# Talk:Resolute desk

I found this quote in Carter's autobiography. Maybe we can use part of it.

On the first day... I sat down at the President's desk and looked it over. It was a surprise to see that it was not the same one which had been photographed when John Kennedy was there, with his little son peeping out from the door underneath. My first decision: to replace this desk with the one I remembered.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by GA-RT-22 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I put this in, without the quote. It's slightly at odds with our other source that says he made the choice over breakfast from a list of available desks. Maybe he went to the Oval Office first, decided he wanted JFK's desk, then had an aide bring in the list of desks while he ate breakfast? I think the interesting part is that he said it was his first decision. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could firm up the 19th century locations a bit. There is a photo of the desk in the Yellow Oval Room in 1886, then the 1899 photo appears to be in the Treaty Room, or at least not in the Oval Room. I believe the desk did not actually move in 1902; rather, the President's new office in the West Wing was opened, so what had been called the President's office now became his study.
I have so far been unable to find sources to verify any of this. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@GA-RT-22: Yeah I was unsure, I know that the Lincoln suite was used as an office for a while but not sure what the source means by "President's office" vs. "President's Study." I'll keep looking but my week is a bit crazy so I'm not sure how much ill actually get to.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. President's Office Vs. Presidents Study is getting more and more confusing for me. I think these two terms reference the usage of rooms, not necessarily the rooms themselves. I'm compiling the images and information for each president and the location of the desk below to try to straighten it all out. Feel free to add to this if you find any other good references or images.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. Some of the physical rooms have a name independent of their function, for example the Yellow Oval Room and the Treaty Room. Both of those have been used as the Study at various times. To further complicate matters, the President has two studies, one in the Residence and one in the West Wing. The West Wing study can be either the little room next to the Oval Office, or the bigger one to the west that is sometimes used as the President's dining room, not to be confused with the President's dining room in the Residence, which is different from the Family dining room. And of course Lincoln never slept in the Lincoln bedroom, he slept in what is now President's dining room.
By the way, I now think you were right and I was wrong, the desk did move in or around 1902, from what is now the Lincoln bedroom into the Treaty room. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The Smithsonian seems to think the desk was given to them in 1964, and subsequently loaned to Carter for use at the White House.[11] Maybe it doesn't really matter since it's all part of the US govt. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: Aha! I literally just added this to the article! perThis source. A law was passed in 1961 that turned the White House officially into a museum. Per the source, "In September 1961, Congress passed a law making the White House a museum. This meant any donated antiques and art became the property of the White House and was placed in the care of the Smithsonian when not in use." The Smithsonian doesn't own it but they were taking care of it.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I commented out the sentence: "This presidential seal would later be changed by Harry S. Truman to have the eagle turned towards the olive branch in the right talon instead." I checked the pics of the given source, but there is no one with showing that. Also, Obama sitting at the desk, with eagle facing to the right talon, so it would mean, after Truman sy changed it back... Does not seem true, that the eagle was ever changed. JSoos (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Found5dollar: Please give  better source, and explain how it was changed back! JSoos (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@JSoos: you are misunderstanding. the physical carving was not changed, the design for the seal was. The desk design is static but Truman had the eagle change the direction it was facing for all future uses of the seal. The cited source says plainly "This version of the Presidential Seal depicts the eagle facing to the left and the talon holding the arrows. President Harry Truman would change the seal slightly by having the eagle face to the right and the talon holding the olive branch."[12] I think that is pretty clear in how the article is worded. please feel free to suggest a change to make it clearer.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Found5dollar: I tried. Yes I misunderstood. Mainly because it said "This seal" was changed and not generally the seal. JSoos (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So I've been trying to research who William Evenden was but am coming up a little empty beyond "he worked at Chatham Dockyards as a joiner and made the desk." The only other reference I can find to a William Evenden at Chatham is from a labor movement speech on December 13, 1836 at the dockyards.[13][14] That William Evenden spoke about the problems with the class system and the need for a living wage for all that worked at the dockyard. Both of these William Evendens have the same name, worked at the same dockyard, and had the same job being a  joiner. The issue is that the speech and making the desk happened 43 years apart. If this is the same William Evenden I think it bears mention in the article that he held these views, but 43 years is a long time to be working in a dockyard, especially in the 1800's. Do we think it is the same person? Thoughts?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Evenden was born in 1828,[15] and it's unlikely he would have been making dockyard speeches at the age of eight. Possibly father and son? I can't find any birth or death records for an elder William Evenden in that vicinity at the right time. But English records get pretty sparse before the 19th century. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yes, very unlikely. I just found a letter from someone related to him that had done some genealogy but is coming up just as empty as us.[16](pp. 11-12) The interesting thing is apparently according to his death certificate he died of suicide. At that time suicide was so shameful its likely we wont find much of anything about him because of it. Apparently the location of his grave isn't even know anymore likely because of it.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not empty at all! It pretty much confirms that the William who gave the labor speech was his father. You should try to get in touch with June Drake to see if she ever found any more information. It's sad to think that after creating the Resolute desk William apparently was not given any pension and killed himself rather than live in the poorhouse. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I just removed this image added by Randy Kryn to the article. As i have been curating which images to include of the desk I have been looking for images that 1)show the desk in different locations 2)show the desk from different angles and 3)show the desk at different moments important in the history of the object. This image was placed directly above another one showing the side of the desk at almost the exact same angle, there are already 4 other images of the desk in the Oval Office, and there is no connection between this moment of talking with astronauts and the history or meaning of the desk. Also, the placement of the image shifts down the image below it causing text sandwiching. per MOS:SANDWICH "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar."  These reasons lead me to believe this image, while a nice picture, adds nothing to the article and actually takes away from it's legibility.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This was a long-time image removed during the recent rewriting and "curating" of the article. Please return it, per no discussion about its removal. There are now two photos of Barack Obama on the page and none of the most recent president (love him or hate him, Trump used the Resolute during his term in office), so one of those can be exchanged for the long-term Trump-astronaut photo. There is also no sandwiching of the image, unless using a very long monitor. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: there are quite literally dozens of presidents that used the desk, we can not have images of each and every one with the desk on this page. The two pictures with Obama are the clearest image of the front of the desk available, and the only image of the desk I can find with British royalty. If you can find images with Trump, or any other president, that fulfill either of these slots I'd be happy to switch it out. This image though does neither of those things. Just putting an image of Trump in the article for the sake of having an image of him does not further the understanding of the desk.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There is certainly room on the page for the long-term image of the most recent president and the British royalty. Please move it if you feel it is misplaced, but removal seems inappropriate to the desk's recent history and the article's long-term history. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: are you claiming there always needs to be a picture of the person currently using the desk? If so, then this picture would be removed in 3 days for a picture of Joe Biden instead. Besides "Trump is in it" I don't see any other reason to include this image, and "Trump is in it" is not enough of a reason to include it in my view.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Biden is already in the Obama/royalty image, and another user has downsized the Trump image which makes it more adaptable to the page (the photo shows a multi-person use of the desk, which adds to the narrative). Will Biden use the Resolute, if so a good image of him at it should become the lead image. Let's let other editor's comment as we obviously disagree as to why the long-term photo should be kept or removed. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to remove it. The other images all add something to the article. That one doesn't. It doesn't depict any particular aspect of the desk, or show it in an unusual location. I just now resized it, before that it was crowding the following section on my screen. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@GA-RT-22: I feel the same. The big question is why this image? Even if the only reason is because Trump is in it, I'm sure we could find a belter image with him. The most notable thing Trump did with the desk was place chairs facing it as opposed to beside it like the presidents before him, and that isn't even recorded in this image.Found5dollar (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It would be fun if we could find an image of the desk being used as it was intended, with the President sitting on one side and his secretary sitting on the other side facing him. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless other reasoning can be found, I will remove this image on or after January 20th, the last day Trump is in office, as the only described reason to keep it included is because Trump is the current president. This argument is no longer valid once he is no longer president.Found5dollar (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any need to have a photo with the current president. We have too many photos in that section. The layout is no longer messed up for me, but the photos do crowd down into the following section. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The plaque is starting to bother me. If you look at the intricate carving, it seems unlikely that they would have moved the plaque. It would have meant destroying the carving on one side to make a recess for the plaque, and producing new carving on the other side. It seems more likely that the entire piece was swapped, or even more likely that the desk was simply turned around, given that the two sides are nearly identical.
If you look at the Taft photo, it sure looks like he had the desk set up so he could sit on the plaque side. And John Hay is clearly sitting on the plaque side in File:John Hay signs Treaty of Paris, 1899.JPG.
