Talk:White House/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This was an interesting article

I think I had learned more about the White House just by reading this article itself for than I would have had I actually physically been there. www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 15:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Those open houses sometimes became rowdy: in 1829, President Andrew Jackson had to leave for a hotel when roughly 20,000,000,000,000 citizens celebrated his inauguration inside the White House."

I didn't know there were 20 trillion people in the United States.

Breaches

I can't think of a better article to try and have a mention of White House intruders, but can't for the life of me think how to work it into the article which doesn't really touch on the history of the White House in the 20th Century much. Anybody else have a suggestion? Sherurcij 19:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Make a section entitled The White House in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

Nuttyskin 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

White House → White House, Washington – White House should redirect to dissambiguous page AzaToth ^talk 20:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. But would consider a move to "The White House" -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — there are more official 'white houses' than the white house in wasington, for example the white house in Moskow –AzaToth ^talk 14:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Primary topic dis-ambiguation makes sense here. There already is a dis-ambiguation page linked to from here at White House (disambiguation). Georgia guy 17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose FearÉIREANN 19:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Overwhelmingly most common meaning, pre-disambiguation will just create a huge disambiguation mess. Kusma (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Concur with Kusma - clearly the most common use by a mile. Raul654 03:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Aude 04:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. 63.231.54.51 22:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The Russian White House is famous, too. -Hapsiainen 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not outside Russia and one of two states. This White House is known in every country on the planet. If this one was only known in the US, or if the Russian one was known the world over, then a disambiguation page would make sense, but where one usage is worldwide and one isn't, making this page a disambiguation page would make no sense. For the same reason, Dublin uses the Irish capital, not all places call Dublin, London is the UK capital, not all places for London. FearÉIREANN 18:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose that you meant "one or two", because "one of two" means 50 percent. I think that the Russian White House is famous at least in the neighboring countries, and also in countries that were part of Soviet Union. Sweden is neither kind of country, so the number of countries is even larger. But I also know that both of us are just presuming. That's why I hoped for votes from other countries, not for a certain result. -Hapsiainen 20:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose -- By far the most commonly known and most expected article should be here when nothing else even comes close. DreamGuy 17:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Georgia guy. Vegaswikian 00:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- but what about White House brand vinegar? It didn't even make the disamb page... LuiKhuntek 07:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Does anyone have any info on the annual cost of running the white house (staff, facilities, state dinners, etc.)?

I notice that by now all the opponents live in United States except Jtdirl. AzaToth lives in Sweden, me in Finland. I smell systemic bias. Of course in United States their White House is the overwhelmingly most famous White House. But we need more opinions from other countries. -Hapsiainen 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a news fanatic (I work among other things as a journalist)and follow media coverage far more than most people, watching BBC, TV5, ITN, RTÉ, RAI etc. In two decades of constant TV coverage I've only heard media coverage of one other White House in English (and English Wikipedia, like all WPs, uses the name most used by speakers of that language) and that was for the Russian White House and I have only heard that a handful of times. Wikipedia can be annoying americocentric on occasions but this isn't one of those cases. International usage means the US president's residence when using the White House in excess of 99% of the time IMHO. If I thought this page was just another example of americocentrism on WP I'd say it. But it isn't. It is the reality. For the overwhelming majority of English speakers there is only one White House, the place Bush lives. FearÉIREANN 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• You must separate whats happening now, and what has happened, When I think of the White House, I both think of the US Presidential Residence, and I think of the Jeltsin attack in \approx 1990 _→AzaToth 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Best Known

i dont think the white house is the worlds most famous residence--Prunetucky 02:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on this

At Talk:The West Wing I begun a discussion about whether that article should focus on the West Wing of the White House. Please consider participating in that discussion. Thanks. 66.167.139.201 20:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

Whitehouse.com and .org?

Should these be mentioned? Whitehouse.com is an infamous pornography site, depending on accidental hits from those seeking the real site, while whitehouse.org is a satire/parody of the Bush administration. -Kasreyn 08:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Zip Code?

What's the zip code?Cameron Nedland 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Take yer pick:

• Google Maps says 20006.
• Yahoo Maps says 20502-0001.
• Whitehouse.gov says 20500.
• Amazon Yellow Pages says 20500-0003.
• Wikipedia ZIP Code says "While the White House itself is physically located in ZIP Code 20006, it specifically has the ZIP Code 20500" and "The White House has its own secret ZIP+4 Code, separate from the publicly-known 20500, for the President of the United States and his family to receive private mail."

But I wouldn't trust Wikipedia. ;-) --Tysto 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

White House rooms

I'm considering documenting the entire White House, room by room, to the extent that the material is available. I've already done most of the research out of personal interest, and I find that there are notable things to say about nearly every area but no one site that already aggregates them. This could be a great place for aggregate information on the Blue Room (once the president's office), the Diplomatic Reception Room (once the boiler room), the Lincoln Bedroom (once the president's study), and even the family kitchen (once Margaret Truman's bedroom). I've found excellent diagrams and photos at the Library of Congress as well as some photos from presidential libraries (altho the copyrights are less clear in those cases). I ask only because this is such a strong personal interest that I would like the perspective of others on:

1. overall value
2. format of titles ("Room Room (White House)" or "Red Room of the White House")
3. format of articles
4. how much help I could expect

The East Wing, West Wing, basement, and third floor present problems, because very little is known about them (I can't find a floor plan or pics of the East Wing), but certain rooms besides the Oval Office are notable (Cabinet Room, Roosevelt Room, Press Briefing Room in the WW, theater in the EW, bowling alley in the basement). It would be a pretty big task, but it is the White House, and a hundred or so articles wouldn't put a dent in the Simpsons article space. --Tysto 00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've started this effort now, using "Name of Room (White House)" as the article title and creating Category:Rooms in the White House. I'll confine the effort to the best-known rooms at first and have uploaded LOC floor plans of the first and ground floors. I found a copule of very good floor plans of the second floor, but they're not government-made and therefore not freely licensable. Is anyone interested in doing a high-quality diagram for WP based on it? Or know a Wikipedia who does this kind of thing? I'll post the question in Commons:Village pump. --Tysto 17:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

History

Some knowledgable person should put in more about the early history of the President's House -- original design and models (an Irish mansion, as I recall?), destruction in the War of 1812, open access during Lincoln administration (the Lincoln era floorplan is somewhere on the web), trivia and lore. 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think its important to include history of it, maybe some mention of the burning of white house during 1812, and contruction of white house Gsingh 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, Wikipedia.... I've restored the history section which was replaced with vandalism by user:Bilanz06 (the self-styled "physician god...walter brozzo"). Instead of reverting, IP user user:70.247.58.111 deleted the vandalism text without checking to see if the vandal deleted anything, so the history was temporarily in Wikilimbo. --Tysto 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Potomac or Pamunkey?

IP User 69.121.98.123 changed the reference to Washington's house on the "Pamunkey River" to "Potomac River" (his/her only contribution), which I suspect is hypercorrection, but I wasn't able to easily determine it. Can anyone confirm? --Tysto 14:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I found it: Custis White House and later purchased by Lee.

robots.txt

From a very cursory look, it appears to me that the robots.txt file is concealing only files which are intended for embedding in other pages, and that the equivalent content is available by other URLs. If true, this should be mentioned. Has anyone looked more closely into this? GMcGath 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

robots.txt files cannot “shield” or “block” anything from anybody. It can merely ask politely that web robots don't index certain pages. A request which is in fact ignored by most everybody. And that the inbuilt search-engine is “controlled” by its creators goes without saying, just like Google is controlled by Google and Washington Post search is controlled by Washington Post, etc. to say it is “controlled by the U.S. government” while perhaps strictly true, is needlessly alarmist, insinuating some sinister plot. Rune X2 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And really, with all due respects, The Inquirer as a reference?

