This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Is there a reason that neither the article prose nor the infobox makes any mention that the White House is a National Historic Landmark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris857 (talk • contribs) 09:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Adding the Executive Residence as White House on U.S. president and First Lady navboxes and placing the following navbox containers on the 'Executive Residence' page:
The discussion above now seems derailed, and after a drastic and uncalled for reversion removing the White House link from all presidential and First Lady navboxes, this new section seems called for. All presidential and First Lady navboxes contain links to articles about residences that they lived in, and in the case of the White House (Executive Residence), where they spent many productive and nationally important years. I appropriately added the White House to these navboxes a few days ago, which has been reverted, and I've reverted it back on the {{John Adams}} navbox in order to have another place to discuss this issue. No essay links are needed, the birthplaces, homes, and residences are a common feature of Wikipedia's biographical navboxes and always have been. There is actually no argument against including the link to them other than "I don't like it", which arguably is all the main good faith opposer has to offer. The two questions here are 1) should a link to the Executive Residence be added back on to the presidents and First Ladies navboxes, linked as White House, and 2) should the two collapsed container navboxes be added to the Executive Residence page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose for the reasons stated in the preceding section of this talk page. Per WP:NAVBOX and WP:ATC, the Executive Residence is only loosely-related rather than uniquely-related to the biographies of individual Presidents and First Ladies as it serves as the official residence for an incumbent President, is not the residence of individual Presidents and First Ladies for the majorities of their lives and is otherwise unrelated to their lives, and including the biography templates of each President and First Lady in the Executive Residence article would just create template clutter in it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?, please understand that residences of biographical subjects are listed on their navboxes (always have been as far as I know). The question is about where to link this, to the White House by itself or to the White House via a link to the Executive Residence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please understand that residences of biographical subjects are listed on their navboxes (always have been as far as I know). Please understand that the WP:NAVBOX policy has had language recommending against including articles in navigation templates that are loosely-related and that navigation templates should have more restrictive article inclusion criteria than categories and lists since September 2010. Just because some templates may not have been in compliance with it, is not a justification for ignoring this perfectly defensible recommendation now. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Residences are listed on biographical navboxes, especially those such as the U.S. presidents. Are you seriously suggesting removing entries like Mount Vernon and President's House (Philadelphia) ('President's House is the equivalent of White House/Executive Residence, and was lived in by Washington and John Adams) from George Washington's navbox? To do that I'd think you'd need a large-scale RfC. Until then, the question is about listing either White House as a standalone link on the navboxes or linking 'White House' to 'Executive Residence'. Please, also consider your habit of using mocking or uncivil language towards me, not because I mind it (Freedom of Speech counts) but to practice in case you think it's normal to do on Wikipedia and begin using it towards someone grumpier who will take you to ANI. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, also consider your habit of using mocking or uncivil language towards me, not because I mind it (Freedom of Speech counts) but to practice in case you think it's normal to do on Wikipedia and begin using it towards someone grumpier who will take you to ANI. What you perceive as mocking or uncivil language on my part is only being used in response to the condescending language you use towards me. It you want to be treated with civility, you yourself need to practice it. I am not suggesting that the personal residences of Presidents and First Ladies should be removed from their navigation templates because those topics are closely-related to their biographies, while official residences are only loosely-related for the reasons I already stated. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, changed my mind after making modifications to the White House template. The Samuel Osgood House, the Alexander Macomb House, the Germantown White House, the President's House (Philadelphia), the Octagon House, and the Seven Buildings are uniquely-related to the Presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woodensuperman, this wasn't really about including or not including the White House on the navboxes, but how to do it. The White House is a major residence of the individuals who resided there (the article is even called Executive Residence). During their residency these people lived a large and productive portion of their lives, raised families, buried their dead, were visited by other family members (some lived there, such as Michelle Obama's mother), and did all the things families do in their homes. An extreme but real instance - Franklin D. Roosevelt lived in the Residence for over 12 years. His longtime home is a major part of his life. This home is very specific to each subject, they did not just visit or pass through, or sleep there for a few nights, they resided there. Since residences are acceptable entries on navboxes your stance on this seems to hinge on the exclusiveness of the property to an individual. Since properties change hands the longer they exist, and the White House Executive Residence is the official and designated home of the elected president of the United States and their family, it is as much a home to them as any other residence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have reiterated your point that the White House is not unrelated to the biographies of Presidents and First Ladies as it served as their residence for an important period of their lives, but you have not addressed the issue of whether the White House is more than loosely-related to the biographies of its residents since the White House is not uniquely-related to any of them and it did not serve as their residence for a majority of their lifespans—both of which are in fundamental contrast with many personal residences. Even for Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, the White House only served as their residence for less than one-fifth of both of their lifespans in contrast to the Springwood Estate and Campobello.
