Talk:White House/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  This was an interesting article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Breaches 

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

text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Discussion

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please comment on this 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whitehouse.com and .org? 

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

message: 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:
# overall value
# format of titles ("Room Room (White House)" or "Red Room of the White House")
# format of articles
# 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)
thread_title:  White House rooms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potomac or Pamunkey? 

message: Why does the article state 1601? --CoolGuy 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1601 Pennsylvania Avenue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broad rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Architecture style 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canadian troops burning the White House? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Floor plan 

message: please add el:Λευκός Οίκος. thx --85.182.26.200 10:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  greek interwiki-link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Architectural Influences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[White House Complex]] to White House article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  White House Inspiration Photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  White House article layout 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  To add about the architecture of the White House 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Worthy of inclusion? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great Website 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Format of page, part II - request for comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead paragraphs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overcrowding and Building the West Wing 

message: 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)
replies: text: Got it. Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tourism in the White House 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expenses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1601? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Piano collapse? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cornerstone theft? 

message: The White House and grounds cover just over 18 acres (approximately 7.3 hectares).
Downshifter (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Source?--Jac16888 (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistency? 

message: The top image should be the front of the White House (north-side), not the back. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  {edit semi-protected} 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I answered this question here. The user uploaded over my image, which I had to revert. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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«talkstalk» 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Facade photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  White house carpets 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New main photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The White House dimensions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Exterior Paint 

message: 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)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: 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. -5-7  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACCPublishingGroup (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articles (moved from White House Complex) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canada troops burning White House? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[White House solar panels]] article? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Presidential palace" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disappointing 

message: The Serbian flag was raised over the White House on 28 July 1918 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)
thread_title:  Flag on  the White House 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  White House is a copy of Italian Palladian Houses. You must write the truth on the page ....thanks! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Villa Chiericati 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Change this Sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Y Done - It's been fixed by Shearonink. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction request