![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
"NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE EXPANDED BY ITS ORIGINAL CREATOR."
notes like these belong on the talk page, not in the article. -- Astrokey44| talk 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well its not like there are new unknown first families coming about now and again, What's taking soo long to put this togethr? -QDJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q. Donut Jackington ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"The First Family is designated as thus to illustrate that its members' importance derives from the people; as opposed to royal monarchies born into power"
"First Families are created by the selection of a presidential candidate. A President's son or daughter would not be placed on a pedestal had their parent not been elected to such a high office."
"The First Family is considered iconic in America and around the world"
"In her autobiography, Living History former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton writes that, during a trip to Africa, a pool at the hotel where she and First Daughter Chelsea Clinton was staying was drained and then refilled with bottled water."
Quite a bit, actually. Deleted the text from "The First Family is designated as thus to illustrate..." thru the Hillary Clinton anecdote, as it is poorly written, unsourced, and NPOV. Restated the definition of the First Family to exclude the First Lady in favor of the President's wife (since the two are not necessarily the same), and restated the last bit about Air Force One, the White House, &c.
Does anyone know the history of the term First Family? When was it first used, who coined it, &c.? It would probably be something worth putting in the intro. NIIRS zero 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Kennedy fan, too, but this section, I think is just a little too over the top. Terms like "Fashion goddess" and "the most graceful in history" really don't have a place in a balanced, objective article. Plus there are many people of good conscience who think that Nancy Reagan, or Pat Nixon -- Or Harriet Lane, for that matter -- had just as much style and grace and just as much of an impact on the white House. In fact, Clem Conger, curator of the white House collection at the time, credits Pat Nixon with collecting more works of art and fine furnishings and augmenting the collection in a far greater way than Mrs. Kennedy. So I really think this section should be toned down just a bit. Quarterczar ( talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is an "official term." It might be one in the sense that the press often likes to coin such cute terms as "First Twins" or "First Beagle" or whatever. But in saying that Chelsea Clinton had an "official title" as "First Daughter" except for the two years between her father’s term as Governor or AR and his inauguration as President carries it a bit too far. Quarterczar ( talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Historically, the family living in the mansion has included elderly parents and other relatives, all of which would have been considered "the first family" by anyone writing about them. The "first family" is just the president's family living the Residence, full stop. It's really not a very useful or well-defined term. -- Tysto ( talk) 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is redundant, employs a suspect term, and has never been worked on as promised. I'm baffled as to why it has been kept. Шизомби ( talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to Multiracial American keeps getting removed with the argument that "RS's refer to this family as African American, not multiethnic" [1] It is undisputed that "RS's refer to this family as African American", and nobody ever claimed otherwise. It is perfectly wrong that "RS's refer to this family as not multiethnic". I get several 100,000 google hits, including major media outlets, for the search terms "Obama multiethnic", "Obama multiracial" and "Obama biracial". I cannot find a single source, reliable or not, making the claim that the Obamas are "not multiethnic". The burden of presenting such a source would lie on you, and it would still be this one source against thousands claiming the opposite.
Please stop reverting on patently false pretenses. It is true that "RS's refer to this family as African American". It is also true that ""RS's refer to this family as multiracial". If you think this is a contradiction, may I suggest you go and read the Multiracial American article. -- dab (𒁳) 09:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Should United States presidential pets be excluded diff from the 'See also' section?
As of June 2011, Over nine in ten pet owners (91%) say they consider their pet to be a member of their family, [1] and the number has increased since then. [2] Furthermore, per MOS:NAVLIST -- See also should include: Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article and it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Often First Family group photos include one or more pets, and a reader might want to know more about the First Family's pet(s). — 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 ( talk) 18:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
they are included in Lists related to the Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States on the bottom of the page no reason for it to be in see also unless you find that the presidents considered the pets members of the family. עם ישראל חי ( talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Applying a logical fallacy to a non sequitor fails to advance an argument. Have you actually read the information at MOS:NAVLIST? What part of your argument refutes my support for the statements from Wikipedia's Manual of Style, highlighted in green above? —E (aka: 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 ( talk) 05:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC))
References
America's first families have often included first pets.
