Talk:Washington, D.C.

Demonym

What's the demonym for people who are from DC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Washingtonians. APK that's not my name 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And what if theyre from seattle? Washington-but-more-of-to-the-north-west-and-slightly-ranier-ians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.107.90 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Same word. That's allowed. --Golbez (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable people lists

There is currently the following three lists with notable people from Washington, DC, and/or its metro area:

• List of people from the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area
• List of people from Washington, D.C.
• Category:People from Washington, D.C.

This seems rather redundant, not to mention that the "List of..." articles are also highly prone to vandalism by all sorts of people adding individuals that really aren't notable (e.g. garage band members that fail to meet WP:BLP, high school friends, etc). I think, for the easiest maintenance, the two "List of..." articles should be merged and redirected into Category:People from Washington, D.C. By going with the simple category listing, maintenance would be much easier, as editors of articles can directly add the category to their biography page. Vandalism and non-notable edits would also be drastically reduced or eliminated because there wouldn't be a page for people to add people to. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Being quite honest, I think the "notable people" lists are pointless. However, I will note that there are some who are quite adamant about differentiating those people who are from the city and those who are from the Washington metro area; to many editors, it's a significant point. But, in response to the proposal, I do not have any aversion to eliminating the lists and moving to a category-only classification. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What I would plan is to have a Category for "People from Washington, DC", where all the people specifically from the District are in. Within that, there would be subcategories for people from various suburbs surrounding the District (e.g. category:People from arlington, virginia, category:people from bethesda, maryland, etc). Dr. Cash (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, both separate list articles have been merged & redirected to Category:People from Washington, D.C. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 in the History Section

The following paragraph seems out of place in the history section:

"On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and deliberately crashed the plane into the Pentagon in nearby Arlington, Virginia. United Airlines Flight 93, believed to be destined for Washington, D.C., crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers tried to recover control of the plane from hijackers."

The history section focuses entirely on the land apportionment, districting, and governing of the city. The brief mention of events that take place outside the city and have nothing to do with the geographic development of the city should be excised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.22.12 (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about this point at every stage of the article's development through the multiple peer reviews, good article review, and featured article reviews processes. The general consensus has been that the September 11 attacks are largely viewed as being attacks on New York and Washington, despite the fact that the Pentagon is physically located in Arlington. This is acknowledged in many news reports and even the Pentagon itself maintains its ceremonial connection to Washington in its signage and address. In addition, many argue that the attacks affected D.C. to a much larger extent than elsewhere in the nation in terms of the new layers of security added around the city, permanent street closures, airspace restrictions, etc. as a result of the attacks. These reasons have been enough to keep the information in the article for that last eight years, but of course, consensus may change and I would wait for the thoughts of other editors. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, epicAdam. The September 11 attacks changed the entire country, especially DC. APK that's not my name 14:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Columbia

I have several objections to including the information and sources that User:Bostonian Mike included within this article:

1. I believe the information too far out of scope. The assertion that the name "Columbia" may have been first coined by Samuel Johnson is not entirely important to the history of the city. This tidbit of information is important to the broader scope of the name, and is therefore entirely relevant to the main article at Columbia (name).
2. The citations added to the article are largely irrelevant and only provide a brief mention of the name "Columbia" (and in the case of the "Debates in Parliament", just a thesaurus-like directory). There is nothing to be gained by readers wishing to know more about the history of the District of Columbia by referencing those sources.
3. Neither source claims that Samuel Johnson first coined the term. Providing a primary source does not back up the claim that Samuel Johnson first coined the term and most likely constitutes original research.

Additionally, two editors have reverted the additions to the article, showing that there is no consensus for the addition of the material. I would ask that other editors make their comments here and keep the three revert rule in mind before making additional changes. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I concur with Epicadam. This tidbit may have a place in Columbia and perhaps Samuel Johnson (though surely it's one of his lesser accomplishments) and I see no reason to shoehorn it into this article as well. JohnInDC (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason the source is not out of scope is it gives the origin of the term Columbia as a poetic name for America, which DIRECTLY follows the original text and sources it, whereas the initial source that follows it doesnt inform anyone of this fact, Its completely uniformative.

