Talk:First family of the United States

removed note
"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)

Introductory section
"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"
 * Besides being awkwardly written, this seems POV. Can it be established most people accord any importance whatsoever to members of the "first family" apart from the President and First Lady? Schizombie 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"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."
 * This is partly circular reasoning: the son or daughter of a president would not be the son or daughter of the president if the president had not be elected president. Additionally, "placed on a pedestal"?  By whom? Schizombie 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"The First Family is considered iconic in America and around the world"
 * POV. Could the average person in every country around the world identify the members of the "first family"? Could even the average American do so? Schizombie 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"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."
 * What is this doing in the introduction, and what does it mean? Is it an example of how the secret service protects the first family?  Or did the hotel decide to change the water? Schizombie 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tightened the Introduction
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.


 * Apologies. I meant non-NPOV in there.NIIRS zero 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Kennedy Family
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)

First Daughter?
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)

"Family"

 * The First Family of the United States consists of the President of the United States, the President's spouse (usually the First Lady), and their children.

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)
 * how is "the president's family living the Residence, full stop" less than a well-defined concept? --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Multiracial" reverts
The link to Multiracial American keeps getting removed with the argument that "RS's refer to this family as African American, not multiethnic" 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)

See also...
Should United States presidential pets be excluded[] 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, and the number has increased since then. 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)


 * Yes pets aren't family members they're animals not people עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That might explain why pets aren't included in the prose, but doesn't address MOS:NAVLIST, where 'See also' is intended for navigation to related articles. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 17:13, 16 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)


 * Note that FDOTUS (First Dog of the United States) redirects to the article (and "First Dog" is commonly referenced in the press, [e.g.]) . Although one might argue that pets should be included in the article (which is not my argument), I am simply arguing that since at least 95% of American readers consider pets to be a part of the family, and properly, navigation should address links to articles that a reader might consider relevant and potentially of interest to the topic. According to the exclusionary argument that the article is already linked in the navbar at the bottom, then ALL of the links currently listed in 'See also' must be promptly removed. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * the pet might be the first dog but no one calls the dog a member of the first family in like obama has 4 kids sasha malia bo and sunny and your second point is correct they should be removed from see also עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't adequately address the logic of the argument above. 'See also' re: "also" means "in addition to" or "not necessarily strictly defined by the article subject"; or, in this case "relevant to, and often included as directly related to subject title".


 * Further evidence: the official portrait of First Lady Grace Coolidge (human) in the White House Red Room includes Rob Roy (non-human). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * see also would be something connecterd to the article not pets which have nothing to do with it and even if it was since its on the bottem lists there would be no need for just like there is no see also first ladies or presidents the further evidence the portrait also has a tree. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence that trees are commonly considered part of the first family, or that the aforementioned tree is notable? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that the first family ever considered their pets as part of the family. the portrait is of the first lady so anything else in the portrait is just a prop be it a tree a chair or even a dog עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:19, 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 above? —E (aka:2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC))

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)

Added links to families
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)
 * np עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have completed the links. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Change timeline to ascending order?
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)
 * the order has been this way since the page was created i see no reason to change it. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Descending order was used in this article because this article originally only had incomplete sections for the first families before the 03:47, 4 June 2010 edition. A list was added at 06:08, 4 June 2010 and that list was still incomplete. The descending order might be proper for an incomplete list. But now the list is a complete one, and ascending order is, IMHO, more academic and encyclopedic for historical lists. It seems not coincidental that all the lists I mentioned above adopt ascending, not descending order, as the default one. And as I said, I plan to add a new column "No." to allow readers to easily change order to descending. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * its been 8 years with it this way since it became a list per your timeline anyways those other pages most have the current holders picture on top and it's about an office this one is about the first family which is the current one עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Descending order for 8 years does not necessarily mean that it is a good choice for now and should be kept forever. It may be just a result of path dependence, and other editors may have been reluctant to spend time on changing the order (it took me a very long time to change the order thoroughly, a tedious job). And even if it is changed to ascending order, this article will still have the current first family picture on top, just as it does now. This article is not about only the current first family, but about the title itself and all the first families of the United States in history (just like article First Lady of the United States). And I cannot see why we have to use different orders between a list of first families and those lists about an office. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * for some reason i didn't see the current first family pic on top so if you add the # column ill concede עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I have changed the list to ascending order and added a new column "No." to allow readers to sort the list in descending order. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

New pictures
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)

Origin of term
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)