Talk:Presidential state car (United States)

How does the cat get to Berlin?

When Obama was in Berlin today, he used the cadillac with the plate 800-002. How did this car make his way to Berlin? --JMS (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@J-m.s: By plane, as always. Quite many people fly with their cars. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 00:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

First armored version

On December 8, 1941, after the Pearl Harbor attack, the regular Presidential limo was still not armored, and at the time, there was a rule that a government car could not be bought for more than $750, not allowing the quick acquisition of an armored limo. This lead to the requisitioning of Al Capone's armored car, a 1928 Cadillac V-8 Town Sedan, confiscated for his tax evasion, for use until a proper armored limo was available. This allowed the Secret Service to protect the President on the way to his famous address to Congress. Al Capone's car would be the first armored car used by the President of the United States, predecessor to armored beastly limos of modern presidents.

-- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

US Secret Service code name of JFK's state car

On 7 November, VeenM64 (talk · contribs) changed references to President Kennedy's state car from "X-100" to "SS-100-X" citing no reliable sources, but instead leaving in-place the reference to Popular Mechanics. 43 minutes later, I reverted them saying, "- different Secret Service code name for the X-100 IAW sourcing". An hour or so ago, the same editor replaced their edits, saying "Wikipedia has an actual article with that name."

We do have an article located at SS-100-X. It has three reliable sources (that I'd like to mine for future inclusion in this article). Only one of the four content sources refers to an "SS-100-X", and Old Cars Weekly bears no hallmarks of being a reliable source. Furthermore, Google Searching for "'SS-100-X' Kennedy" and "'X-100' Kennedy" finds 4.6 times as many results for the latter.

I've reverted VeenM64's most recent edit, and pointed them to this discussion. If they or anyone else would like to discuss the matter, I'll be happy to reply here. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In spite of all that, the disambiguation page X100 makes absolutely no mention of Kennedy's car. VeenM64 (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Now it does. — fourthords | =Λ= | 05:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Did it happen

Article currently reads in part The new version of the executive limousine was expected to debut at the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. In view of this being a fairly active talk page, I'm hoping there's someone (probably American) who can fix that more easily than this Aussie can. TIA Andrewa (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question: I don't know. If it did, I've seen no reliable sources saying so. I've also seen no reliable sources saying it didn't. Currently, our best verified information is that the new model was expected, full stop. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Surely someone noted whether it was the old car or the new one at the inauguration? And commented to that effect in the press? The current article looks silly. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa:@Fourthords: Trump haven't received the new car yet. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you source that? If so, let's update the article. It's still out of date. Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, as of 12 April 2018, that is true. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Chrysler.

What is this? http://imperialclub.org/Yr/1956/Limo/Richard/index.htm --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be a fansite for the Imperial, Chrysler Imperial, and Chrysler New Yorker Brougham. By no means does it meet the standards of being a reliable source, so it has no bearing on this article at this time. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

800 002

What is the history behind the DC license tag with the "800 002"? Does "800 002" have any special meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.221.240 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Bullet that struck Ronald Wilson Reagan ricocheted off 'The Beast'

I tweaked... (The limo) that transported President Ronald Wilson Reagan to the hospital after the attempted assassination thereof in March 1981 where the bullet from John Hinckley's gun ricocheted off 'The Beast'.<ref name="1993-01 Popular Mechanics" ] 2603:3020:BB8:D000:A01A:C32F:7B13:3210 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You did, but I reverted that addition because those claims (and the president's full name) aren't present in the cited source. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

DC License Plate?

What does the DC license plate have to do with the "Presidential (S)tate (C)ar"? (missing title case, by the way) The entire paragraph at the end of the "2009–2018 custom Cadillac" section needs to be stricken as it's an obvious ADHD moment (we all have them :) ) jrn-hsv (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The government of that nation's capital petitioned for a change to the state car, and it was implemented. It's also just a feature of the car, described similarly to its armaments and armor. I don't see any reasons it shouldn't also be included. As for the capitalization, it seems to be merely a descriptive title as there is no one, single, unified or agreed-upon title for this specific category of vehicle; it's not capitalized because it's not (apparently) a proper noun. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

plates & Japan

With this edit on 6 October 2023 at 23:37 UTC, Savers Liner (talk · contribs) added prose about license plates. Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) reverted the edit, saying, this is about the plates on the presidential state car. I think Savers Liner's addition was actually about plates on the presidential state car: specifically which plates may or may not need to be affixed when the cars travel abroad (e.g. W's trip in 2007 as mentioned in the article). Now it certainly wasn't wrong to remove the information—it was entirely unsourced, but I just wanted to bring it up here in case somebody (perhaps even Savers Liner) could find sourcing for the initial claims. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was off-topic, but I could be wrong. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter and I wouldn't fight it if it were reverted. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, it still might've been off-topic; I was just seeing some potential in there for legitimacy and wanted to give voice & reassurance to a new contributor's second edit. If nothing else, you were absolutely right to remove it (and you shouldn't be reverted) because there was nary a reliable source included. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)