3O Response: I concur with the IP editor. Quoting from
WP:SEEALSO:
[w]hether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
I think there's a clear and relevant connection between the pets in the First Family and the First Family itself: the Family's pets are closely connected enough to the Family itself that I think it makes good sense to include them in the see also section. Note also that pets don't literally have to be family members for them to be related to the subject of the article; the see also section isn't exclusively intended for subjects that literally fall within the ambit of the article.
/wiae
/tlk
12:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ AmYisroelChai: Hi, please don't be in a hurry to revert my edits (like this, this, this, and this). I am adding other links to proper family articles, or piped links to relevant sections of relevant articles. -- Neo-Jay ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I changed the timeline of the list from descending order to ascending order, and it was reverted by AmYisroelChai. Ascending order is usually adopted by other similar lists such as List of Presidents of the United States, List of First Ladies of the United States, List of Vice Presidents of the United States, List of Secretaries of State of the United States, etc.. I think it will be better if First Family of the United States also uses ascending order as the default one. And I plan to add a column "No." to make it easy to change the order to descending. AmYisroelChai, would you like to express your opinion here? Thanks. -- Neo-Jay ( talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I have completed the process of finding pictures to fit in the lefthand column of the table. I have been able to find pictures of the families of Rutherford B. Hayes, William McKinley and Herbert Hoover (I'm concerned about the validity of this last as it is a "Christmas photo" in which the main subject seems to be the tree) and, in lieu of "family pictures" for Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson, and Arthur, I have simply inserted their own portraits, as this has been done for the rest of the Presidents for whom family pictures cannot be found
. If any of what I did was wrong or somehow destructive, I will gladly revert it. R23$94ACQ3R ( talk) 00:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
When did the term First family come into use and how? This article seems to lack such history. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
"NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE EXPANDED BY ITS ORIGINAL CREATOR."
notes like these belong on the talk page, not in the article. -- Astrokey44| talk 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well its not like there are new unknown first families coming about now and again, What's taking soo long to put this togethr? -QDJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q. Donut Jackington ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"The First Family is designated as thus to illustrate that its members' importance derives from the people; as opposed to royal monarchies born into power"
"First Families are created by the selection of a presidential candidate. A President's son or daughter would not be placed on a pedestal had their parent not been elected to such a high office."
"The First Family is considered iconic in America and around the world"
"In her autobiography, Living History former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton writes that, during a trip to Africa, a pool at the hotel where she and First Daughter Chelsea Clinton was staying was drained and then refilled with bottled water."
Quite a bit, actually. Deleted the text from "The First Family is designated as thus to illustrate..." thru the Hillary Clinton anecdote, as it is poorly written, unsourced, and NPOV. Restated the definition of the First Family to exclude the First Lady in favor of the President's wife (since the two are not necessarily the same), and restated the last bit about Air Force One, the White House, &c.
