Talk:Old Executive Office Building
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Date built appears to be wrong
As I recall, this building was constructed in the late 1700s, not the late 1800s. It really is a relatively old building by U.S. standards. I will try to check on this. Yours, Famspear 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. This site[1] indicates late 1800s may be correct, which looks pretty official. I don't know. Yours, Famspear 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. Based on that White House web site, it appears I'm wrong. I just thought the building was a lot older. Yours, Famspear 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] fire
- msnbc: "electrical fire"; "electrical closet"; "vice presidents' ceremonial office";...: I did not hear "papershredder".
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Water cascading over one wall.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
During this incident was a signing ceremony:
- Clean_Energy_Act_of_2007
- Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007
- Energy_bill
- Energy_Policy_Act
- Dwight_David_Eisenhower
- global warming
- carbon dioxide
- carbon monoxide
- fire in the belly
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why was fire subject removed
Cumulus Clouds why did you remove the fire subject from the article? 69.154.77.184 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also believe this removal is a curiosity - fires in major buildings do typically merit a sentence.--CastAStone//(talk) 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If the building burned down or if somebody died in the fire, that would be one thing, but this is a subject dedicated to water damage in an office which is only being covered because of the man that sits in it. The addition of such material contradicts WP:RECENTISM, since it isn't put in a historical context and since it is only being included because of the newsmedia's current widespread coverage of the event. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree what you just stated. It does not matter who sets in this building, but that this is an American historical building. This fire did damage the building and will always be part of it history. That is why it is news. Also when deleting a part of the article it is always a nice thing to type comments why that change was made. AdmRiley (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the dude minds
Why nobody says that in this building there's a bowling alley? i know becouse in the movie "the big lebowski", in the dude's livingroom there's a giant photo of Richard Nixon playing bowling. this photo was taken in 1970, and i think that there was a "white house bowling tournament" too(or something like that) that took\take place in that building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.210.188 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I've seen the same photo. I agree. Its an important part of the building's history. As I recall its got some pretty funky wallpaper in the background. Not very presidential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonEzdorff (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

