Talk:Washington, D.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Washington, D.C. is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Washington, D.C. article.
Article policies
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Washington, D.C. was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Washington, D.C.: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Continue revisions to ensure GA status, and possibly eventual FA status.
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive

Archives
- Sep 2005
Sep 2005 - Dec 2006
Jan 2007 -

Contents

[edit] Washington and D.C.

While the City and County of San Francisco (49 sq. mi) may have always been co-extensive, not so with Washington, D.C. The District of Columbia was established as part of the Residency Act enacted by Congress in 1790, which provided that the capital of the United States would be in a federal district, beginning in 1800, established in a 100 square mile area taken from Maryland and Virginia with the interim capital being in Philadelphia beginning in December 1790; the first capital having been New York City. The Virginia portion, now comprising Arlington County, VA was retroceded to Virginia by Congress in 1847 while Georgetown was a preexisting town in Maryland that had existed for decades as a port on the Potomac River. Beyond that, most of D.C. west of Rock Creek was rural prior to the First World War with the emergence of the Chevy Chase Land Company and the trolley to Chevy Chase, Maryland at that time beginning the development of D.C.'s suburbs. Today the issue of D.C's representation in Congress is a burning one, particulary in the context of D.C. history where slavery was abolished by act of Congress in 1862 during the Civil War. A monument to the approximately 500 D.C. residents, black and white, exists in the form of a small ancient Greek monument near the Lincoln Memorial dedicated circa 1930 at a ceremony attended by President Herbert Hoover.Tom Cod 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

... I'm confused, are you commenting on something in the article, or just writing an essay on Washington? --Golbez 06:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D.C. picture request

For the Georgetown, Washington, D.C. article, I believe photos of Hyde Elementary School, Hardy Middle School, and Wilson High School would be good for that article. WhisperToMe 05:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In reality, D.C. public schools are quite awful; Many families, especially in affluent neighborhoods such as Georgetown, instead send their kids to private school. So, I don't think the schools are notable enough aspect of the neighborhood to need pictures. Though maybe one is needed for the Woodrow Wilson High School article. --Aude (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe a picture of the Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School or something like that? --Aude (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Done - Added to a "Gallery of private schools" section :) WhisperToMe 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Georgetown article already has a lot of pictures, maybe too many for an article of its size. If I were going to add anything, it would be a picture of Georgetown University. The public schools are visually uninteresting. --dm (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with AudeVivere and D Monack. --Thisisbossi 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia already has an article with the university, I'm adding that. Anyway, I believe Georgetown's elementary school, at the least, attracts several from the neighborhood. WhisperToMe 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Hardy Middle School and Wilson High School have articles already, so pictures of the two schools would be a good idea anyway. WhisperToMe 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

Why is Our Lady of Victory lumped in with a bunch of prep schools? There are probably at least a hundred parochial schools in the District of Columbia and OLV isn't even the most notable -- Holy Trinity (associated with the oldest Catholic Church in Washington, DC) or Blessed Sacrament would be -- so it's sorely out of place. Mrw1975 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the Parochial schools have their own subsection? --Jvv62 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You can make parochial a subsection of private schools, and list the prep schools as "other private schools." WhisperToMe 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"The University of the District of Columbia is the city's public university; it is the nation's only urban land-grant university" - UC Berkeley was originally a land grant school, and is located in an urban setting. Remove this misleading statement, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.249.205 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representation discussion in first paragraph

"Although there is a municipal government and a mayor, Congress has the supreme authority over the city and district, which results in citizens having a different status and less representation in government than residents of the states."

This sentence's construction isn't correct. The issue of Congressional dominion is separate from whether DC residents have congressional representation. DC could have complete self-determination and no representation, and vice-versa. Therefore it's incorrect to say that Congressional dominion "results" in less representation. I am going to draft something to make that distinction a little clearer.

[edit] Planning

German wikipedia has the following paragraph: "Pierre Charles L'Enfant was given the task to design the „Federal City“. He was inspired by the city plan of Karlsruhe, probably following an advice of Thomas Jefferson who had been fascinated by Karlsruhe's layout during his trip of Germany in 1788 to the extent of making a sketch of it and taking it with him to the USA."