1601 Pennsylvania Avenue

Why does the article state 1601? --CoolGuy 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was just a piece of Vandalism by 208.98.134.171. You don't need to worry about creating talk threads every time a piece of vandalism occurs - if it is just basic rubbish (which this was, the user also changed the construction date to 1992) then it can just be reverted. SFC9394 10:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Broad rewrite

I've just completed a fairly broad rewrite to include more about early history, structure, link to rooms, and references. I have also reordered the images to better correlate with the text. It is not perfect, some areas still need simplification and work. CApitol3 14:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Architecture style

Is it accurate to call the White House Neoclassical? The official Neoclassical period began in the late 19th century. I've always thought that the White House was officially Georgian.

I have edited this page quite heavily and am not the source of the word "neoclassical" but your definition is not quite right. From this comment and one on the DC metro page it seems you believe neoclassicism begins with Beaux Arts. Janson's History of Art clearly describes eightteenth century buildings as neoclassical. The idea being that classicism first emerged in ancient Greece and Rome, and was succesively revived. Neoclassical is often used to describe eighteenth century architecture (U.S. Capitol, Monticello), painters (Jacques Louis David), and typography (Baskerville and Bodoni). I would describe the White House as late Georgian. The terms are not mutually exclusive. In the future please sign your comments with four tildes. CApitol3 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Canadian troops burning the White House?

That is news! I count nearly a half dozen attempts to add "Canadian troops" to the British troops having burned the White House section of the article. While a British subject living in lower Canada could possibly have been among the British troops there, they could not have been "Canadian troops" as the Canadian nation was not yet concieved. The possibility of the term Canadian troops could not have been used until after confederation in 1867. CApitol3 12:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move, per improper naming convention, and per WP:SNOW. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

White House to The White House. The place is never referred to in speech without the "the". People don't call it, White House, but rather The White House, hence that should be the title. It also should be the title since there are many other white houses. Voortle 18:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP style is to avoid using leading "The" or "A" except where absolutely necessary. Better to leave as is. -- Beardo 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. And the statement that "the place is never referred to in speech without the 'the'" isn't entirely true. As an adjective, it doesn't carry an article (e.g., "White House sources," "White House press corps"). —  AjaxSmack  08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Violates the Wikipedia naming convention, which says that entry titles should only start with an article if that article would be capitalized in running text.
• Oppose per WP:SNOWBALL per WP:NC#Avoid... -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bubba ditto 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Floor plan

{{reqdiagram}} A floor plan would help give a better overall picture of how the various rooms and spaces fit together. -- Beland 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, agree, I am working on a simplified floor plan with color coding for the rooms.CApitol3 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

greek interwiki-link

please add el:Λευκός Οίκος. thx --85.182.26.200 10:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Does the picture at the top of the page really need such a long caption beneath it? If the information is that important then it should have it's own entry elsewhere on the page. At the moment I think it is unpleasent to see and not something you would immediately want to read. Captions should be short. After looking down the page I see that plenty more are in the same state. I'm sure they do not need all the info currently there. Algebra man 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Architectural Influences

I have read somewhere (alas forgotten source) that the oval office was influenced by a room in the now Italian Ambassadorial residence in Lucan, Ireland. Does anybody know if this is true? --The Three Jays 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Oval Office's shape is inspired by the three oval rooms in the White House residence. Two of those three are original to the building, Influences from Ireland abound and make sense as the architect, James Hoban, was Irish and had seen many of the building's cited. I've never heard of the influene you mention (Italian ambassador's residence). A direct influence can be traced to the levée room at the president's house in Philadelphia. Washington and Adams had lived there, Washington had alterations made to that room so that it was rounded on both ends. The building is now gone, and some question remains as to whether the room was a true oval (no straight sides) or a rectangular room that termintated in a semicircle at each end. Washington worked with Hoban on the floorplan, and having created an oval room in Philadelphia likely did the same in DC too. CApitol3 21:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of White House Complex to White House article

User:NE2 has proposed merging the White House Complex article with the White House main article.

• Oppose The term is an official designation of the National Park Service and used by the White House Chief Usher and Executive residence staff. An illustration on the White House Complex shows the layout of the three buildings, two colonnades, and two gardens compsing the complex. I favor keeping the two articles separate. The separate article allows for a succinct text and visual display explanation of the White House Complex. CApitol3 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I think the beginning of the article should be rewritten to make it sound like an article; at the moment it sounds like a caption for the picture. MoraSique 04:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, and second two above statements. --Northmeister 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

White House Inspiration Photos

Hi everyone. This article is kind of crowded with photos, so I was wondering if it is necessary to keep Image:Chateau de rastignac.jpg and Image:Leinsterhouse.jpg, for they crowd the page. Although I'm sure they were placed there for a good reason, I don't think they belong where they are. The lengthy photo caption could be turned into a paragraph or made part of a paragraph in the article's "History:Design and influences" section, but I don't think that photos are necessary. Readers can visit the page if they wish to get a better understanding of Lenister house and Chateau de Rastignac without crowding a page about the White House. I know that I'm going to be disagreed with here (which is ok; that's what Wiki's all about) so let's start another discussion. Best, Happyme22 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

White House article layout

Hi Happyme22. I find your changes to the White House articles's layout have removed the previous easy reading path and previously easy comparison of the North Portico to Leinster House and South Portico to Cahteau Rastinac. Both buildings are an important part of diesgn influence, images of both appear in the White House official guide book in the discussion of possible architectual influences on Hoban and Latrobe. The in and out layout feels very checker board to me, and has the likely unintended effect of making comparison of the architectural influences on the house impossible. I admit my dislike of pictures on the left is subjective. I rather like to read a straight column of text, while looking to the right for images. There is now little relationship between the two. CApitol3 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

pink?

was it histoorically pink before it was repainted white? or is that just an urban legend??--Sonjaaa 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The White House is constructed of porous Aquia sandstone which has a natural sandy taupe color. The house was painted white before its first occupant, John Adams, moved in. The first coating was a mix of glue, rice flour, and lead. This first coat helped seal the porous stone reducing erosion from the elements. When the house was stripped of almost 30 coats of paint in the late 1980s and early '90s, the original stone was exposed before repainting, and it was similar to the color shown in the image of Chateau Rastignac in the White House article.

There are three references to a "pink house" as official residence. The first is the translation of the Argentine president's home, Casa Rosada, the second is a 1992 refererence to the White House in a speech by the transgendered entertainer RuPaul who in a 1992 equal rights march for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people on the National Mall, said if he were elected he'd paint the house pink. The third is by a group called Code Pink, a women's antiwar group that began with the invasion of Afghanistan. they commonly promise to "paint the White House pink." They can be found at [1] That's all I could find. CApitol3 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sonjaaa 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FA or GA

I think this article could be a great Featured Article, or a Good Article Nomination. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To add about the architecture of the White House

We must also consider the Hotel de Salm, built from 1782 to 1787 in Paris by architect Pierre Rousseau, who is the current Palace of the Legion of Honour(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_de_la_Légion_d'honneur), and that Thomas Jefferson had known when he was ambassador to Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.240.52 (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

==I'd like to see some mention of the previous presidential mansions: 3 Cherry St., New York City (April 1789 - February 1790); 39-41 Broadway, New York City (February - August 1790); 190 High St., Philadelphia (November 1790 - June 1800). BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)BoringHistoryGuy 21 February 2009

Worthy of inclusion?

Several crazy people have climbed over the fence and some of them have been shot in the chest. Worthy of mention? I think the plane landing on the WH grounds is. Fineday 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a separate expanded article about White House intrusions and security is appropriate. CApitol3 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Atleast cite a reference proving them to be insane, otherwise it just an assumption. 168.8.212.128 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

White House West

This term has been in use since at least the 70's, yet I can't find a single instance of it on Wikipedia. Should something be added here just to acknowledge the commmon term? - MichiganCharms 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See Western White House —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Website

I just wanted to list this great website here to help editors with who furnished and did what in the White House. It's long and in PDF format, but it covers pretty-much every administration and what they did to benefit the house. Best, Happyme22 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Snipers?