The problem with the theory that the plaque stayed and the desk swapped sides is that the door is clearly on the plaque side in the JFK Jr photo, but the door is on the non-plaque side in the Smithsonian photo. So if the plaque didn't move, the door had to. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: Yeah, I feel the same way. From my carpentry experience I'd bet that the kneehole panel isn't actually attached to the desk and just slots in as a freestanding piece. Unfortunately I've only been able to find a source saying the plaque moved and none explaining how the kneehole panel works. I'll keep digging but I am unsure if there are any publicly available documents that would note that.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I just came across The Button: President Biden has button used to order Diet Coke removed from Oval Office’s Resolute Desk Kind of interesting. But I'm inclined to say it's too trivial to mention in the article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to include items that presidents had on the desk unless it was physically attached to the desk, has its own wiki page or, was explicitly tied to speeches and writings by the president. For instance I think we should include recording devices that were screwed into the desk during Kennedy's administration but probably not the coconut shell he kept on it. I also think Truman's the buck stops here sign is notable enough, since it has its own page, to be included but not the numerous things FDR kept on his desk. Same with the flag on the C&O desk, Bush mentions it in speeches and notes it many times in writings so it seems like it was important enough to include, but I haven't included the piece of the Berlin Wall or the police bage he also kept bece they seem less notable (but I am little on the fence about the badge). Its all a very fine line that seems very wobbly. This button sits right on that line because there are totally reliable sources for it, and it is somewhat notable, but it was never physically attached to the desk or spoken about by Trump in any official statements. I tend to land on the "don't include it" side due to its triviality, but could 100% be convinced otherwise especially as more people are writing about it since it has been removed. --Found5dollar (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

With all the hullabloo about the Diet Coke button, do we start a new section in this article about objects on the desk? This button, JFK's coconut, there are a few other notable objects but I'd have to dig a bit to get references in order. I'm torn on this but it just seem weird how it is currently written at the end of the presidents desk section. Maybe we just need to write it better so its more about the button in a historical context (what Bush used it for, then Obama, then Trump, then that Biden got rid of it). I'm just unsure what the best way of integrating this info is. I may try rewriting it tongiht before building a new section to see if that reads better. I'm worried a section devoted to objects may be just trivial, but would give us a good way of separating from the history.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be very much opposed to such a section, and I think The Button should be removed too. The "Buck Stops" sign doesn't actually have its own article, it's just talked about in the Buck Passing article. The only reason the Button has an article is due to Wikipedia:Recentism; note that the article is up for deletion. If we start down this path it will never stop, and the list of items kept on the desk will become longer than the rest of the article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading Obama's new book A Promised Land and am sorry to report that I don't think there is anything in there we can use. He does describe the desk, on page 205: "... a gift from Queen Victoria in 1880, ornately carved from the hull of a British ship that a U.S. whaling crew helped salvage after a catastrophe, full of hidden drawers and nooks and with a central panel that pops open, delighting any child who has a chance to crawl through it." He also says he did most of his work as President at that desk, which is slightly interesting because many other presidents (Jimmy Carter for sure) did much of their actual work in the private office next door to the Oval Office, keeping the Resolute desk neat and tidy for visitors and photo ops. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this!--Found5dollar (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Incase we ever find room, here is an image of the Joiners Shop at Chatham Dockayrd where where William Evenden worked and the desk was likely built. Also, The British Museum has 4 hop tokens created by a William Evenden from roughly the same time period.[17] It might be from him, might not, but they are the only other objects I can find that he may have made.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The article states that Morant, Boyd, & Blanford won the design competition. Why then does the article say that it was "probably" built in accordance with their design? Is there some reason to think that the builder did not follow it?Bill (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Billposer: Betty Monkman's book The White House: Its Historic Furnishings and First Families is the most reliable source we have about the desk. On page 294 she list the desk as being made "probably from a design by Morant, Boyd & Blanford." It doesn't seem the original drawing or plans of the desk have survived, but the similar one with the carvings Queen Victoria and then President Rutherford B. Hayes has. Because of this there is no actual proof the design as it currently stands was by Morant, Boyd & Blanford but everything points to that it was.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Having previously gone on record as being opposed to adding anything about items on the desk, I'll just throw this out: The phones in president Biden's Oval Office. It's mostly about Biden's phones but also talks about the Diet Coke button. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I've seen this floating around before but was never quite sure where to put the info.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Inehmo recently added two pictures, one of Obama and one of Carter, with their feet on the desk. I just want to start a conversation because I feel these photos, while well intentioned, are unnecessary. To get them to fit the images have to be so small they are not really legible. We also have pictures of both presidents using the desk elsewhere and we had a previous discussion about there being to many images of Obama already on the page. I concede that the picture of Obama with his feet on the desk does have historical significance, but I'm worried it is just too much for the page.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the size of the images is not a problem, because usually, the user can click to view them in full screen size. (Something is preventing this at the moment, I am not sure what.) Even in small size, they convey just enough of the idea. These are rare images of presidents in a relaxed pose, and by themselves worthy of being seen. More importantly, they are directly relevant to the text and they add significant value to it by corroborating the statements. On my screen, the balance of the text and the images is not threatened just yet. I would welcome more images of other presidents – especially ones with their feet up on the table. – Inehmo (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Responding to a request at FAC talk, some comments on the article:

First-time nominators are subject to a spotcheck for verifiability and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing. I think there is the potential for this to flag verifiability/OR issues with this article, which should be addressed prior to nominating. For example, "While the Resolute desk has resided in the Oval Office since it was returned in 1993 by President Clinton, it has been occasionally disassembled and moved out of the room. Moving the desk out mostly happens during renovations and updates to the space. It was removed in 2005, during the George W. Bush presidency, for a renovation where the flooring of the Oval Office was replaced." is cited to this source. That source can verify that flooring was removed from the office in 2005. It can't verify the first two sentences, nor can it really confirm that the desk was removed in 2005 - at most you can say it isn't where it can be seen in the photo.