The article mentions only "planned cities of Europe". Any other candidates apart from Karlsruhe? If not it should be mentioned. --Kipala 18:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Before integrating this into the article, you're going to need to find a reliable source for that information. I was never aware that the layout for DC was inspired by any european cities, though I suppose it's possible. The sentence on this in the German Wikipedia article is pretty vague and unreferenced as well. Dr. Cash 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a citation one way or another concerning the selection of the DC site as being in a "southern state" or a "neutral area" between the north and south. If I remember my history correctly, I believe the latter is the accurate statement. Bpiereck 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washington (disambiguation)

Can someone explain why people looking for the capital city of the USA on wikipedia go to an article on Washington state instead? The Washington article should at least redirect to a disambig so that people less familiar with USA states and cities understand that a difference even exists. Take a look at Georgia for an example. Even better, let Washington redirect to "Washington, D.C." and leave the Washington state article at "Washington state". Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritium6 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I right-out disagree with a redirect from Washington to this article on the US Capital. I would expect people looking for the capital to put in some form of D.C., DC, etc. As for your recommendation for a disambiguation, however, I am not entirely against such, but I do not believe it necessary. Consider also that the only other item on the disambiguation page worth giving a run for the keyword is George Washington, which is listed twice (specifically: right at the top) and that people should know well enough to enter in "George" when searching for him. Likewise with other individuals, places, etc.: people should be reasonably expected to enter in at least a second keyword which will take the user to the desired article. Considering that many of those items are named after George Washington, anyway, if Washington is to redirect anywhere, I'd put my vote George. The only item which does not have a second keyword inherent within its name is the current return of Washington state. As for Georgia, that relation is complicated by the fact that there are two highly notable places which both have "Georgia" as the single keyword: that being Georgia the US state and Georgia the country. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - In America, the precedence always goes to the state first. New York > New York City, Washington > Washington, D.C., etc. Georgia is a unique case because it shares its name with an independent nation, and this being the English Wikipedia, and the state of Georgia being a prominent part of a prominent English-speaking nation, a disambig page was used, rather than having to choose which was more important. Having "Washington" redirect to George Washington would be nothing doing, however. It COULD be a disambig, but that requires a lot of discussion I think. And no, Washington state would never be at Washington state, it would be at Washington (state). --Golbez 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
FOR If people know what to look for, they will find it by using the right keywords. But then they probably don't need an encyclopedia at all. I live in Washington, D.C., and when I travel on the East Coast and tell people where I am from, the followup question (if I forgot to add the DC) is still very often, "DC or state?" I think we should think of disambiguation pages as places where people who are not sure what they are looking for can find some help. An encyclopedia is supposed to help people at the beginning of their search for information. That would be when they need the most help dealing with confusing names. There should probably be more, not fewer, disambiguation and cross reference pages. -- Jvv62 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I may know the keywords I need, but I'll still read its entry in the encyclopedia. Just because I know a place like Arkhangelsk exists doesn't mean I know much else about it. Quick tip: I just say I'm from around "DC" and it seems to work well enough -- never had a mix-up. Alrighty, time to educate myself a bit on Arkhangelsk... Cheers! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 03:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I live in the Washington D.C. area, and have lived in many other states of the Union, no one, really, no one, if I say: "I live in Washington" would assume I meant the State. It's a wonderful state, nothing against it, but gravity of power, of history and influence, people know exactly what "Washington" means (in the USA -- I don't pretend to know international opinion).

I would hazard though, that most other folks don't even know of the "State of Washington." Generally, common usage, is for those living in the state, when asked where they live, will either give the city and state, or if short hand, say "Washington State." I would defer to anyone saying that the procedure for wikipedia is the the larger division goes first, but then again, DC is not a state, it's unique in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxonthedog ([[User talk:SaxonthedogSaxonthedog (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)|talk]] • contribs) 06:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles?