Does anyone know the history of the term First Family? When was it first used, who coined it, &c.? It would probably be something worth putting in the intro. NIIRS zero 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Kennedy fan, too, but this section, I think is just a little too over the top. Terms like "Fashion goddess" and "the most graceful in history" really don't have a place in a balanced, objective article. Plus there are many people of good conscience who think that Nancy Reagan, or Pat Nixon -- Or Harriet Lane, for that matter -- had just as much style and grace and just as much of an impact on the white House. In fact, Clem Conger, curator of the white House collection at the time, credits Pat Nixon with collecting more works of art and fine furnishings and augmenting the collection in a far greater way than Mrs. Kennedy. So I really think this section should be toned down just a bit. Quarterczar ( talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is an "official term." It might be one in the sense that the press often likes to coin such cute terms as "First Twins" or "First Beagle" or whatever. But in saying that Chelsea Clinton had an "official title" as "First Daughter" except for the two years between her father’s term as Governor or AR and his inauguration as President carries it a bit too far. Quarterczar ( talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Historically, the family living in the mansion has included elderly parents and other relatives, all of which would have been considered "the first family" by anyone writing about them. The "first family" is just the president's family living the Residence, full stop. It's really not a very useful or well-defined term. -- Tysto ( talk) 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is redundant, employs a suspect term, and has never been worked on as promised. I'm baffled as to why it has been kept. Шизомби ( talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to Multiracial American keeps getting removed with the argument that "RS's refer to this family as African American, not multiethnic" [1] It is undisputed that "RS's refer to this family as African American", and nobody ever claimed otherwise. It is perfectly wrong that "RS's refer to this family as not multiethnic". I get several 100,000 google hits, including major media outlets, for the search terms "Obama multiethnic", "Obama multiracial" and "Obama biracial". I cannot find a single source, reliable or not, making the claim that the Obamas are "not multiethnic". The burden of presenting such a source would lie on you, and it would still be this one source against thousands claiming the opposite.
Please stop reverting on patently false pretenses. It is true that "RS's refer to this family as African American". It is also true that ""RS's refer to this family as multiracial". If you think this is a contradiction, may I suggest you go and read the Multiracial American article. -- dab (𒁳) 09:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Should United States presidential pets be excluded diff from the 'See also' section?
As of June 2011, Over nine in ten pet owners (91%) say they consider their pet to be a member of their family, [1] and the number has increased since then. [2] Furthermore, per MOS:NAVLIST -- See also should include: Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article and it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Often First Family group photos include one or more pets, and a reader might want to know more about the First Family's pet(s). — 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 ( talk) 18:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
they are included in Lists related to the Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States on the bottom of the page no reason for it to be in see also unless you find that the presidents considered the pets members of the family. עם ישראל חי ( talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Applying a logical fallacy to a non sequitor fails to advance an argument. Have you actually read the information at MOS:NAVLIST? What part of your argument refutes my support for the statements from Wikipedia's Manual of Style, highlighted in green above? —E (aka: 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 ( talk) 05:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC))
References
America's first families have often included first pets.
3O Response: I concur with the IP editor. Quoting from
WP:SEEALSO:
[w]hether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
I think there's a clear and relevant connection between the pets in the First Family and the First Family itself: the Family's pets are closely connected enough to the Family itself that I think it makes good sense to include them in the see also section. Note also that pets don't literally have to be family members for them to be related to the subject of the article; the see also section isn't exclusively intended for subjects that literally fall within the ambit of the article.
/wiae
/tlk
12:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ AmYisroelChai: Hi, please don't be in a hurry to revert my edits (like this, this, this, and this). I am adding other links to proper family articles, or piped links to relevant sections of relevant articles. -- Neo-Jay ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I changed the timeline of the list from descending order to ascending order, and it was reverted by AmYisroelChai. Ascending order is usually adopted by other similar lists such as List of Presidents of the United States, List of First Ladies of the United States, List of Vice Presidents of the United States, List of Secretaries of State of the United States, etc.. I think it will be better if First Family of the United States also uses ascending order as the default one. And I plan to add a column "No." to make it easy to change the order to descending. AmYisroelChai, would you like to express your opinion here? Thanks. -- Neo-Jay ( talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I have completed the process of finding pictures to fit in the lefthand column of the table. I have been able to find pictures of the families of Rutherford B. Hayes, William McKinley and Herbert Hoover (I'm concerned about the validity of this last as it is a "Christmas photo" in which the main subject seems to be the tree) and, in lieu of "family pictures" for Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson, and Arthur, I have simply inserted their own portraits, as this has been done for the rest of the Presidents for whom family pictures cannot be found
. If any of what I did was wrong or somehow destructive, I will gladly revert it. R23$94ACQ3R ( talk) 00:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
When did the term First family come into use and how? This article seems to lack such history. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)