I haven't seen it mentioned in the article but I have some friends who claim to have seen them? I'm having trouble googling it because it gives me sites about the president and other snipers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.38.147 (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about snipers, but when I was in DC I did see people (most likely Secret Service agents) on top of the White House.--Rastabilly 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, you realize that NSA caught you in an intersect when you googled 'president', 'White House' and 'sniper'...

Aww crap, so did I. Wanna share a bag of peanuts to Guantanamo? ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Format of page

I changed the White House page for good reason. My version enhanced the page and made it easier for readers, for the images were correctly placed, they were downsized so readers focus on the text (it is an encyclopedia), captions were kept shorter, and infoboxes do help. There are problems with the way it is currently presented:

• The images do not adhere to the MOS. I was told during an FAC to get rid of all specific sizes unless needed or unless it is the main photo. I downsized the images meaning to compromise with you, but to tell you the truth, they look bad with long captions and large images (see WP:MOS#Images).
• The captions do not adhere to the MOS, for they are long sentences which can and should be made into paragraphs in the article or incorprated into the text (see WP:MOS#Captions), something I am willing to do over the next few days.
• There is no infobox. Although technically not required, it does help the article and provides a brief overview of the WH, along with the main image in the box. A nice example of this would be the United States Capitol.

By far, however, my biggest problem with the page is the placing of the Lenister House right under the main photo of the White House. I know User:GearedBull has a point when he said that by placing it there, readers can compare Lenister house to the North side of the WH, and Château de Rastignac to the South side. My problem is that the Lenister House is not the White House! Placing it that high could cause confusion between the WH and this house (not all readers of Wikipedia are Americans). It's doing the article a disservice. If it were me the photos of the Lenister House and Chateau would have have been gone a long time ago, with text mentioning their design relation and wiklinks to their articles. In an effort to compromise, however, I kept them but moved them down lower under the "design influences" section.

I think my changes benefit the article and wanted to share those with everyone here so that we can reach an understanding and compromise. Please comment as soon as you can. Best, Happyme22 04:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

HappyMe22, I do not think there is any chance of confusing the two buildings whether proximate or apart. the captions are clear as to what is being shown and why (comparison). Thanks. Best, CApitol3 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like the cleanness of Happy's version for the placeholder and initial images, though I would use the influence images alternating with the White house images to better demonstrate the influence. the placeholder image should be the single most identifiable image associated with the White House, the semi-circled grouping of columns as viewed fromt he South Lawn. More than one image is clutter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well if you do not think so, you must admit that it is poor formatting to stack an image underneath the main image? I think this is the way to go. Happyme22 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this one of Happyme's versions is better than the current version that is on the page, but would suggest several tweaks:

• Definitely should go for an infobox - it adds a lot to the page by consolidating some major facts, and it is entirely appropriate - and expected - to have the main image most prominently displayed as Happyme did in this version. But I would absolutely go with the picture from the South Lawn as the infobox image, because the South Portico is the most identifiable image associated with the WH. (Having the Leinster image immediately below the WH image without an infobox as it currently is did look confusing - I thought so before I read the above commentary - and it is also contradictory as it currently reads as the first caption says Hoban "took inspiration" from Leinster and the second caption on the same page, right below, says he "likely" did: the current placement is giving much too much prominence to Leinster House in the article by being so high up. However, I think that both the Leinster and Chateau images should be included as outlined below.)
• The next image I would display (the first one after the South Lawn infobox image) is the Leinster House image, followed by the North Portico image which echoes Leinster: these will fall next to "Design Influences" which is appropriate and clearly shows the comparison.
• After that I would put the Chateau, followed by the "earliest photograph" image(the one from the Polk administration) which shows the South Portico - this echoes the Chateau, making that point clear, and is also a neat picture to include.
• Then Jefferson's West Colonnade goes in "Early use" as you have it and the rest are ok.

Hope this helps Tvoz |talk 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The North Portico of the White House compared to the Lenister House

The South Portico of the White House compared to the Chateau de Ratignac

Please look at my sandbox here. I have taken the images of the Chateau and of the South Portico of the WH, as well as the Lenister house and North Portico, put them one undearth the other in Photoshop, and placed them at the right. Maybe someone would like to do something with these images, showing a comparison but avoiding stacking up the main image. I would agree with Tvoz's and Arcayne's comments on the infobox, and now thinking about it, the South Portico is probably more identifiable, however the image we have used, when shown in the infobox seems too far zoomed out/far away; there's this (which I have put in my sandbox), or maybe it's better to stick with the North side image. I still am waiting for User:GearedBull's comments before I do major, though, as he/she has worked very hard on this article and I want him/her to have a fair say. Happyme22 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox, I'd say that 1) yes, the new South Portico picture with the tulips {Image:White House South Portico.jpg) is the one that should be in the infobox (but change the caption to South); 2) If we use photoshopped comparisons, I think we should not repeat the South Portico image from the infobox, but instead use could try using that early photo from the Polk administration which gives the South Portico view, and pair it with the Chateau - the fact that the angle is slightly different really doesn't matter - the comparison is clear, and the other shot of the South Portico is kind of far away as you said. (And, I don't know if photoshopping that way is allowable here - if not, we can just stack the photos as I described above.) Tvoz |talk 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, here is my hinking:

Infobox: I do not understand what is added by the info box. I am a typographer and a graphic deisgnr and sucpicious of adding layers of information that appear to offer more than they do. By this I mean there isn't really anything in this infobox that is not presented, or can not be presented succinctly in the opening paragraph. I will acknowledge that the White is one of many national landmarks in the U.S. As a designer I find this sort of encapsulation can be useful if we are breaking down complex information into manageable parts. This isn't the cae here. The fact that the White House is as the intro says the official residence and principle workplace of the President of the United States really says it. Dates of construction are not buried.

North Portico v. South Portico: The North Portico is commonly seen as the "front" of the house. Both are distinct and lovely, but if we were to look at the architecture as a trademark image please observe that it is the North Portico that appears on the oval plaque behind the podium in the White House Press Briefing Room, the plaque shows the north facade, and the words: THE WHITE HOUSE and WASHINGTON centered below. The north facade also appears on the reverse of the U.S. twenty dollar note.

Design sources: There is no question that the connection between Chateau Rastignac and the South Portico is speculation. But it appears in the major White House literature. William Seale's "The White House" shows Rastignac, ruminates, but admits thee is no hard proof. The idea is presented also in the White House guide published by the White House Historical Association. White House History, the journal of the White House Historical Association has explored the connection. Several contemporary publications suggest potential cross pollinations: Jefferson, Madison, and Benjamin Henry Latrobe. Of all I've read the best possible route of influence is Jefferson's visit to the academy where Rastignac's elevations were stored. Construction was delayed because of the French revolution, and the owners uncertain position in the new order there. Jefferson caould have seen the drawings and shared them with Latrobe, and Latrobe and Hoban were togeher engaged by Madison in the reconstruction of 1815. Though not completed at that time, both Hoban and Latrobe prepared elevations and plans.

Leinster House was familiar to Hoban, he had lived in Dublin. Hoban' original plan was even closer to Leinster House in having an addition story wih a rusticaed first floor, and a wo story entrance hall, nearly identical to Leinser. I am working now but can find a source to respond to the fact check request. It can be found in White House History, Seale's The President's House, and in the White House guide.