By contrast, the Samuel Osgood House, the Alexander Macomb House, and the Germantown White House are uniquely-related to the Washington presidency because they served as the official residence for only Washington. The Octagon House and the Seven Buildings are uniquely-related to the Madison presidency in the same way, while the Blair House is uniquely-related to the Truman presidency in the same way. While the President's House (Philadelphia) served as the official residence for both Washington and Adams, it is related to those two presidencies and no others. Remember that the subjects of the templates you are arguing that the White House article should be included in is not the office of the presidency itself or individual presidencies, but biographies of individual Presidents and First Ladies.
Given the recommendation from WP:NAV-WITHIN that "every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page", it's probably not possible to include the White House article in these templates without creating template clutter—which is what results when you include articles are included in templates that are only loosely-related to the subject. Unless you can address our the policy-related concerns with your proposal we have identified per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON, there is no consensus for this proposal and I suspect that it is unlikely to see one develop for it. As such, you should probably just withdraw it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the White House is a major residence for these people, and as a home it is firmly and totally related to each one of them. I just asked here if it should be listed as White House or White House, not if it should be included, but here we are, even though the 'Executive Residence' seems the best choice. Will this actually need a time-consuming RfC to debate if the Executive Residence is a residence? Please link the things you are talking about, WP:DETCON (as for policy, remember WP:IAR is top-tier policy, and saying that the White House was a major residence in the life of Franklin D. Roosevelt is fact and no guidelines refute it) and the rest. What you are arguing seems to me to be an extreme reading of the ultra-letter of the law in contrast to WP:COMMONSENSE which tells us, and this apparently bears repeating, that the White House is a major residence in the life of each United States president. And that it is far more than "loosely related". Since a personal reading of rules and regs and essays seems to guide your journey on Wikipedia, may I suggest WP:SKYBLUE when considering if the White House is a president's home (see first line of this article: 'The White House is the official residence and workplace of the president of the United States"). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOCOMMON states: "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to 'just use common sense' is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. ... Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it's quite acceptable to explain your own actions by saying, 'it seemed like common sense to me', you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil. ... Citing concrete policies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing 'common sense' and leaving it at that."
WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS states: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense..." (emphasis for "policy" added).
WP:DETCON states: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." (emphasis for "policy" added).
WP:P&G states: "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, [and] resolve conflicts".
Common sense is not a substitute for policy and guidelines because they exist to resolve conflicts—like this one. While you may view it as common sensical that the White House and Executive Residence is are more than loosely-related to the biography of each president, it is not to others (including myself) for reasons that have already been cited. Additionally, there is the related concern that template clutter will be created if either of those two articles are included in the biography templates, which is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another policy-related issue with this proposal is that WP:NAVBOX Criterion 2 for good navigation template recommends that "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article". As of this writing, the subjects of 25 of the 49 templates listed here are not mentioned in the White House article, while Joe Biden is not mentioned in the Executive Residence article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research on the Executive Residence page, so all that's needed for inclusion there is to mention Joe Biden. Good find, and will try to oblige. As for the rest, I'll read it at some point but tltr right now (per WP:SMHIAD). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article be renamed "The White House"? The reason is sometimes, by social convention, some white houses use "the", and others do not. There is no grammatical rule, it is merely conventional. See White House (disambiguation) for examples of some which use "The", and others do not. Because that's the convention. This White House is almost always paired with "The", thus the question if a rename would be appropriate. -- GreenC21:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither right or wrong to say "He lived at White House in Europe" or "He lived at the White House in DC". Both are correct, the difference is which White House you refer to. By convention we use "The" in front of some, and not in front of others. This article title is thus out of sync with most common usage for the White House in DC. -- GreenC02:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done, have added Joe Biden to the Executive Residence article per your concern so now, according to your count, all of that building's residents are named in the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)