Hi. I just wanted to alert you all to the presence of the article on Borf, that should be linked to somewhere within the DC article piles... FYI. - Freechild 23:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta disagree. This is a single issue in a city. Why not include all major crimes nearby too? — BQZip01 — talk 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11th

The Pentagon is in Arlington not Washington D.C. it shouldn't be listed as a D.C. event. The wiki shouldn't perpetuate myths or misunderstandings. Johnny lunchpail 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I would launch right into any sort of great legendary myth, though I do agree with you otherwise. However, the event itself is highly relevant to DC and most closely associated with it, not to mention the Pentagon's administrative links to DC (zip code, phone #, etc.); but geographically it is indeed Virginia by the current boundaries of DC. I believe that after the edit by Doops, the current incarnation of the article is adequate as far 9/11 goes. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the Doops edit, Thanks Johnny lunchpail 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Washington Pentagram

Why is the fact that the White House sits at the bottom of a giant pentagram made from the layout of the roads in Washington not included in this article? Or that Congress has a design of an owl around it which is another satanic symbol?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.27.169 (talk • contribs) 09:26, June 15, 2007

Without commenting on the merits of your claims, I note that sources supporting your claims have not been provided. Please note that original research is not permitted in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 15:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
He's talking about the whole "Freemason Conspiracy" in which Freemason designs were incorporated into the layout of DC. A map is here. I think it's all crap. Also note, Rhode Island Avenue doesn't go all the way through. There have been things on it on the Discovery and History Channels. I still don't feel that it should be noted in the article. --MPD T / C 05:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
If there have "been things on it on the Discovery and History Channels" then it sounds to me like it's notable and has reliable sources. It shouldn't be given undue weight but if someone were to add this material with proper references then I'd be hard pressed to support its removal. --ElKevbo 13:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This "fact" may belong on a Freemason conspiracy page, but it definitely doesn't belong on the standard DC page. Anyone who wants to add this sort of thing to wikipedia, should add a new page with a link from this page.
-- Jvv62 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that almost any 5 points will form a pentagram from some angle. — BQZip01 — talk 02:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of VegDC.com link

Hello, I posted a link to VegDC in the external links and it was removed. I was told to bring it to the talk page if I thought it should be re-added.

VegDC.com is a guide to the many vegetarian- and vegan-friendly restaurants, grocery stores, etc in the D.C. metro area. I think this link is as relevant and useful to visitors as any of the other tourist attractions or tourist/travel guides.

Am I off-base here? 70.108.23.179 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a useful link for some people, but it's basically advertising, a directory of businesses. If we included that, we'd have to include links to kosher food, halal food, the Buyindie directory for DC, and many other kinds of directories that are interesting but not necessarily about or unique to Washington, DC. If this article were "Vegetarianism in Washington, DC" then it'd be fine, but since it's only one small part of DC, then it's not in here. These guidelines are at Wikipedia:External links --AW 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] including dcblogs.com on wikipedia

I am the publisher of dcblogs.com. Under media, I have added a reference to dcblogs.com We are the major listing of blogs and information about blogging in the Washington DC metro area. We've been in operation for more than two years. Blogging is citizen media and bloggers, in total, provide important and often original news and analysis about this community. With their stories about life, they help humanize this city and reach its residents in ways that other media do not. We are a news source and directory about local blogging. dcblogs.com provides daily summary of some new and interesting post and provide a live feed of hundreds of local bloggers -- it's akin to an AP wire. We are media in every sense of the word. Thank you for your kind consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcblogs (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your blog. Dr. Cash 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin concept of the "Columb" : important to the establishment of D.C.

Why is there nothing on the significance of the Latin origins of the words Columbus, Columbia, etc., specifically in relation to the establishment of the District of Columbia?

It's important to note that the Latin "columb" translates to "dove". Queen Semirimis was represented by a dove, or "columb" on earth by the Ancient Romans. You can now see her statue (which some people call the "statue of liberty") in the US and a replica on the River Seine in France. I feel this has just been casually swept under the rug, or completely overlooked...for reasons unknown to me. How prominant is the concept of the "columb" in America? Very. People really need to do their homework on the origins of this word and how it related to the democratic societies in Europe and their plans for America (the District of Columbia being the crystalisation of their plans).

It should be clear to any historian that the establishment of the District of Columbia in 1871 (on the seal) (from the Congressional Act of the same year which established a sovereign government in DC) was an establishment of a European democratic society. The Columbian faction of Europe had democratic (not republican) interests. There is a reason why the French Columbians gave the gift of Semirimis to America to celebrate the establishment of the "Columb" at the heart of US political power... the District of Columbia.

Please - this is not insignificant. Casually referencing "Christopher Columbus" as to whom this district's name was derived from is just a throw-away, broad brush reference that only further supports the fairy tale American children are indoctrinated with in the United States' District of Columbia run education system.

Not wanting to change anything at this stage - just want to discuss... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references for any of this? Columbia (name) is an interesting article on this topic. It doesn't mention European democratic societies or doves. --D. Monack | talk 17:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Washington an independent city?

As it's not in any county, wouldn't it be an independent city? Iamanadam 19:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Washington currently exist?

Related to the question above, does Washington even exist? There was a Washington, DC until the late 19th century but there is currently no city or any other administrative entity called Washington. All of the current admin functions are carried out by the District of Columbia as provided for in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. If there is any statutory unit still known as Washington, could someone please add it to the article? There was some earlier discussion of this here. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are still valid statutes which define the establishment of the City of Washington (even if it coextensive with the District of Columbia) and none of them have been specifically repealed. It just so happens that thanks to the various federal acts, charters, statutes and amendments the "City of Washington" currently has no administrative entities as all of its functions are part of the District of Columbia government. So, to answer your question... Yes, "Washington" still exists, but it's really in name only. Epicadam (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA comments

While this isn't a full re-review of the article, a couple of observations note that the article most likely would not pass the current Good Article criteria. Most of the article is complete unsourced (like the bulk of the history section, and many other sections that follow), and citations of any important information is necessary for inclusion as a [{WP:GA|GA]]. There are also organizational issues, as many sections of the article seem to go off into tangents of very dubious and minor information, which present some problems with the flow of the article. It would be a good idea if editors cited sources as well as formatted references (single URLs alone are not acceptable as citations), or else this article will be delisted.

As an additional note, who promoted this article to A-class? I see now evidence of an A-class review on this article, either? Dr. Cash 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding your second paragraph, the class was changed in this edit without any apparent agreement. I've demoted back down to GA, which could indeed be up for reviewal. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion limit

I have commented out the climate data because it caused the article to exceed the transclusion limit. The effects included the references not displaying at all. The two possible solutions are a permanent removal or hardcoding the conversions - i.e. 1 inch (25.4 mm). Comments, please? MER-C 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have subst'ed the whole thing. --Morten LJ 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadrant article names

Are Washington, D.C. (northeast), Washington, D.C. (northwest), Washington, D.C. (southeast) and Washington, D.C. (southwest) really the best names for articles? I'm not sure they should be that, Quadrant, Washington, D.C., Quadrant (Washington, D.C.) or something else. Jason McHuff (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer them the way they are. "Quadrant" just adds in a word that I don't think is particularly necessary. Nobody in DC really refers to them as quadrants; rather they're just "Northwest" and "Northeast" -- as if they were their own cities with those names. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify. I'm not saying "Quadrant" should be in the article title. I was using "Quadrant" as a placeholder/variable to represent "Southwest", "Northwest", etc. The actual article title would be "Southwest, Washington, D.C." or maybe "Southwest (Washington, D.C.)" or something else. Jason McHuff (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahhhhh yes, I completely misread that the first time around. Looking at it now, it makes perfect sense. I agree with your recommendations and I think I prefer Quadrant, Washington, D.C. of the two recommendations (though my opinion could be swayed either way). This might be more applicable at the DC Wikiproject -- I've copied over this discussion onto the Wikiproject's talk page. To keep the discussion in one place, I recommend that future responses be posted there. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attractive city ratings

Before we get into a reversion war: this link says that DC is the 24th most attractive city; not the 2nd least attractive. Being 24th is probably not particularly notable in itself. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where I come down on the competing interpretations, but it's kind of a silly poll anyway. Only slightly more notable than something like having the third highest consumption of lifesavers candies or having the most sneakers per capita. --Beaker342 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The main page for the poll states that it was also conducted by CNN Headline News and received over 60,000 responses. If the poll results are really considered notable, perhaps DC's being ranked as most worldly among the 25 cities, or 4th in intelligence (and diversity), would be more worthy of mention. Similarly, it ranked second in overall culture, and just behind Orlando for family vacations. [1] —Adavidb 07:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State