On the page Washington District of Columbia, to know where the name Columbia comes from is an absolute minimum, especially given there isnt a seperate District of Columbia page. Of the cities name, where does Washington come from - Answer: George Washington, and name Columbia is from where???? The initial text informs nothing. Granted while Johnson in all liklihood coined the term, i propose that a concise variation of its source be used..such as Columbia being a poetic name for the United States termed in Britain (with the 1738 source), and in use at the time. Wikipedia is about informing, providing sourced, relevant, documentated , factual information that refers specifically to the subject in question, hence this needs addressing, in a concise manner. Bostonian_Mike^(talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia isn't about including every known fact about every subject in the subject's article. As written, the article explains that the District of Columbia took its name from the term "Columbia", a poetic term then in use to mean the United States. This article, about the District of Columbia, thus explains how "Columbia" came to be applied to the District of Columbia. The term "Columbia" is wikilinked, to an article that in turn explains the next level of depth, namely, how the word came to be applied to the United States. Anyone who finds the matter intriguing and wants to know that too can simply click the link and they are transported to another article that gives them the answer. Explaining how the term "Columbia" came to refer to the United States, here, answers that question at the same level as explaining how the Washington family came by its name. Interesting information, useful to many no doubt - but this article is not the place for it. JohnInDC (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

E/C -- The article text and the referenced link to the DC Historical Society states very precisely that Columbia was a poetic name for the United States in use at the time. However, for editors to go back and discuss the etymology of every word would be like, to use your example, explaining how the name "Washington" came to be from the small English town in Tyne and Wear. I believe the explanation and source provided in the article works just fine. Totally agree with John. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 04:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn, think i killed myself there with the Washington comment..lol, ok guys, still feel though that its undersourced (not the text in the page as granted this is not specifically about Columbia) but the source itself in only saying it was popularized.Bostonian_Mike^(talk) 04:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

One of the main reasons for the move from Philadelphia was the 1780 Gradual Abolition Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It allowed owners of slaves from other states to bring their slaves into Pennsylvania with them, but they were only allowed a temporary residency of six months. If the slave owner stayed longer than that, their slaves were given their freedom by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Because Philadelphia was the capital of the United States from 1790 – 1800, the “Father of Our Country,” George Washington had to deal with the temporary residency issue. In fact, at least two of his slaves escaped while Washington resided in Philadelphia. At first, Washington rotated his slaves between Mt. Vernon and Philadelphia, within the six-month limit; and he never brought more than one member of a slave family to Philadelphia, lest it create a greater temptation to escape to freedom. Eventually, in deference to the 1780 act, Washington used German indentured servants. President Adams also had to deal with temporary residency for his slaves. The temporary residency clause in the Gradual Abolition Act was a key factor in the decision to move the national capital from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C., where slavery was law.

From the Alison-Antrim Museaum in Greencastle, PA http://www.greencastlemuseum.org/ Georgep4055 (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) georgep4055

I have a few issues with including this information in the article:

1. The information comes from this page: [1], a portion of a newsletter by an unnamed author; I question whether this constitutes a reliable source. Other sources about the 1780 act do not make a similar claim that the law was a "key factor" in moving the capital. (Independence Hall Association) Nearly every other source puts the decision to move the capital squarely on the Compromise of 1790, and the fact that Maryland and Virginia legislatures passed laws to grant land to the Federal government; Pennsylvania did not.
2. There is also a bit of a logical fallacy in the argument that this act was a key factor in moving the capital. The Gradual Abolition Act was in effect while Philadelphia was the capital until 1873, when the Congress was run out of town; it seems like this would have been a reasonable problem at the time as well. When the founders wrote the new constitution in 1787, the capital remained in New York City. When the federal capital did return to Philadelphia, the founders knew full well that the law was still in effect, yet again, this did not prevent their return. In fact, based on the above text, Washington seemed to remedy the problem himself through the use of indentured servants. In addition, slavery would have been legal in any federal district if Congress approved. It therefore seems peculiar that a state law would have been a determining factor in where to put the federal District.

Any other editors have thoughts? Best, epicAdam^(talk) 01:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Presidents didnt get their distances right?

