"A proposal was made to build a new residence south of the White House, but it failed to gain support." This sentence puzzles me, because I never saw any of that. Do you aybody know how that should have looked like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.161.166 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Setting for the TV show

@Dhtwiki: "Setting" is a technical term used in the theater for "The designing and staging of the locale and background of a play."[3] In TV terms, it's the place where the action supposedly takes place, not the place where the show was filmed. So the setting for the TV show is the West Wing, although it was actually shot on a sound stage in Burbank.

I can't really think of alternate wording that would make this more clear. Can you suggest something? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the language recently added makes it more clear. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems less clear to me, as now I don't know whether we're talking about the actual White House or the set on which the show is shot, but I can live with it. I've added a link to Setting (narrative). Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
How about now? And why would they replicate portions of the West Wing in the West Wing itself (although nowadays I wouldn't be surprised). Randy Kryn 17:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Have we moved into another citation-needed situation? Is there a source for the additional information just added? I think that I possibly goofed in thinking that "setting" meant actually filmed there, and that the language could go back without creating too much confusion, unless someone else wants to chime in that it was unclear before. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No source but my lying eyes, watching the show....unless, maybe it was filmed in the West Wing itself and the public just thought it was on a sound stage. Didn't they have to drag Sheen out of there that last day because he wanted to take the real Resolute desk with him?[citation needed] Randy Kryn 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

212.56.103.25 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

our first president George Washington, selected

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 12:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Overcrowding and building the West Wing

In White_House#Overcrowding_and_building_the_West_Wing, why is the paragraph below included in the article? It appears to have no connection with the White House. I feel it could be safely removed without losing any relevant information. What do others think? Am I missing something?

The Panic of 1873 had led to an economic depression that persisted through much of the decade. The Statue of Liberty project was not the only undertaking that had difficulty raising money: construction of the obelisk later known as the Washington Monument sometimes stalled for years.[38]

--PhotographerTom (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reformatted your article post so the quote doesn't appear to be an unsigned followup. I think that the paragraph is germane, in that it seems to explain why there was no money for building a new executive mansion as proposed in the previous paragraph. So, it shouldn't be removed. The quickest fix, to make it appear less a non sequitur, might be to preface it with "However,". Dhtwiki (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! PhotographerTom (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
On further thought, I think that you're right and that the paragraph should be removed, as it only infers that the Panic of 1873 was a contributory factor in not moving the president's residence, without actually stating such. I'll wait a bit before doing that, though, in case any others have thoughts on the matter. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

White House as metonym, or synecdoche, or whatever...

I think it was last summer that language was inserted in the first paragraph of the lead that related how "the White House" is often used to refer to the actions of people in it. It's been a subject of some dispute as to whether this constitutes metonymy (synecdoche has also been plausibly suggested) and whether using such a technical term in the lead is appropriate. I think that the language should be moved to its own section in the article where its rhetorical classification could be more appropriately described, supported by sources of course. A summary then should appear lower down in the lead than it does now, so as not to interrupt the description of the WH being built. Or, the present mention in the summary could be struck altogether. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering "the White House" as a reference to the executive branch of the US government is specifically called out as a common example of metonymy in the lead of that article, to not include a reciprocal link here is silly. oknazevad (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
That is an unreferenced mention, in a section tagged as lacking appropriate references. There are a couple of apparently well-respected blogs I found that use "White House" as an example too. I'm not quarreling with the classification ("synecdoche" was declared inappropriate at one of the blogs, and my reading of Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage indicates that "metonym" is appropriate), but where is a reference to a reliable source, such as a dictionary, that specifically mentions the White House? While my previous edit summary about making this article safe for children was only half serious, I still think that "metonym" is a lot to ask people to grasp in the first paragraph, especially when the application of the concept isn't explained anywhere in the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The White House and the Raj Bhavan in Calcutta

In terms of the architectural influences on the White House, I don't think I have ever heard anyone point out that the Raj Bhavan in Calcutta was designed and constructed at about the same time as the White House. The front and rear of the facilities are similar. True, the Raj Bhavan has a dome, but that was added in the 1860s, about the time we were adding a dome to the Capitol.