I just removed the entire section. I had shuffled that information around a few times but it never seemed to make much sense.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The organization of the article is a bit hard to follow at the moment. For example, why is the paragraph about moving it out during renovations under Design? Why is Timeline a separate section rather than a subsection of History?
moved Timeline to a subsection of History--Found5dollar (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Along those lines, there is some potentially confusing overlap between sections. For example, the Design section discusses disagreement about whether Roosevelt did or didn't request the panel addition, but then the History section just says he did and nothing more
moved all information beyond a description of the kneehole panel to a new section in history explicitly about Roosevelt and the panel's addition.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead has five paragraphs, which is more than is usual, and the article isn't particularly long - suggest reducing
Reduced size of lead to 3 paragraphs--Found5dollar (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Make sure the article is as accessible as possible to non-specialists. For example, what is the right to salvage?
linked Right to salvage and combed through the article for other terms that may not be commonly known.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Conversely, avoid including extraneous details - for example, why do we care about the specific addresses of Morant, Boyd, & Blanford?
Removed the addresses of Morant, Boyd, and Blanford, the drinks Roosevelt made on the desk, and the aside about the Carter's love of American art.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Images hosted on Wikimedia Commons have to include a licensing tag for both the US and (if different) their country of origin, and to facilitate an image review it would be helpful to make sure there is sufficient information provided to verify the accuracy of the tagging. For example, the tag currently on File:William_Evenden_(cropped).jpg indicates that an additional US tag is needed.
checked and updated tags on all images.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Avoid sandwiching text between images/templates
I believe I have fixed all sandwiching.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Some of the sources are of questionable reliability - for example, Salon.com is listed at WP:RSP as having no consensus on reliability. For all sources, make sure you could answer what makes it a reliable source
Salon and another unreliable source, Business Insider, are both used for a quote. Per BLP policy the quote needs a reliable source. This is supposedly from Valerie's book so shouldn't be hard to find. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
 Done GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Similar citations should be formatted similarly - for example, "White House Historical Association" is italicized in footnote 11 but not in footnote 12. There's currently a mix of templated and untemplated citations, which tends to contribute to inconsistency - settle on one or the other approach, and then think about what goes in which field and which fields get included when.
I fixed the WHHA refs but we should check for others. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Dates should include a comma after the year
I think they do now? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Ranges should use endashes
I think they do now? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Make sure that language is consistent - for example, sometimes you use "arctic" and other times "Arctic"
I fixed Arctic but we should check for other inconsistencies. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"The fate of the ship was frequently brought up in British press". You mentioned two ships in the previous para - should ship be ships here, or was only one brought up?
Fixed GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Ellipses aren't needed at the beginning of quotes
The MOS doesn't say to leave them out, but I agree they are not needed and have removed them. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The article would benefit from a copy-editing runthrough - eg "one of the four-member intuitions". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria Thank you so much for these comments! I will work through them and ping you again when I believe I have addressed them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Found5dollar (talk • contribs) 04:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably too trivial to include here. Elon Musk’s Son Picks His Nose and Wipes It on Donald Trump’s Desk GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Using and boldfacing 'Hayes desk' in the first sentence seems undue, and arguable should be removed. Please view these n-grams, which find no mention of 'Hayes desk'. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If we use it we should bold it, but it's only mentioned one other place in the article so I could go along with removing it from the opening sentence. Unless it turns out that's the official name or has some other significance. I haven't checked the cited source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
It is also called the Hayes desk in Betty Monkman's book. Even if it is not a common mane for the desk, it is still used in a very prominent reference that is the most research driven of the references we have, and the one of the only ones from an actual White House Curator. Even if it is not incredibly common it is still a name for the desk. I would keep it. --Found5dollar (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it true that the Resolute desk was moved to Mar-a-Lago in 2025 (or replaced by a replica)? ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

No GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
There is a poorly made replica on dispaly at Mar-a-Lago. I just added one sentence to the article about it. Soure: [18]--Found5dollar (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)