What state is Washington D.C. in? Or is it an independant city in the country? Bretonnia (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The latter: it is independently-administered directly by Congress and is not part of any state. It would be like if Ottawa ceased to be in Ontario, instead becoming its own "province", of sorts, under control by parliament. This section may provide some additional information of interest. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addresses

I have been trying to figure out the scheme by which addresses are determined to be on the north/south or east west of roads in DC (or even if there is a scheme). But I have not been able to find any source. The only scheme I've been able to come up with that I can't disprove (off-hand) is:

NW: even south/west, odd north/east NE: even north/west, odd south/east SW: even south/east, odd north/west SE: even north/east, odd south/west

Does anyone have information on this? Any sources? --Peter Talk 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall having read (maybe in an ADC map book?) that odd numbers are on the right as you face in the direction of increasing numbers. I'll try to find a reference to that effect. Doctor Whom (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly match what I've been unable to disconfirm. There doesn't seem to be any reference to the scheme online—I'll thumb through the map books at the gas station & see if I can't produce a reference. --Peter Talk 13:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.141.69 (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissism

I read two sentences of this article and I couldn't help but laugh. No wonder you guys have such a negative view from other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.156.214 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m unclear of Narcissism’s statement? What impression could have been left by these two sentences and more importantly what does it have to do with information about Washington D.C.?

“Washington, D.C., is the capital of the United States. Washington (the city) covers the same area as (i.e. is coterminous with) the District of Columbia (abbreviated as "D.C.").”

Or is he/she mentioning two different sentences somewhere in the article? If this is the case shouldn’t he/she have noted which sentence? Aren’t these just statements of facts as to what Washington, D.C. is? And what does he/she mean by “you guys” and “other people?” Isn’t this just an inflammatory statement? If so, shouldn’t it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.99.35.214 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change to Television shows

I added "24" as one of the tv series featuring Washington, DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.196.240 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo regarding population...

Did I miscount the zeroes in the "Population" section? It says that there are a billion people living in D.C. I know it's crowded, but I'm pretty sure there aren't more people there than in the entire continent!!!--208.69.209.176 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamen banneker

Someone should mention him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.224.208 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the city

I've not got a real clear answer to this either in the article or in the talk page (or archives) - or maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. Either way, "Washington, D. C." is the only national capital I've seen (though not always) that is referred to with the name of the area it's in, as opposed to others. For example, the capitals of Canada, Australia, and Mexico are pretty much always referred to (especially in a list with other national capitals) as Ottawa, Canberra, and Mexico City respectively, not Ottawa, ON, Canberra, NSW, and Mexico, DF. Is the actual name of the city "Washington, D. C." and not "Washington"? (Am I making any sense??) --Canuckguy (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. is referred to as such so as not to confuse it with the state of Washington, which is on the other side of the country. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article reassessment

This article has been nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page. As Chicago strives to regain its WP:GA status, it is looking at other comparable municipalities to strive toward. Unfortunately, this is not what I believe it should be striving toward. The WP:LEAD is more than the max four paragraphs and large blocks of text are uncited. I do not consider this article any better than Chicago, which was duly delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have combined two shorter paragraphs in the lead. It is now four paragraphs in length. Majoreditor (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article needs additional citations. I have tagged the appropriate spots. Perhaps some of you can help by adding the needed references. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted per consensus. Please see the archived discussion for further information. PeterSymonds | talk 20:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO

This is the location of the 1952 UFO Incident in which this place had a major UFO sighting that caused the CIA to create the Robertson Panel in 1952 to "reduce" intrest in UFOs by ridiculing all who see and report them, alien contact. This shouyld be mentioned. See UFO: List of major UFO Sightings. 65.173.105.114 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diminished capital representation in other countries?

I'm sorry, but the line "Some nations that have built capital cities from scratch, including Australia, have diminished representation for a federal district", is bunkum.

Canberra, the capital of Australia, is the main (pretty much the only) population centre in the Australian Capital Territory or ACT.

The Australian Commonwealth Parliament has two tiers of representation: the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, the ACT is treated no differently than anywhere else (apart from Tasmania which is guaranteed 5 HoR seats in the Constitution, regardless of whether its population would justify them). The ACT has the largest population-to-representation ratio in the country at the moment for its 2 HoR seats; but that is because it is just 'under quota' in terms of population needed to get 3 seats. (If I recall rightly, it's had 3 seats in the past before a population dip.) There is no systemically "diminished representation" for the ACT in the HoR.