Page format, staggered images: Here we are something more subjective. I'll share my take on it. I prefer text on left, images to right. Again, it is he graphic designer in me, and partly the typographer. Dedicated "channels" for text and images is an established post WWII idea for print, and commonly utilized on screen. Why not some left, some right? Two reasons: the overall gesture of the page (a 2-D compostion) it is a bit Victorian and sing-songy meandering around the page. It is less succinct, less direct. Now my take as a typographer and book designer: we read best by coming back to a familar left margin. How the eye moves across a page, electronic or paper concerns itself with a term called reading path and images on left and right with the text block being interrupted and irregularly changed is a disruption of the reading path. Consider the mechanics: our brains, using our short term memories take a picture of the beginning of the line, and holds it while we read through. We reach the end of the line and return, look for the line we just began, drop down, dump that image form short term memory, view the new first word, make a new short term memory image of it and continue forward to the right. We do this over and over. Placing some images on the left moves that predictable left margin in and out, causig to relearn the layout over and over.

Image size: Sure we can compromise and use thumbs, But I gave this some thought, and am naturally prejudiced as to how it looks on my own monitor. At the smaller scale, they seem insignificant and require me the exra step of enlarging them each time. This slows my absorption of the page. My eyes are 50 years old, and beginning to lose some strength. The other reason I chose a larger image size was to intentionally reduce the column width. Again, about the mechanics of how we read. I spoke earlier about the mechanics of reading. Probably all of us remember a time when we get two-thirds of the way through a line and something feels wrong, or edgy. We finish the line, return to the left margin, and O, where was I, what line did I just read? This has been proven to slow reading and introduce some anxiety. What is happening there? The short term memory has lost its usual rhythm of remember, read, return, drop down. Lines that are too long, outside an average that we are accustomed to breaks down the mechanics of reading.

Thanks all for listening. Thanks Happyme22 for begininng this discussion. Jim CApitol3 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow that was long! From it, however, I know that you feel passionately about this article and the designs of the White House. I did not mean to impose and take all that you have worked for away from you, rather I think some changes will help the page, including the addition of an infobox, and possibly my stacked 2-in-1 images (above) instead of two separate images.

Infobox: It appears as if all the famous structure article have infoboxes, and as the White House is definetly one of the most famous American structures, I found it fitting to add one here too. That was my original intent. Then I read this from Wikipedia:Infobox: "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject," and this from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes): "They are a broad class of templates commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject." It seems as if a lot (and arguably most of) the famed buildings around the world, and in the US, have infoboxes in their articles. Take a look at the United States Capitol, Sears Tower, Empire State Building, World Trade Center, Trinity Church, etc. Bottom line: it seems as if every article on Wikipedia regarding a major/famous subject has an intoductory infobox next to the lead paragraph.

I do not see the information in there as trivial or not-helpful, although i do understand your point pretty much saying "just read the paragraph." Anyway, I see it as a nice, clean way to show a main photo of the White House as well as give some general facts. As for the main image, I do not care either way; GearedBull and Tvoz have both presented good reasons for choosing their versions, and I it doesn't really matter to me.

The images throughout should go by thumbs per the MOS, so I'm going to convert those there. I am also more than willing to replace the overly long captions with shorter versions and place the details in the text. And I'd GearedBull is correct in saying that the images are presented better on the left side of the page, and the MOS actually agrees.

I'd say really our biggest debate is over the infobox, so I'm wanting to hear from and listen to other editors. I know when this long debate is over, the article will have improved dramatically thanks to all of us. Best, Happyme22 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi HappyMe22. No, not "every article on Wikipedia regarding a major/famous subject has an intoductory infobox next to the lead paragraph." For example, none of the following articles on official residences have infoboxes: Windsor Castle, Balmoral Castle, Buckingham Palace, Prague Castle, the Élysée Palace, Amalienborg Palace, The Lodge, Casa Rosada, Schloss Bellevue, Kōkyo, or Belweder.

Here's my other concern about the infobox. I do not see it as clean, I see it as visually noisy, and disruptive to good arrangement and reading. Please compare this page: Belweder with this page Trinity Church, Boston. The infobox has a width that doesn't match the width of images below. As I said before too, a succinct presentation of the basic facts exists in the first paragraphy. I feel infoboxes are overused and reduce the visual quality of the page. Finally, why must everything march in lock-step?

MOS does not require thumbs. Remember your heroe's line "the government that governs least governs best." I am not asking for images to be on the left but on the right. I appreciate your good will and restraint. You are right I do not "own" this page. But as I have exercise some defference in articles you have invested great time and effort I ask the same. Many thanks. Best, Jim CApitol3 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My Mistake! I meant the right side; my appologies. Happyme22 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GearedBull/Capitol3 (Jim) and Happyme, I'd suggest you request some input from the good folks at the National Register Wikiproject and any other wikiprojects under whose auspices this article falls. Jim, I think you may be looking at this too subjectively - what satisfies your aesthetic sense - and while I don't question your taste or judgment in that, I'm not sure that your standards are those that are applied throughout the encyclopedia, and it is generally expected that articles will be designed so that different size monitors, and alternate browsers, will work comfortably. It's not a question of lock-step - I'm not a lock-step rules person - but it is a question of having certain expectations of what will be found in an article, and when an article reaches this level of detail and sophistication, I think people expect to see an infobox. Stubs generally don't have infoboxes, but developed articles do. Your examples were of other official residences around the world, but take a look at American monuments and historic buildings, like the Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, U.S. Capitol, and most others, and you'll find infoboxes. They help to organize the material, and provide a continuity from article to article. I may be misreading it, but I'm also a little bit concerned about your explanation in "design sources" above - it sounds to some extent like original research: it's ok to include speculation, if it's speculation that is done in reliable sources, so stick with what the White House literature says, and identify it as speculation. What we can't include, of course, is your speculation - and I'm not clear on the "Jefferson could have seen the drawings": if that's what the scholars speculate, it's ok to include; if it's your own speculation, it's not. But I may be misreading what you said above, and apologies if so. So - I am in favor of having an infobox, and urge you to solicit some input from editors who work with these articles across the wikiprojects. Tvoz |talk 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that I'm on the fringes of the NRHP WikiProject, rather than closer to its center, I may not be the best person to ask about this. But...here goes.

Nationally-protected areas of the United States, generally speaking, are given infoboxes as part of their Wikipedia articles. National Park Service sites receive them, as do National Landmarks and Registered Historic Places. The White House is, at least nominally, one of the former, and is at least on the Register (and ought to be a Landmark, too, although I won't swear to it without rechecking). Consequently, the page ought to have, at the very least, some sort of Protected Area infobox. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for Template:Infobox Historic building if anything. It appears as if concensus votes to put an infobox in, but again I would like to wait for User:GearedBull before making the change. Here is my proposed version of the page formatting wise. I have removed the specific thumb sizes per the MOS, and the caption shortening will come later as I've mentioned above. The only image I kept a thumbsize on is the main image (of course) and the image of the Souht side of the WH a little further down; please remove it if you disagree. I'm going to go with the aesthetic angle of GearedBull and use the North side image in the infobox (however if there are serious objections, please present them here). This is the other version, and I do not have a single preference either way. Please let all of us know what you think. Thanks, Happyme22 06:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How we read is not a subjective aethetic subject. Wikipedia MOS does not require pictures left and right or the wildly meandering reading path that results of it. Wikipedia merely does not prohibit it. But the result does break several rules of book typography. That is not a subjective opinion.

Particularly because of monitor resolution, and the myriad of both computer and browser configurations, the width of the infobox will never display equal to the images below and will disrupt the right margin. As well as add little more than conformity.

Tvoz, I get that you are seeing the White House through the filter of other American monuments. The Jefferson Memorial, Grand Canyon, and Mount Rushmore are not official residences, which, please consider, is another filter of experiencing this article. On a more international, less Americentric perspective. I am not trying to be un-American or like Europe, Autralia, Japan, Latin America, or anyplace else. The audience here is not really U.S. alone, but all of the English speaking wiki audience. The page is protected, we don't really need a protected area infobox. This is a Wikipedia article not the White House itself. Some National Park Service and National Landmarks and Registered Historic Places wikiarticles have infoboxes, some do not.