It's true that we Americans don't want to admit that we ape our British masters in many ways, but we do. That's why we call our natives Indians, and it's why we call bison buffalo. Those are my two examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

White House logo in infobox

I have a question: would any other editor object or would it be appropriate if File:US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg was included as the logo in the infobox of the main article? I am asking and requesting other editors to please comment so that we can reach consensus on this topic. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? The logo is merely a simplified drawing of the north facade with the phrase "The White House" underneath, and the word "Washington" at the bottom. At present the infobox contains a color photo montage of the north and south facades. How is adding the logo an improvement, much less a replacement? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Bowling alley

The Truman bowling alley is not in the White House, it's in the Executive Office Building and has two lanes. The one-lane alley in the House itself was built by Nixon in 1970 and is not called the Truman bowling alley.[4][5] Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Completed?

The Construction section says, "Although not yet completed, the White House was ready for occupancy circa November 1, 1800." The infobox, however, gives that date as the completion date. In the Evolution section, it says that the East and West Colonnades were built sometime during Jefferson's presidency, but there's no precise date. The article ought to state when the (pre-1814) building was actually completed. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:8C45:F9D1:BB84:9C78 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

Add Eisenhower_Executive_Office_Building to the See also section.

Rationale: The White House entry's lead sentence correctly states it is not just the official residence, but also the workplace of the President of the United States. It follows that Wikipedia users reading about the White House may also be looking for information about its workplace function. The White House entry includes a subsection on the West Wing, which houses many of the closest advisers of any president. But the West Wing itself is too small to accommodate the president's full staff. Many important officials do not have office space in the West Wing or only have small spaces there, while maintaining larger workspaces in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building which is adjacent to the White House. Many staff members who officially work at The White House, actually have their physical offices in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Thusly, it seems related and worthy of a link in the See also section. Kevssingh2020 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It is already mentioned and linked in the early paragraphs. RudolfRed (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Edit Regarding James Hoban

In the article it currently lists James Hoban as an "Irish-born" architect, which seems to imply that he was Irish by birth only, and in actual fact an American. That is not the case of course; James Hoban was an Irish architect who immigrated to the United States, but certainly was not American - particularly not given the fact that he immigrated before "American" as an identity really came to exist. I would propose correcting that to just an Irish architect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRN-Dumas (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Referencing style

I've started working on this article, adding missing citations and such to make it at least a GA. Any objection to converting to List-defined references to remove clutter from the raw prose. MB 04:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"Whiskey Hotel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Whiskey Hotel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

the Mayor of Washington DC renamed the street to "Black Lives Matter Plaza" please edit the street address 2600:8803:AE00:BD9:3576:A0F1:2CBF:76A1 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No she didn't. She renamed part of 16th Street, not Pennsylvania Avenue. The White House's address is unchanged. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

White House New Year's Reception

I recently started an article for the White House New Year's Reception; a very important event for 130 years. It has the potential to be an extensive and enlightening article. Thriley (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

ok 154.160.3.229 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Edit Joe biden to stone cold killer, resources include putin. 71.218.124.142 (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for Joe Biden being a stone cold killer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Medicine chest taken in 1814 and returned in 1939

The article states: "Of the numerous objects taken from the White House when it was ransacked by British troops, only two have been recovered." This seems to be contradicted by the information[6] on the medicine chest that was taken from the White House when it was burnt in 1814, but returned in April 1939 by a descendant of the person who took the chest. Information on the letter written by Roosevelt to the person who returned the chest can be found in a podcast produced by the Society for Nautical Research [7] (there is a transcript of the podcast on the linked page.)

I am reluctant to make changes to the article in respect of the above (if appropriate) as I have no knowledge of the rest of the subject matter - but the two links given above should assist if changes are needed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made these changes. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Science

Solar system has been removed 2409:4053:D8A:719B:7845:2678:F79B:8FB (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_House/Archive_3&oldid=1140409327"