In the Senate, the ACT directly elects 2 senators. Just the same as Australia's only other (continental) Territory, the Northern Territory. All States elect 12 senators. The lesser number of senators is a product of the fact that the ACT is not a state (and as such, does not have guaranteed rights for senators under the Constitution). As its equivalence with the Northern Territory shows, it's all about its status as a Territory, rather than because its population base is in a 'capital city built from scratch'.

Residents of Canberra do not receive 'diminished representation' in the Senate as a result of living in the ACT anyway. Imagine that the ACT had never been created as a territory of Australia, and Canberra would simply be situated in NSW (the state that surrounds it on all sides). In those circumstances, 330,000 Canberrans would share 12 senators with about 6 million New South Welshpeople; or to put it another way, their votes would account for less than 1 senator (who they could not directly elect anyway; their votes would just be distributed throughout the NSW melting-pot). A Canberran's vote carries over twice as much weight as a NSWperson's vote, and Canberrans have Senators directly responsible to them, as a result of the creation of the 'federal district' of the ACT.

There might be another example around the world that bears out the claim that some nations that build their capital cities from scratch and put them in a special federal district, give diminished representation to the residents of that district. But Australia and Canberra ain't it.121.44.10.162 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New picture that was added

I just wanted to say that I think the new picture that was added at the top of the article should be removed, no offense to Jarekt. Looking at it, you can hardly tell what it's a picture of. I think it should just be removed, but since it seems to have survived for a few days without anybody altering it, then I think a discussion is in order to determine if that picture gets to stay there. Epicadam (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to both agree & disagree. On the one hand, I think it is handy to have a high-resolution panorama of the city, as it helps reinforce the height restrictions on buildings & the overall environment of the city. On the other hand, I feel that its current location in the intro breaks up the aesthetic form of the article. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. A panoramic photo is neat, but I do think it looks strange just sitting there at the top. Perhaps it would be best to add a caption and move the picture to the Geography section, possibly in the "Nature" subsection. Thoughts? Epicadam (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I just moved it out of the intro into the first section (History). The Nature section might be a better fit for a photo of a trail through Rock Creek or along the Potomac in the Georgetown area -- something showing less buildings and more trees. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sister Cities

In the sister city list of New Delhi Washington D.C has been mentioned as sister city but the reverse is not true, New Delhi is not included in the sister city list of Washington D.C ? 192.127.94.7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing information

"Its population is about 588,292.[1] The Washington Metropolitan Area is the eighth-largest in the United States with more than five million residents, and the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area has a population exceeding eight million."

The article states that D.C. hosts only 588,292 and at least 5 million at the same time. The second claim doesn't seem to be supported by anything though it is reasonably more believable.

Leemute (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I described the 588,292 figure better (as the official 2007 estimate), and requested verification of the (seemingly low) area population figure from the WMA article. —Adavidb 13:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all confusing. The city of Washington, DC (the 68 square miles of it) has an estimated 588,292 residents. If you include what is considered the Washington Metropolitan area, according to the census, has an estimated 5,306,565 residents (the eighth largest in the country). If you include the City of Baltimore and its bedroom communities along with the Washington Metropolitan Area, the combined statistical area has an estimated 8,241,912 (the fourth largest). I will provide the source information on the main page. Cheers Epicadam (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Federal taxation and spending figures

At the end of the introduction section, the article includes this following bit of information... "In the financial year 2004, federal tax collections were $16.9 billion while federal spending in the District was $37.6 billion."

First off, I think those numbers are wrong... the Tax Foundation says that the Federal government spends $5.55 dollars in the District for each dollar in taxes paid (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html), which means the figure should be up around $93.7 billion, which sounds about right.

Either way, as it stands, by just stating the information on its own in the first section, the article makes it sound as if DC residents are getting a great deal without any clarification of what those numbers actually mean. For example, the city has to spend millions to meet federal security requirements which aren't directly reimbursed to our police or anti-terrorism units. The city also has a daytime population of nearly twice the resident population. All of those commuters use city services (roads, police, emergency services, etc.) yet Congress bars the city from taxing those commuters to help pay for them. Finally, there are many organizations housed in the District besides federal agencies that are exempt from paying taxes altogether (embassies, consulates, etc.) yet they clearly also use city services as well.