HappyMe22, I respect the opinions of the people you've invited to this discussion. You and I have something of a different aesthetic. You may remember when you made an argument for placing pictures on both left and right margins on the article Nancy Reagan I deferred. largely in part because I understood the many hours you had contributed to picture research, editorial research and writing and near endless rewriting, to try to please a very divided crowd.

I edit quite a bit on typography, the process of reading, graphic design, and publication design in particular. I could have invited a small army of like minded design and visible language types to the Talk:Nancy Reagan discussion board to make my point. I was more of the feeling that if a natural concern about the arrangement of the Nancy Reagan, Ronald Reagan or State Funeral of Ronald Reagan articles existed that people would arrive and present their ideas without being enlisted to. But, maybe this is how wikipedia is supposed to work, is it a standard practice to enlist to build a case? If so, I guess I need to get up to speed.

I have reached in your direction here. I have abbreviated captions, compromised on the scale of images, supported you in the separation of one section to a new article, and the wholesale deletion of another section. Using the North Portico or north facade as a trademark image is not an accomodation of my subjective aesthetics. It is what the White House uses on its brand. Let them be the arbiters on this one. I can see advantages of your photoshop configuration of the facades but then wonder if it might constitute new research in that they were not physically wed that way in a referenceable preexisting form. Thanks for reading and responding. Best, Jim CApitol3 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim, it's not a question of enlisting people to support one's case - I have no idea what the Wikiproject people will say (have never crossed paths with AlbertHerring, for example),and Happyme didn't know what I would say - he asked for some other experienced editors to give their opinions which we are doing, and which I am suggesting be expanded to the Wikiprojects and am now thinking perhaps to an RfC where you'll get a wider range of input. I am suggesting to you that this article does not stand alone: it is part of an encyclopedia that attempts to have some loosely defined consistency between articles, and the Wikiprojects are one way we do that. The Manuals of Style are another way - not carved in stone, but we attempt to follow them more or less until we come upon something that makes more sense another way for a particular set of circumstances, and then we cheerfully break the rule or don't follow the guideline. (An example would be referring to Nancy Reagan as "Nancy" in her article to fend off the confusion engendered by calling her "Reagan" - some rules-types objected, but I for one argued for the first name for clarity. And I am not a regular editor of that article, just someone who watches it and expressed opinions on the Featured Article review.) If I'm seeing the article through a filter, I'm seeing it through the filter of how Wikipedia works - and while I respect the aesthetics of your suggestions, and do not agree with everything in the Wikipedia Manuals of Style by a long shot, I recognize the benefit of some consistency. That's really all I'm addressing here. Caption length, image size, length of articles are all concerns that you'll find all over the place in Wikipedia, and again, while I am just as happy to break a rule as to follow one, maybe even more so, I haven't seen that these matters in this article call out for a different approach than others. Anyway - I'm just one editor, as you are, so a wider group of editors to comment here would probably be beneficial. Tvoz |talk 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way- not sure if you were kidding about the "Protected Area" infobox that AlbertHerring referred to: it has nothing to do with the semiprotection that is on this page (that just means that in order to edit this page one needs to have a username for more than 4 days - I don't know exactly what precipitated that action, but I assume the page had been heavily vandalized) -- the infobox AlbertHerring was talking about comes from the Wikiproject National Register of Historic Places and can be found here and we'd probably use {{Infobox nrhp}} (like this), unless one of the others is more appropriate (such as the "Protected area" infobox - but I think that may be more for national parks or the National seashore - I'm not sure). Just wanted to be sure we were all talking about the same thing. Tvoz |talk 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reuqested comments from WP:RFC below. Happyme22 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Format of page, part II - request for comments

More input is needed due to the formatting of the page, as well as the addition of an infobox: questions are about whether an infobox should be used and where images should be placed, with this view as a suggested approach.

---

I think, the current White House Playground should be added http://www.flickr.com/photos/rubberecycle/3409604168/

---

• Comments. Happyme22 asked me to weigh in. I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a fan of prescribed infoboxes (for the reasons given by the other editor above). I like the shorter infobox presented in Happy's sandbox, but keeping its contents to an absolute minimum to avoid clutter would be my preference. Shorter captions than currently shown, per WP:MOS#Captions, image size per WP:MOS#Images, and moving the Ireland image from the lead would be my other preferences. The current page is cluttered by image size, long captions, and the Ireland image in the lead. This is my preferred version, but I would lose the cost from the infobox. First, it's too precise (down to the cents) and second, since it's not in current $, it doesn't mean anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• It says int he article that the cost in 2005 dollars is 2.4 million, but I'm going to remove it. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The shorter infobox in Happy's sandbox is fine with me, and less clutter is always preferable. Also agree with killing the cost - I hadn't noticed that one. Tvoz |talk 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the sandbox as well with a non-cluttered infobox and the North Portico image. Happyme22 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree the price is meaningless, and worse, it reduces a national shrine to bean counting. The White House means far more than this abbreviated USA Today style info-bite. CApitol3 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So it now appears as if concensus votes to put an infobox in. I am going to do this, plus other formatting issues raised, per a pluthora of comments and discussion on this page. Happyme22 (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

HappyMe22, as strongly as I can, I am asking you to please not to add info box. Call it a favor, or whatever, I did accomodate you on the Reagan pages with layout and image size and location. CApitol3 02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just me; its the concensus! This article is held to a higher standard because it is the White House. And it's not a matter of taking things away from you or ganging up on you; it's a matter of improving your improvements by adding a general box at the top with the name prominently featured, a main image; the location, customer, country, architect, and dates of construction. This is what a lot of people are going to be looking for. And yes, you were very kind with the Reagan pages. You helped me a lot and I appreciate it. I am trying to help you, this article, and the Wikipedia community by improving it for the better, and this improvement includes an infobox. Happyme22 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have another reason for you to include an infobox, this time focusing on the aesthetics/design of the page. Per the MOS, main images in the articles should be set to a specific size, as the other images in the article should not (as we have discussed). By enlarging the main image to a certain size (say 250 or 275 px) you say it will not fit with the rest of the images because it is of a different size. Well, by adding an infobox the image, as well as the building's name, can be prominently featured, adhere to the MOS size limits, and fit with the rest of the page. Happyme22 (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not consent to an infobox. You are claiming concensus via a hand-picked group who you invited here. If this were a group here purely by their own personal concern and interest, rather than at your request on their talk pages, I would feel differently. I mentioned before that I could have decamped a number of graphic designers to the Nancy Reagan, Ronald Reagan, and State Funeral of Ronald Reagan articles and pushed for images at a single width, on the right margin. With the number of edits and hours you had clearly invested there I did not push further or bring in editors to support my own view. My instinct was to accomodate something you felt strongly about. On this page I have compromised on image size, I've removed lenghty captions, supported your move of a section to a new article, and the deletion of another section. I don't feel we are that far apart.CApitol3 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim - I'll say again: Happyme did not ask me to say anything specific at all - just asked for my opinion - and he had no idea what my reaction to this page would be. He and I barely know one another, having only worked together briefly when I was reviewing the Nancy Reagan article for FA status, and I am quite sure that although he was quite collegial, he didn't appreciate many of my comments and suggestions there. But that's the way it works here - it so happens that I agree with the inclusion of an infobox, as does AlbertHerring, Arcayne and SandyGeorgia, and I said so. If I had disagreed with Happyme's position, I would have said that too (as I did about the photoshopped pictures which I don't think are a good idea). Sandy is one of the editors who regularly reviews FA candidates and has a great deal of experience evaluating articles across the encyclopedia - and as far as I've seen she speaks her mind, and doesn't compromise her position based on friendship as you're implying. This is a high profile piece, and as the election draws nearer will surely be getting more traffic. I've done some text editing on it and quite frankly I think it needs a lot more editing - rather than focusing on the minutiae of whether or not infoboxes are aesthetically pleasing, I think more attention might be paid to the text. (And I think there now are far too many images, and that it's boring to have them all on the right.) but this is not a question of compromising as a favor to one or another editor - my suggestion was to put this up for an RfC which I think Happyme did - and to ask for input from the appropriate Wikiproject members. Both of those requests will bring more editors here for more impartial comments. This article doesn't belong to anyone - whatever comments you made on the Reagan articles are irrelevant here, and your suggestion that the consensus that is forming about an infobox is somehow tainted by the fact that Happyme asked for comments is kind of insulting. As I've already said, I am not a slave to rules here or anywhere, and if you were to demonstrate a particular valid reason for your preferences - other than your own aesthetic sense which not everyone is going to agree with I'm sure you know - then fine, we might not follow MOS. If you think your aesthetic sense about captions, or image size, for example, is more valid than what is currently in practice on Wikipedia, I suggest you go to the appropriate Wikipedia pages and talk about changing the MOS to reflect your design sense. And if you get consensus for a style change across the encyclopedia, terrific. But right now the style conventions we use are pretty consistent across the project, which I think is a good thing - and I object to your attempting to get your way here by suggesting this is some kind of horse trade. Tvoz |talk 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, and thanks for taking the time to share this with me. I in no way meant to offend, or suggest a horse trade. But let's admit we write about what we care about enough, to know quite a bit about, and it is difficult to separate feelings of authorship – whether in textual content, or design. And, authorship is not ownership. As I understand it MOS does not require images on both sides. And does not prohibit pictures in a dedicated channel. Your suggestion of my participating in policy is a good one, but not one I, at present, have time for. I teach courses in typography, publication design, and web design. A good bit of what we are discussing here as though it were one person's subjective preference for jazz v. house music really isn't subjective. Legibility, and ease of reading exists within some very narrow parameters that have been evolving since the mid-fifteenth century. A meandering, unpredictable margin on left or right, but especially on the left, makes reading more difficult. And it's more difficult for an as yet undetermined reason on screen than in print.

