A fact from 1996 United States federal budget appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
The 1993 National Christmas Tree (United States), shown as a reference for what the 1996 tree might have looked like; I think this is the tree referred to in the references.
So, I saw the fact on the Main Page about Clinton paying to keep the White House Christmas Tree lit. I don't think "White House Christmas Tree" is the accurate term for this. I'm not positive, but there a bunch of reasons why I think they were actually referring to National Christmas Tree (United States).
I'm not sure if the shutdown would turn the electricity off at the White House itself. In fact, I doubt it. Too many important things go on there (the situation room being the most important probably) to turn off services to the building, even if the government has no money. So it's not like the White House would go dark with one source of light seen from the outside (the tree). Unlikely. On the other hand, the National Christmas Tree is on a separate electrical line.
The second source for this statement refers to the tree having 6,000 bulbs. On a regular 6-7 ft tree, one might put 400-500 lights on, maybe a few more, maybe a few less. That year's indoor tree (in the Blue Room) was only 8.5 ft tall. 6,000 lights seems like too many for a tree that size. On the other hand, the National Christmas Tree, which is a planted evergreen on The Ellipse, just outside the White House fence, is lit each year and has basically a net of lights installed. I think the number of lights indicates the tree would need to be bigger than the 8.5 footer (I couldn't find a source, but I'd estimate the outdoor tree is about 20 feet tall).
Why does anyone in America or DC care if the White House Tree (in the Blue Room) is lit? You can barely see it from outside the building. The National Christmas Tree, on the other hand, is a tourist attraction.
I think this fact refers to the National Christmas Tree, not the White House Christmas Tree. I just think it's a misuse of 'official terms' by the sources. upstateNYer17:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the New York Times articles are inaccurate, as they specifically refer to the "White House Christmas Tree". On the other hand, this source, which was brought up during the nomination, says that the lighting for the National Christmas Tree was paid by the National Park Service. In any case, the fact is still technically accurate, because it is based on what Clinton said rather than what he did. This wording was in fact discussed at the nomination, though not directly in relation to which tree it was as we didn't catch the difference at the time. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