If there are no objections, I'd like to move that information (once we determine how accurate it is) to the local government section where the figures can be explained in context. Cheers! --Epicadam (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody seemed to have any comments, I went ahead and made a few changes. I moved the tax collection information down to the local politics section and I removed the bit about the 25% of the District's budget coming from the Federal government. The reasoning for removing the information is this: $2.069 billion of the District's $8.4 billion FY08 budget came from the Federal government, which is certainly around 25%. [1] However, as the article mentions, all states receive federal grants to pay for mandated programs (e.g. Medicare). The District received $2.02 billion in Federal grant money to cover the cost of those mandated programs.[2] Therefore, the total funds the Federal government so generously donates to the District government to cover all those extra "state level costs" is a whooping $49 million, or 0.5% of the District's total budget.[3] Which, really, is hardly worth mentioning.
Further, I removed the $37.6 billion spending figure from the article because as the nation's capital, there is undoubtedly greater Federal spending within the city. However, just because the Federal government is (technically) spending the money in the city does not mean, necessarily, that the residents of Washington, DC are benefiting from those expenditures. So to compare the amount of Federal money spent in the District versus what DC residents and businesses pay in Federal taxes is misleading at best. Epicadam (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This discussion is missing some important context in the relation of the District to the Federal Government. First, there is no specificity of the type of grants that the Federal Government provides to the District, funding above and beyond what actual states get. From the most recently enacted consolidated appropriations act:
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RESIDENT TUITION SUPPORT; FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY COSTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS; DEFENDER SERVICES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS; FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FEDERAL; PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE; FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY; FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL; FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT; FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR CONSOLIDATED LABORATORY FACILITY; FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR CENTRAL LIBRARY AND BRANCH LOCATIONS; FEDERAL PAYMENT TO REIMBURSE THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Plus the fact that Medicare and Medicaid, and other Federal programs, are provided to the District just as if it were a state. Furthermore, the city is home to the Federal Government in terms of a permanent worker base -- no other city in the U.S. can claim to have thousands of workers that has a work base that stable -- that's one reason state cities are proud to be the capitals of the various states. And finally, perhaps most importantly actually, is the amount of income that flows into D.C. due to its status as a world capital: Not merely untold numbers of American tourists who flock to the City to see the memorials and sights, but also the fast inflow of foreign visitors, all of whom spend money here and leave their money in the form of sales taxes, use of commodities and services -- all of which contribute to the economy of the city. The description of DC should reflect at least the facts, of course one fact is that the city would be a backwater if it were not for it's status as the capital of the U.S. In fact, it would not exist but for that fact. I added certain language to somewhat to that effect, but it was deleted, I don't believe justifiably. I'm not asking anyone else to do the work that would describe this status, but having in deleted, improving the objectivity of the page seems pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:SaxonthedogSaxonthedog (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)|Saxonthedog]] (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Saxonthedog: Thanks for your comments about the page's objectivity. I apologize if you feel like all your work was being undone unjustifiably, but please allow me the chance to address your concerns:
1) I have gone ahead and made some changes to the local government section that hopefully help balance the article's objectivity. I don't think anybody on Wikipedia intends to simply delete user contributions; however, as we're attempting to get the page back to "good article" status, we have to ensure that all new facts are cited appropriately. If information is added that doesn't provide the necessary references, it really just detracts from the page. Also, details (and things like block quotes) should be mentioned in the numerous sub-topic pages so as to keep the length and size of the DC main page to a minimum (also a good article requirement).
2) I don't think that anybody is under any illusions that D.C.'s government and economy benefit greatly due to the presence of the Federal government in the city. In fact, the section on the District's economy makes it abundantly clear that the presence of the Federal government (and the jobs and tourism it creates) is not just the main driving force behind the city's economy, but that of the entire metropolitan area as well. However, like I said above, hopefully the changes made in the local government section address those concerns.
3) As for the Congressional appropriations you listed above, all of them are included in the D.C. budget or else relate to the court system and/or law enforcement, which you'll notice I also mentioned separately.
Thanks for your help in improving the page, it is certainly appreciated. Best, Epicadam (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Television and radio section

I've gone through and tightened up the tv and radio sections on the main page. As a main article on Washington, D.C., information about call letters and transmitter signal strength is unwarranted; it detracts from the overall quality of the page. Should readers care to learn more information about individual TV and radio stations, the links are provided to learn more.