You are right, it was self serving to point out to Happyme22 that I had desisted in deference to observing his own attachment to content on pages he had edited for so long. But the truth is I did. I didn't see this as any kind of bribe or threat. I am not going to the Nancy Reagan article the very minute he introduces an infobox, and set all images on the right with a single width. I'm a bit bigger than that.

I agree the article needs more editing and I feel strongly that it is a mistake to cite the online site whitehousemuseum.org as an expert source. We could also go some distance in reducing the sheer number of extrior facade shots. North Portico, South Portico, North Portico, South Portico, ...

About security, yes, we get regular vandalism, but as big a problem are people editing the text to include uncited urban myth and conjecture. I did misunderstand the locked infobox thing. Sorry. It just all looks so USA Today to me, and maybe that is our demographic. CApitol3 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over this discussion and come to the conclusion that an infobox would go nicely, so I vote for adding one. Msteelman1 09:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing content

Hi Happyme22, here is an area we find agreement on. I agree with nearly all of your edits, and added references. A subject I think we should think on is using the online White House Museum as a reference. First up I find it an excellent visual resource. I have great admiration for Derek Jensen, the man who created the site. It is a labor of love and a real resource for people interested in the White House. That said, it is not operated either by the White House, White House Historical Association, or Committee for the Preservation of the White House. it is more a personal project and so I wonder if we should cite it? I assume Derek uses many of the books I have listed, and used. I find errors on both the White House official site and the White House Historical Association site, so maybe the White House Museum is as reliable a resource. Or, would some wiki editors consider it a very visual, but none the less, personal blog? There isn't really peer review of content as far as I know. Jim CApitol3 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you like what I've done; I thought the edits were productive, and I'm glad you agree. Yes, the WH Museum is an excellent source. I cited it a few times with my recent citation additions, and it probably should be cited more. Not to rush ahead of things, but with a little more info and definitely more cites, this article could become a GA and that's a good goal to set; it's the White House afterall! Happyme22 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Happyme22, I am saying I am not convinced (yet) that we should cite the White House Museum as a source, that if the information can be found elsewhere it may have more credence. Do you have a collection of books on the White House? Seale, Abbott, Monkman? CApitol3 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I read your comments incorrectly. No, I don't believe I do have a collection of books, sorry. The WH Museum seems to be a reliable source, however. yes, it is not associated with either the WH directly or the WH historical association, but it does provide facts that seem to be taken from other sources and compiled into one. I come to this conclusion because everything on that website seems to be facts that must have been taken from somewhere else; they could not have been made up, for they resemble that on the WHHA and WH sites but with added detail. Overall, I'd say it's a pretty reliable source. Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should find other sources. As much as I truly love the site it does not site sources, and is authored and maintained by a single person. I can try to add references from my books (listed at bottom of page). This will take me a bit, but is likely worth it. I'm not suggesting you slow or stop your editing, It is good. Thanks. CApitol3 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to look through your books. I am happy to continue helping out. Happyme22 (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

All administrations refurbish, the Clintins by virtue of being there two terms were present for eight years worth of regular refurbishment, and while they participated in it, the changes are not major or particularly lasting. These paragraphs if they even need be multiple paragraphs at present drill down into lattr 20th century histoy thather than seeing the history in equal perspective. Even Mrs. Kennedy's dramatic changes and Mrs. Nixon's substantial contributions to the collection seem too detailed for this overview.

The overview might better be focussed upon architectural changes and exapansion, with decorative arts mentioned later in the article. they would include intitial construction, Jefferson colonnades, burning, rebuilding, addition of South and North Porticos. Addition of conservatories, removal of conservatores and construction of East and West Wings, amplification of the wings, and the substantial Truman reconstruction. -- CApitol3 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add more about the architectural changes, as they are definite necessities about the building itself. But many readers want to know about what went on inside the White House as well. The MOS guideline WP:LEAD states that every section of the article should try to have at least one reference in the lead (example: the lead should mention the Truman Renovation, as there is a section entitled "Truman renovation"). The lead's current version is definitely not going to stay, as it is too 20th century focused and not very good, but I wanted to throw some stuff out there to spark this debate about expansion and what should and should not be included. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also recommend refering to the house's construction date rather than its total number of years of existance which is not a durable figure over time. Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and also feel free to change it as it is just a rough copy and not very good. Happyme22 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the lead to include all of what you mentioned. It is still not perfect, however, so please take a look and make some changes, if you wish. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Overcrowding and Building the West Wing

The third paragraph in this section starts out: "The West Wing was damaged by fire in 1829, and rebuilt during the Herbert Hoover presidency." Maybe 1829 is not the correct date, unless they waited over one hundred years to repair the fire damage.

I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be 1929. Thanks for the heads upHappyme22 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo

Hi everyone, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I don't know how, but I thought I should mention a spelling error that I found in the 1st paragraph under "The White House Today." The last sentence ends: ". . .implement the family's propsed plans for altering the home." "Proposed" is spelled incorrectly. Happy Holidays! Emilary (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tourism in the White House

You state in a paragraph concerning visitors to the White House that, "In recent years, however, the White House has been closed to visitors because of terrorism concerns." Yet you state further on down in the paragraph that people are allowed to enter the White House with prior security clearance. I know that the latter is correct because I am trying to get in with a school trip but is the former sentence really necessary or is it relating to something that I previously looked over? 66.31.238.78 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Expenses

I was hoping to find here an approximate cost of running the White House. Without it, the entire piece reads like a historical account. 216.187.227.49 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

White House to The White House

I have reviewed the requested move from November 2006 (which failed), and I noticed that the five editors who voted decided based on the 'improper naming convention' (WP:NC, WP:THE). This rule, however, has exceptions; there is no Pentagon but rather The Pentagon. I am not going to debate the point that was brought forth in 2006 -- the point the requesting editor made was concerning how an individual would refer to the residence itself. The request that I am presenting is concerning the actual name of the residence (similar to The Crown, The Gambia, etc.). The residence (and the executive branch of U.S. government) is The White House. The name "White House" is ambiguous and can refer to many different residences. The White House is the correct term for an encyclopedia article (refer to Britannica or Encarta for more information).

