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.
Is there a reason that neither the article prose nor the infobox makes any mention that the White House is a National Historic Landmark?
White House as metonym, or synecdoche, or whatever...
I think it was last summer that language was inserted in the first paragraph of the lead that related how "the White House" is often used to refer to the actions of people in it. It's been a subject of some dispute as to whether this constitutes metonymy (synecdoche has also been plausibly suggested) and whether using such a technical term in the lead is appropriate. I think that the language should be moved to its own section in the article where its rhetorical classification could be more appropriately described, supported by sources of course. A summary then should appear lower down in the lead than it does now, so as not to interrupt the description of the WH being built. Or, the present mention in the summary could be struck altogether. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering "the White House" as a reference to the executive branch of the US government is specifically called out as a common example of metonymy in the lead of that article, to not include a reciprocal link here is silly. oknazevad (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
That is an unreferenced mention, in a section tagged as lacking appropriate references. There are a couple of apparently well-respected blogs I found that use "White House" as an example too. I'm not quarreling with the classification ("synecdoche" was declared inappropriate at one of the blogs, and my reading of Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage indicates that "metonym" is appropriate), but where is a reference to a reliable source, such as a dictionary, that specifically mentions the White House? While my previous edit summary about making this article safe for children was only half serious, I still think that "metonym" is a lot to ask people to grasp in the first paragraph, especially when the application of the concept isn't explained anywhere in the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The White House and the Raj Bhavan in Calcutta
In terms of the architectural influences on the White House, I don't think I have ever heard anyone point out that the Raj Bhavan in Calcutta was designed and constructed at about the same time as the White House. The front and rear of the facilities are similar. True, the Raj Bhavan has a dome, but that was added in the 1860s, about the time we were adding a dome to the Capitol.
It's true that we Americans don't want to admit that we ape our British masters in many ways, but we do. That's why we call our natives Indians, and it's why we call bison buffalo. Those are my two examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have a question: would any other editor object or would it be appropriate if File:US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg was included as the logo in the infobox of the main article? I am asking and requesting other editors to please comment so that we can reach consensus on this topic. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Why? The logo is merely a simplified drawing of the north facade with the phrase "The White House" underneath, and the word "Washington" at the bottom. At present the infobox contains a color photo montage of the north and south facades. How is adding the logo an improvement, much less a replacement? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)