Washington DC is in Maryland? You'd think it would be in... washington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.107.90 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

avenues in the district

the statement that all 50 states are represented by avenues is not correct. Ohio and California DO NOT have avenues named after them. California STREET is in NW, as well as Ohio DRIVE. these 2 states dont have avenues, and not all avenues radiate off of a circle. trivial facts, but the article is misleading nonetheless. also theres avenues not named after states, etc look at a map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.122.77 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The original statement didn't say that all states had avenues, but it did imply it. Regardless, you point is well taken and I've removed the line. —D. Monack ^talk 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports Teams

The last listing of the Washington RFC as a Super League team is now outdated. Washington RFC is now only a Division 1 team playing in the Mid-Atlantic Rugby Football Union, along with three other teams in the immediate DC-metro area.

PAC (Potomac Athletic Club) is now the only Super League rugby union club that plays out of DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.39.189 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. I made the change. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Include ASL as a language in DC

It is estimated that ASL could be the 4th most commonly used language in the United states (see source below). The census bureau has ignored this language in its estimate of languages used in the US. Because of the presence of the world's only University for the Deaf, Gallaudet, there should be some mention of the use of ASL as one of the commonly used languages in the District. Finding a good estimated number would be difficult for the reasons stated in the source below, however; officials at Gallaudet might be able to assist in this.

http://gri.gallaudet.edu/Publications/ASL_Users.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.73.254 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for bringing up ASL. If anybody can find figures dealing with specifically the number of people who communicate using ASL in the District itself, I think those numbers should absolutely be included. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from user talk page

Hi all. A number of editors have left comments on my personal talk page regarding the content of the article. I have reposted them below so that other editors have the chance to respond as well. Thank you all for you interest and support. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DC Architecture and a Few Miscellaneous Items

Dear Adam:

I read the Post article with interest. Thank you for correcting the misinformation about the DC building height limitations! I have a few other minor corrections or revisions of nuance to propose to you.

1. The article indicates that the McMillan Plan is regarded as the "completion" of L'Enfant's plan. Indeed, it is widely regarded as such, but in fact, the urban design proposed by the McMillan Commission was thoroughly different from L'Enfant's. First, it's worth noting that, strictly speaking, it was not L'Enfant's plan that was executed in the first place--it was that of Andrew Ellicott, which was based on the work of L'Enfant, but contained a number of important differences (including the exact routes of certain major avenues, the designs of some of the major public squares and parks, and the layout of what became the National Mall). The McMillan Plan (officially called the Senate Park Commission Plan) did indeed call for a resurrection of the basic spirit of the L'Enfant/Ellicott plans, but the later design was heavily influenced be prevailing architectural attitudes at the turn of the 20th century. The Senate Park Commission envisioned a much grander and more elegant monumental core than did L'Enfant.

2. The article describes the original Library of Congress building as "French Second Empire." Although there is evidence that aspects of its design were inspired by the Opera House in Paris, most architectural historians would argue that the LoC building is more of a "German Renaissance" design.

3. The article refers to the Old Stone House as the oldest building standing in the District of Columbia. This is actually a very tricky issue. While the Old Stone House is regarded as the oldest LARGELY INTACT building still standing on ITS ORIGINAL SITE in the District, there is at least one other building that could claim to be the OLDEST BUILDING IN the District. The Lindens, a private house in Kalorama, was built in 1754 -- more than a decade before the Old Stone House -- but the catch is that it was built ELSEWHERE and later moved to its current site. There are also several PARTS of other buildings in the city that are older than these structures and remain standing, but have been absorbed into larger structures.

4. The article's mention of the National Building Museum could be misinterpreted to suggest that the museum is a federally operated institution like the Smithsonian or the National Gallery of Art. While it was indeed chartered by Congress, the National Building Museum is a private, nonprofit institution. It also includes some long-term exhibitions, in addition to temporary and traveling shows.

5. When Sharon Pratt Kelly was elected mayor, she was still Sharon Pratt Dixon. She later remarried while in office and took the name Kelly.

Thanks for your efforts!

