Talk:White House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White House article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1
  2. /Archive 2

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Snipers?

Are there snipers on top of the White House? 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)

[edit] 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 North Portico of the White House compared to the Lenister House
The South Portico of the White House compared to the Chateau de Ratignac
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)

[edit] 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.


  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)