I'm asking editors to exercise common sense. This isn't White House -- this is The White House. Jaxfl (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This is not The White House. This is the White House. The proper use (and non-use) of articles in page titles has been part of the WP Manual of Style forever. (Common sense: Does The President live in The White House? No. The President lives in the White House.) This move should be speedily dismissed. --Quuxplusone (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name for the place is simply White House. Any questions go to the official page and look at the title displayed by your browser. Also The White House is ambiguous since there are buildings that use that name. I fail to see how leaving this at it's proper name is anything but common sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the usual policy and linguistic reasons (already reasonably well-stated). And if there is no Pentagon, to what do this sign and this sign refer? — AjaxSmack 02:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

With kind regard to Quuxplusone, I do recognize that the President lives in the White House (and that the building is referred to the White House rather than The White House; I was simply making a point). I would also like to mention The Pentagon is referred to as the Pentagon, but it has The in the article title. According to WP format, it should be Pentagon or Pentagon (building). Jaxfl (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just read WP:THE, and "the White House" is actually listed as one of the examples of titles that shouldn't take a "the". With all due respect to Jaxfl also, I'm now 100% sure this proposal falls under Wikipedia:Snowball clause and should be put out of its misery. Jaxfl, as for the Pentagon, you're correct that if the geometric shape did not exist, the Pentagon's proper place would be Pentagon — but that title already belongs to the article on geometric pentagons, so the Pentagon's article had to go somewhere slightly less optimal. Pentagon (building) would be extra suboptimal partly because "the Pentagon" is a bureaucracy in addition to a physical building, but mostly because The Pentagon is easier to wikilink in practice, so I can see why the consensus was to put the page at The Pentagon (or the Pentagon, if you prefer).

Also, FYI and FWIW, you meant "ambiguous", not "disambiguous". WP has "disambiguation pages" to dispel ambiguity, not to dispel disambiguity. Not picking on your English; I just want to make sure Wikipedia doesn't change the English language too fast. :) --Quuxplusone (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And just as an amusing side note, www.thewhitehouse.gov isn't even a redirect to the real site at www.whitehouse.gov — the "the" version doesn't even exist! That surprised me. --Quuxplusone (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point completely. And it is quite ironic that the White House is actually an example of 'what not to do.' I shall never argue bureaucracy again. :) And the Pentagon does indeed explain its naming when you state it in those terms. Thanks for the correction; it's past 1 o'clock here on the East Coast...and I'm one tired 15-year-old, so I'm off. But I understand what you're saying...and it's a very, very valid argument. Jaxfl (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1601?

Hey folks... is there an article somewhere regarding the folks who have been living across the street for 20+ years? I believe the dude said they were called, "1601 Pennsylvania Ave". I tried searching for it on wiki, but dont come up with anything. Is there a full article? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Piano collapse?

Didn't a piano collapse sometime in the early-1900s, one of its legs being driven right through the floor? And it alerted people to the condition of the building? --98.232.182.66 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cornerstone theft?

Probably just an urban legend with little basis in fact, but I figured I'd ask here. I'm assuming that since the outer brick frame of the building survived the 1814 fire, the cornerstone did too, and was not changed when the building was rebuilt in the following years. Right? At any rate, has anybody else heard the story that early in construction (1792) the cornerstone was switched with a different, similar stone, the original disappearing? If there's an article on White House urban legends, or urban legends of Washington DC, that might be the place for it, but I can't seem to find that article. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Grounds

The White House and grounds cover just over 18 acres (approximately 7.3 hectares). {{editsemiprotected}} Downshifter (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Source?--Jac16888 (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Google gives a thousand websites with those measurements. Clark89 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

This article states that the HMS Fantome had sunk with the artifacts taken from the White House by the British in 1814. However, at the HMS Fantome section, it seems settled that this is not accurate. Which section should be changed? Thaumazein (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Make sure to include it may have a basketball court installed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Democrat44 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Top Image

The top image should be the front of the White House (north-side), not the back. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed. Arguments for both porticos of the house have been established, and I believe consensus decided to go with the south side as it is the more recognizable one. Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

{edit semi-protected}

This section needs additional information: "The White House is one of the first government buildings in Washington that was made wheelchair-accessible, with modifications having been made during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who needed to use a wheelchair as a result of his paraplegia."

The reason for his paralysis was an attack of paralytic polio in 1921.

See: http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_29_166.html

I think there should be mention of this using the words paralytic polio, or phrased as "who needed to use a wheelchair as a result of paralytic polio in 1921 which left him a paraplegic."

I also think the word polio should be hyperlinked to the polio page at Wykipedia for an explanation of the disease.

Thanks Arigeni (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Bunching of the edit boxes

Hmmm, I mucked around with applying WP:BUNCH here to fix the misplaced edit boxes. I dunno how much I helped.... -- Kendrick7^talk 04:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem would be alleviated some if we removed a few images. I think there are way too many right now, given the amount of text. Here are my suggestions, but I'm open to other ideas:

• First thing I would do is reduce the Leinster House image to just the part showing the Leinster House, and same for the Château de Rastignac image. There are enough White House pictures here that readers can see the comparison.
• Also, there are too many pictures showing the White House lawn (the one with the helicopter, one without, and the ground-level photo). I would remove one of these.
• The "Pennsylvania Avenue is now closed to all vehicular traffic" image also doesn't add much, and the image itself is low resolution.

It's also possible to align a few images to the left. --Aude (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would keep the Leintser House and Chateau pictures as they are, because they were the result of a compromise a long while back (see the above thread #Format of page). I'm not for or against removing one of the pictures of the grounds, though if I were to pick I would choose to remove File:White House lawn.jpg. It doesn't matter one way or the other if you remove the picture of Pennsylvania Avenue. Happyme22 (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include just the Leintser House comparison image, then? Right now, having so many images on the right side of the page in the top section is causing layout problems, with text and images shifting on the page. Also, in the Château de Rastignac image, I dislike the White House image, with the coloring of the sky. I could live with having both images if the Château de Rastignac one was improved, though other rearranging would still be needed to resolve the layout problems. --Aude (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

They mention that a legend came about that the soot stained walls were painted white so from then on it was called the White House. Was this informal until FDR's term (mentioned in the article as being the first where it was official) or might there be some basis in reality on this one? If so could we say it may have been? Or if not could we just mention after that sentence that it is just a legend and is not actually true? At the White House the president him self Barack Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cs302b (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

South Facade photo

I've uploaded a photo I took which I think is better. Do you think so? Do I have to re-nominate it as a valued picture? HiraV (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I belive the consensus decided to use the south facade because it is the more recognizable of the two. What is the link to your photo? Happyme22 (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered this question here. The user uploaded over my image, which I had to revert. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see the photo as one of the revisions on File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG (the one by me)... I thought it'd make a better image, as the current image is used in so many places, and is a bit noisy / low-res / flat in colour. HiraV (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but it's my image and has status as a valued picture. You're welcome to upload your version separately and propose replacement of the photo here, but the change would come by consensus. But do note my comments about your image on my talk page. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

White house carpets

What is the name of the carpets of the white house, or at least the known ones, the blue ones, with some yellow stuff, does it have a name ? I mean, a special name, you may also find these carpets in other official institutions, on the ground as on walls. --41.248.12.164 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New main photo

I propose the main photo on Wikipedia of the White House south facade be changed to the following:

HiraV (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

While I like your photo because of the high quality of the image and the good capture of the flag, the fountain really obstructs the view of the house itself, and the house is what the page is all about. The image that is currently being is a better image of the house itself, as the entire South facade is unobstructed. But I thank you for your input and that is not to say that your image can't be used on other pages. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The White House dimensions

In the chapter "Layout and facts" is should be useful to give the size of the building (LxlxH + diameter of central oval room). There is nowhere such a mention, excepted it is 5100 m2. It is 100x50m ? Who knows ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.128.98 (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Exterior Paint

The incorporation of the White House's exterior paint scheme, "whisper white", should be added to the facts section. --74.47.107.222 (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days and keep at least six threads.--Oneiros (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To Hoome It May Concerns _____________________ As soon As possible International court branch in every country

Many countries missed the road, and the weak people discriminate by different methods. Many countries laws became elastic and modified according to the religion or politics. So, we are indeed in need for International court branch in every country in the entire world beginning with the worm countries in the Middle East as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.128.123 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

I want to suggest another book that has recently been published that readers might find useful...

Grant Dietz,Ulysses & Watters, Sam Dream House: The White House as an American Home. Acanthus Press LLC: 2009. ISBN 9-789264946-5-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACCPublishingGroup (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles (moved from White House Complex)

Can the following articles be moved to be in line with other articles about the White House Complex

• Executive Residence to White House Executive Residence
• West Wing to White House West Wing
• East Wing to White House East Wing
• North Lawn (White House) to White House North Lawn
• South Lawn (White House) to White House South Lawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.82.128 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.73.196 (talk)

Canada troops burning White House?

I went to the source cited, number 23, and it doesn't mention Canadian troops burning the White House, only British troops. Just so everyone knows I am aware that Canada was a British colony at that time. My understanding from everything I have read from multiple sources is that Canadian troops were never involved in the burning of the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noliving (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

White House solar panels article?

I have for some time thought that there should be an article about the White House solar panels, and there appears to be more than enough info on-line to justify a decent article. Would such an article be appropriate, or should there just be an expansion of the mention in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.249 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Still feel there's a lot of potential here especially now that Obama has brought back some solar panels, this time photovoltaics and not hot water heaters. I've always wondered what the true story behind them (and especially their removal) is (Did Reagan really want to stop saving money after they were already up and reducing the utility bills?!) and have felt an article would be a good idea. But not right now. For now I've logged in to create a redirect with possibilities and there are a number of potential links throughout wikipedia. Klknoles (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Logo

This is the logo we're talking about.

Is there any particular reason why this article doesn't use the White House logo anywhere? It's a work of the government so it's not like there'd be copyright issues. --Kevin W. 06:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am not really a main editor of this page, and as a non-American, I hesitate to edit it or have a strongly voiced opinion. Yes, the logo should probably be the iconic lead image, but it seems to me that it already has so many images of the two principal facades, than any more (evem the logo) will be entering the realms of overkill - I for one, already scroll down, thinking "please show me something different - anything." Even the Whitehouse dog, would be a welcome change and relief. It's a disjointed page, with far too many sub-pages (these could be written as just 3 comprehensive pages) - However, this probably cannot be avoided, like Chateau of Versailles, it's a mess because it's somewhere everyone wants to edit and, having seen it, want to add their own little bit often not having bothered to read what is there already.  Giacomo  08:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason why I've asked is because pretty much every single major US government department has its logo displayed. I don't see why the White House, the metonym for the executive branch, shouldn't. --Kevin W. 20:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel it would balance the page - or is the logo more important than the page?  Giacomo  21:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of white space beneath the infobox. I don't think adding in the logo to bring the article in line with other US government articles would cause irreparable harm to the look or flow of the page. --Kevin W. 22:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not used because it doesn't represent the building, it represents the Executive Office of the President of the United States, many times referred to colloquially as "The White House". But in this case, the logo represents the institution, not the structure. So I would strongly advise against make use of the logo. upstateNYer 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to be more specific, the logo represents the White House Office, a branch of the EOPOTUS that is located in the structure. upstateNYer 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Maybe the file should be renamed to US-WhiteHouseOffice-Logo instead, then. --Kevin W. 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Presidential palace"

The White House is often classified as a Presidential palace... and I suppose in any reasonable consideration, that's exactly what it is even if we don't like to think of it that way. I've gone as far as adding the "Neoclassical palaces" category ("Presidential palaces" was added already) but if you think that's inappropriate feel free to remove. TheGrappler (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Result: There is no consensus to move the article at this time ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

---

White House → The White House — "The White House" is the official name. Also, "White House" may be used as a generic description, as for the House of the Government of the Russian Federation.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for the usual linguistic and Wikipolicy reasons already stated in previous requests (e.g., WP:THE). As far as ambiguity goes, this White House is the primary topic of both "White House" and "the White House" so it doesn't make a difference between the titles. — AjaxSmack 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• There is no "absolute devotion to the official name of the topic" requirement on Wikipedia; the word the is frequently left out of article titles where it isn't absolutely necessary. Generally, the rule is that the word is only necessary in the title if it would be capitalized when appearing in the middle of a sentence — you would write "J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings", not "J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings", but you would write "Barack Obama lives in the White House", not "Barack Obama lives in The White House". Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disappointing

Looking at the article from a neutral point, I have to ask. Is it absolutely necessary to have so many pictures of the South and North porticos. As a reader, I think that I as well as the majority of us get the HINT of what the exterior of the White House looks like since we are bombared with an excessive amount of the outside. The images are endlessly repetitive and rather boorish. Let's see an image of what the East Room or the BLue Room looks like. As it stands, there are only two pictures dedicated to the interior of the White House--- the Cross Hall and the Red Room. Why is there not a picture of the Oval Office or somewhere in the West Wing. It would be interesting to see a inside view of where the country is governed from. The White House, is not exclusive to just the Residence, it includes the entire complex, the West Wing included which is not being pictorally represented in this article.Yoganate79 (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag on the White House

The Serbian flag was raised over the White House on 28 July 1918[2] Is some throughout history a flag of another state raised over the White House? I think this information should be placed in the article.--Свифт (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

White House is a copy of Italian Palladian Houses. You must write the truth on the page ....thanks!

American White House is a copy of Venetian Palladian Houses. In Italy is full of original houses. You must write the truth on White House page. Thanks.--79.14.2.137 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your statement might indeed be true but it has to be verifiably referenced with reliable sources, you'll have to provide a source before any edits or changes. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Villa Chiericati

Bill Bryson suggests in At Home that the White House is modeled specifically on the Villa Chiericati in Italy. If we can verify this, this would be a great addition to the Design Influences section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthmuses (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Change this Sentence

"Today, the White House Complex includes the Executive Residence, West Wing, Cabinet Room, Roosevelt Room, East Wing, and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which houses the executive offices of the President and Vice President."

to: "Today, the White House Complex includes the Executive Residence, the West Wing, the East Wing and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which houses the executive offices of the President and Vice President."

The Cabinet Room and the Roosevelt Room are just two rooms within the West Wing. If you're going to include them on this list, then you might as well just make it a list of rooms in the White House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.133.203 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

The White House was built by slaves not by James Hoban Slaves idiots slaves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.224.224 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction request

Under section 1.5 Architectural appraisal the text shows "The bow has a ground floor double staircase leading to a Doric colonnaded loggia". This is incorrect. A look at pictures of the south facade clearly show Ionic columns, not Doric (you can check the relevant Wikipedia articles for examples).Jedimmel (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC) jedimmel.

Y Done - It's been fixed by Shearonink. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)