Talk:White House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Historic designations[edit]

Is there a reason that neither the article prose nor the infobox makes any mention that the White House is a National Historic Landmark?

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014[edit]

Under "Evolution of the White House", Section "Early use, the 1814 fire, and rebuilding", the fourth line states that Theodore Roosevelt had John Adams's prayer carved in the mantel , but after reading the source that this line refers to, (footnote 22), I noticed that it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who had it carved, not Theodore Roosevelt.

198.178.167.7 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Good spotting with that! Stickee (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

infobox image[edit]

File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG was replaced with File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg. IMHO, the original photo was of better quality (lighting, angle, crop, etc.) I've restored the original image. APK whisper in my ear 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was reverted. The consensus at Talk:Washington, D.C.#White House photo was to restore the image on that article for the reasons stated above. APK whisper in my ear 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG is the better of the two photos and I've put it back. But I think a photo of the north portico, which is the more well-known of the two, would be preferable. We just need a better quality one. -- Calidum 00:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
What about this one? (although the sky is kind of dark) I'm amazed there are no Featured Pictures of the White House (at least none that I can find). APK whisper in my ear 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
That one looks good. -- Calidum 00:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll change it. APK whisper in my ear 01:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just wondering, who put the two of you in charge here? You do not create a consensus in under 2 hours between 2 users. The two photos you nice user offer are old, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Nither reflect the current state of the building, and the photo I offered, and that has been here since November is of the North side, that side most people see, it reflects the current state of the building and it has some activity, in so far as you can see agents at the door, and yard work in progress. This is real word, not a art gallery and it would make far more logical to have a accurate representation rather then a aged "pretty" low res one. talk→ WPPilot  03:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with the decision to substitute the better north portico photo, and have no trouble with the speed with which the decision was taken. JohnInDC (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And you also think that a photo of a bridge, should be a lead photo about a large, well known NY city. Thanks for chiming in! talk→ WPPilot  04:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
This isn't an art gallery, but it's also not your personal art exhibit where you try to insert your photos as lead images on highly viewed articles when they're inferior to the current ones. As already mentioned at User talk:JohnInDC, your argument about a picture being a couple of years old is pointless. The White House looks the same as it did in 2006 and 2008. The Washington Monument (you swapped a Featured Picture for your own) looks the same as it did in 2006. The Empire State Building (you swapped that photo with a aerial shot of New York City, for some reason) looks the same as it did in 2007. I know the United States Capitol is being renovated, but you swapped that Featured Picture with your own without discussion and was reverted. You're taking this too personally. We know you take photos, some of which have been promoted to Featured status. Kudos. But that doesn't mean all of your photos are the best ones available. Your photo of the White House is crooked with poor lighting, and the Andrew Jackson sculpture in the foreground is a distraction when the subject of the photo is the White House. Also, how exactly is File:White House Washington.JPG (4,163 × 2,440 pixels) low resolution? It's almost the same size as your photo (4,782 × 2,710 pixels). APK whisper in my ear 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not at all. I do not put a picture in unless I as a professional with over 25 years and thousands of publications that have published my work, feel that the picture is a better depiction then what is offered. I agree the aerial pic of the Empire State Building last week was not up to the other, and did not challenge that. The White House photo that was on the page before I placed mine here was from 2006. It was not in any way a accurate depiction of what the building looks like today. The photo that is on the page now, when you zoom in, is low res, or just a real soft focus/ lack of. What struck me when I saw the building was all the NEW security towers and stations, that NONE of these pictures show. It looks alive. The slight skew when you center the flag pole is a optical illusion that, according to the editors from Getty Images was alluring. AgnosticPreachersKid, I do not know how much you know about photography, but if you want to be a critic please join and vote at the Featured Photo board to learn what good photography is all about. talk→ WPPilot  04:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
APK photographic contributions at Commons (one page of them anyhow): Link. JohnInDC (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, consensus here and at Talk:Washington, D.C. is against your opinion that your photo is superior. Your photo is crooked and poorly cropped, no matter what the (name drop) editors at Getty say. You haven't addressed the fact the sculpture in the foreground is a distraction, but it doesn't matter anyway, consensus is against your photo being displayed in the infobox.
I'm well aware of the Featured Picture candidate page. Would you like me to comment on your recent nomination? APK whisper in my ear 04:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You said you don't replace photos unless it's better than the current ones, but in the next sentence, you admit your photo was not as good as the original, yet you still replaced it. Confusing. APK whisper in my ear 04:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what you do, you try to dominate this topic to assure your perspective is the only one that provides foundation for a consensus. That is not how it works, and that is a gang mentality. If you are goig to threaten to go after my contributions on FP out of spite you go right ahead and I will not go near your sand box any more, ok! Wow. talk→ WPPilot  04:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't threatened to do anything, just pointing out the fact some of the photos you think are so great, aren't. (judging by the opposes) I don't want to pile on there. APK whisper in my ear 04:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You two are tweekers