- A local architectural historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchDes (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding item 1, above:

That's not all that the McMillan Commission did. L'Enfant's original plan called for a "Grand Avenue, 400 feet in breadth, and about a mile in length, bordered with gardens, ending in a slope from the houses on each side" in the center of the present National Mall.(See "The L'Enfant Plan for Washington"). Ellicott's revision of L'Enfant's plan retained this avenue. (See Andrew Ellicott's "Plan of the City of Washington in the Territory of Columbia") As you can presently observe, L'Enfant's "grand avenue" in the Mall does not exist. Blame or thank the McMillan Commission and others for this largely overlooked demonstration of the truth of the old adage: "The best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray". Corker1 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi ArchDes. Thanks for taking the time to review the article and contribute. I have adjusted the article to reflect many of the points you have brought up here. You've really hit what is a very nuanced situation with Wikipedia whereby the summary articles are almost inherently less precise than the more detailed sub-pages. In particular, the information about the McMillan plan is particularly difficult to explain in a succinct manner. Whether you believe that L'Enfant or Ellicott is more responsible for the design of the city is really a more philosophical question: What is more important? The overall concept or the gritty details? Those who say the former (myself included) credit L'Enfant, whereas those who believe the latter are more likely to credit Ellicott. As it is, I think the article does do a good job of explaining L'Enfant's overall vision of the city (i.e. the grand avenues, large parks, traffic circles, etc.) while still crediting Ellicott with the final design completion and then the McMillan commission's role in largely preserving their work. Should you have any more ideas, please be bold and dive right in, or feel free to comment here. Best regards, epicAdam^(talk) 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington DC minimum elevation

Hey, I just read the good article in Washington Post re your WP improvement work. Great going! Out of curiosity I scrolled thru the DC article, and was indeed impressed by its quality. However, I noticed one factoid that could be an error; it states the maximum and minimum elevations in the District. It says the minimum is sea level at the Potomac intersection. I doubt that is true; otherwise the river would not continue to flow southeast-ward. If you have access to a USGS 7.5' quadrangle map (WASHINGTON, D.C. EAST, probably), you could see what it lists as the riverfront elevation. Thanks in advance. Raymondwinn (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the comment above by Raymondwinn:

The southwest boundary of the District of Columbia is the Potomac River's mean level at the Virginia shore. The River is therefore entirely within the District.

The River is tidal below Chain Bridge. The lowest point at the bottom of the river within the District (probably near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge) is the lowest point in the District.

In a tidal area, the intersection of river surface and land at mean tide is the same elevation as the mean sea level. The lowest point in the District is below sea level.

During the incoming tide, the Potomac River flows northwest-ward, not southeast-ward. -- Corker1 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's actually fascinating. I never knew that. So is that why when I cross the Key Bridge, and swear that the river is moving upstream, it could be the tides? I assumed some sort of multi-layer thing was going on.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much to say beyond what Corker1 outlined, but the U.S. Geological Survey (referenced in the article) says that the lowest point is the Potomac River at sea level. I don't know a much more authoritative source than that. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 02:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

L'Enfant Footnotes

User:Corker1 recently added some information regarding Pierre (Peter) Charles L'Enfant and the spelling of his name. I have removed much of this information from this article because I believe it to be too far out of scope. In my opinion, what name L'Enfnat used isn't directly related to the city and therefore should be included on his biographical page instead. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I had much the same thought when I saw the original edit, and concur with condensing it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

District of Columbia as county-equivalent

In the whole article I have nothing read concerning the topic, that the District of Columbia also forms its owns county-equivalent (and thus counts as a number of 1 in the list of counties & county-equivalents). Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:U.S._Counties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:U.S._Counties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States Maybe someone could mention, or detailingly explain or point it out (maybe "D.C. as county-equivalent", e.g.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.216.55 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, a county (or in Louisiana, a parish) is a political subdivision of a U.S. State. The District of Columbia is neither a state nor a subdivision of a state. Therefore the District of Columbia does not form its own "county-equivalent". If Washington, D.C. is included on some Wikipedia lists of states and counties, it is for comparison purposes only. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, but the article County-equivalent states that D.C. is one; in addition, as you would have been able to see, in my listed links for D.C. on the County statistics page, on the US Census Bureau site itself you can in the county(&county-equivalents) section select D.C. from D.C., indicating, that it forms it own identical unit, but because it is definitive no regular county, it must be a county-equivalent, that's why I did that. Maybe it should be researched, if it is right or false, when the county-equivalent page states that DC is one or not. Sorry, I'm only now seeing your talk page, because I thought if you would talk about the county statistics page, you would do it on the talk page of the article. Hm, but, whether or not D.C. is in or not, you shouldn't have deleted all my changes; that the county-equivalents are the 42 independent cities, louisiana's parishes, alaska's boroughs & census areas is clear.