At least it looks like you trying to learn. If I may make a suggestion, the Canon PowerShot S90 really is not much better then your phone. But I do respect your efforts, keep it up. My agent is Getty Images. My work has been featured in everything from National Geographic to Sports Illustrated in just about every country, on the globe. You guys look like your on something, as this is the fastest censuses on a photo EVER. Take that Canon PowerShot S90 over to the White House and get yourself a nice new photo of what it really looks like. talk→ WPPilot  04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/yacht Zapata II Sure do another hit of what ever it is that your on and go ahead and vote on my current nomination. Then find a nice bridge that looks like a city and replace the lead pic with it! talk→ WPPilot  04:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you need to refamiliarize yourself with WP:NPA. If you think calling us childish names will solve anything, oh well. Or if you think your attempts at insulting an amateur photographer like myself will hurt my feelings, oh well. I feel sorry for you. This just goes to show how personal you're taking all of this. APK whisper in my ear 04:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I had to look up "tweeker" (I don't really run in those circles) but having done so - yeah, WP:NPA is a good thing to know about. WP:Civility is also instructive as well. JohnInDC (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have never seen such viral and non stop ranting over something. You can not DRIVE HOME a consensus, in a few hours and just execute a summary judgment like this, but your convinced this is how it is done and that is all there is too it. Tweeker is not a childish name, it refers to people that are trying to do things really fast. Your edits were so repetitive I was shut down 4 check, 5 times in a row with your edit conflict. That has never happened before to me and it is clear that your dead set on your POV regardless of anything else, and your resorting to attacking words in the effort. In the end I still go flying tomorrow and you will still be convinced that a bridge, looks like a city!talk→ WPPilot  04:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm commenting following a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. As for any building, no single image is sufficient to depict it, so inevitably there is no perfect lead image. Besides technical quality (resolution, sharpness, exposure, etc), its encyclopaedic value (how much information does the image convey) and its artistic quality (compelling images make the viewers want to know more) are to be considered. For this subject I would expect to see the building being white (not grey or pink), with the flag clearly visible. Both the north and south facades appear often in the news and are recognisable, but the south facade is more likely to be well lit, and is more distinctive. I think the image that was in the article before the disputed edits File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG is quite a good choice. File:Executive Mansion2.JPG has high EV but is also low quality. There is also File:White House lawn.jpg that is an FP on Commons for its high technical quality and could be cropped, but on the minus side there is a distracting vehicle in it and the flag is behind the poll. --ELEKHHT 04:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the original image (File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG) or a good one of the north side. (whether it's the current one, or something else, but not File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg for reasons already stated) File:White House lawn.jpg is really nice, but like you mentioned, there's a truck in the way. APK whisper in my ear 05:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ELEKHH in that no one photo of this building is going to make a clear representation of it, for the lead. I think it should have a montage like other large city's and more important places do, that shows all the views. I am going to insert my photo, below in the gallery as it is the MOST CURRENT photo of the building regardless of what the antagonistic preachers kid thinks. talk→ WPPilot  05:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"antagonistic preachers kid" - How cute and mature. APK whisper in my ear 05:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I preach the truth, your communications have been "antagonistic" I am sorry your so unaware of it. talk→ WPPilot  06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't troll my user page with homophobic insinuations and leave the discussion here. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 06:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It is the holiday season, you have a vivid imagination or your paranoid, I offered you a slice of cake that is in my fridge and you turn it around into some kind of homophobic insult. Your a troubled soul. Good luck with your quest, I have better things to do then deal with your lack of civility, discretion or normal sensibility and your clearly trying to create a fight here, one that I will have no more to do with. ciao! talk→ WPPilot  06:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
WPP, spare us the false outrage ("what's wrong with giving someone a fruitcake?") and remain civil. You are pushing the envelope. JohnInDC (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get away from the sniping[edit]

File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg is definitely not the best image: the colors are poorer due to the cloudy day, the image is tilted, and the statue is both an obstruction and a distraction. If we want a north-facade image, it has to be File:White House Washington.JPG, unless someone finds a yet better image. However, I'm more in favor of File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG, as in my experience the south facade is more the scene that comes to mind. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Either. Both are attractive, colorful, well-balanced and representative. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. APK whisper in my ear 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In my mind, an image in the lead should be characteristic of the subject (depicting an instantly recognizable, iconic or complete view without extraneous matter), be visually striking, and as with all images, preferably be free. It need not depict the most recent look of the building, so long as it is the view of the building most relevant to the reader, which might well be a historic one. File:White House Washington.JPG shows an iconic view and is excellent in quality, but unfortunately the White House isn't white in that image. File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG also shows an iconic view and is excellently composed, and the fact that it's not as sharp as the former image is made up for its better color balance. Of the three named (and I have not looked for others), that would be my preference. By comparison, File:North Portico of the White House photo D Ramey Logan.jpg just isn't very well-composed; the building is askew and the reader is mislead into associating the statue with the White House. The author's prior work is, in any case, completely irrelevant to whether this particular photograph of his should be included. Knight of Truth (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Since there are two (main) iconic views of the White House, why not use a composite of the north and south facades? I agree with Knight of Truth on the three images (and have not looked at lots of others). So File:White House Washington.JPG and File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG in a composite with a clear caption explaining that these are the north and south facades seems like the way to go (or can the box handle one of the multiple image templates)? As for WPPilot's photo, while it is nice, I agree with the others that it is not the best for this purpose. If someone uploads a better N or S view, it can be used. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ruhrfisch: If you want to do that, here's the image. APK whisper in my ear 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, I have added the composite photo to the article. I am not offended if it is reverted and please ping me if the discussion goes further here. If anyone wants to send me a $20 bill with its picture of the White House for my brilliant idea.... ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Payments are only doled out for montages of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing facilities, natch. ;-) APK whisper in my ear 20:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a great solution to me. Thanks for thinking outside the box! Knight of Truth (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)