In all seriousness, even having the lists of stations is a bit of a stretch and is not directly in keeping with the "good article" guidelines. Only particularly noteworthy pieces of information and how they relate to Washington, D.C. itself should be mentioned. Cheers! Epicadam (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page overhauls

Hi all. I'm sure you've noticed many changes to the page over the last few days. Hopefully these changes are for the better and will help the article regain it's "good" rating.

I have been removing significant amounts of information from some sections and adding information in others. My reasoning is this: as the main article page for Washington, D.C. the article is not only supposed to be useful but above all concise. There's a comment on the to-do list that perhaps the history section is too long. Perhaps for another city it would be, but I think it is safe to say that Washington is unique in that history is one of the city's defining features. Same goes for the museums, monuments, national sites, etc. So I think, at least, that it is appropriate for those sections to be a little longer than normal.

Many places where I trimmed down sections had to do with much the information being repeated elsewhere or, such as in the case of the sports section, has a great main article for DC sports that goes into much better detail. The goal, I think, is to keep the page at around 100,000 bytes. That seems to be about right for a city of this importance. New York is a little bit more at around 117,000 bytes, while Paris hovers around 104,000 bytes.

I very sincerely appreciate any feedback you have about the sections I've re-written: Geography, Historic sites and museums, sports, television, radio, demographics, local government and federal representation. Cheers! Epicadam (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not able to give detailed suggestions or help out at this time, but have noticed your edits here. But, the article has definitely improved a lot with your changes. --Aude (talk)
Comment: I added a section related to the very reason that DC exists, and that was out of the incident in Philadelphia where Congress was basically left unprotected by the City and State; but that was deleted. Of anything related to the existence of the District, that, in all my reading about the city, is common. That the page makes no reference to it, is a flaw. Giving back Arlington (then Alexandria) to Virginia is immensely important in understanding the geography of the city; or a few pictures or references to the city budget, but certainly those are no more important than the proximate reason for its very inception by the writers of the Constitution. Any overview of the District, no matter how concise, if it omits that event, I think will be incomplete; it punctuates the very need for insularity that Congress desired when it created the city (per the authority provided in the Constitution). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxonthedog (talk • contribs) 05:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Saxonthedog, I added the info about Philadelphia, but in brief so as to keep the article's size to a minimum. Thanks! -Epicadam (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate/unsupported statement about Congress's Oversight of D.C. policies

In the "Local Government" section, the article states: "Recently, Congress has used its power to to reverse city policies such as those in regard to gun control and the D.C. public school system."

This is incorrect.

1) I do not believe Congress reversed any city policies about the public schools. AS the D.C. public school article explains, Congress did pass a law to FACILITATE the mayor's plan, which required amendment of D.C.'s home rule charter.

2) D.C.'s gun law was overturned by a federal court (NOT Congress), as the Home Rule article explains:

Some gun rights advocates argue that this violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although several gun-rights advocates in Congress have, at different times, proposed to repeal the District's gun control laws, such proposals have never been enacted due to protestations regarding District home rule. However, in Parker v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District's ban on handguns unconstitutional; the District has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to hear the case

I agree. I'll remove the information unless somebody can provide a source for specific examples. Epicadam (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The statement that Congress overturned D.C.'s gun policies is not correct -- but what is correct is that during consideration of the D.C. home rule voting bill ([2], there was a Republican "motion to recommit" which is nothing more than a vote to amend the bill, and which would have overturned the D.C. gun laws in large part. The amendment was set to pass, since many Democrats as well as Republicans were intent on voting in favor. The bill was pulled from consideration when it became apparent this would occur. Simply saying that Congress did so is no accurate, but that there was sentiment to do so in one House of Congress, except for procedural tactics of the House Leadership, is quite accurate. Whether this merits mention in the page, I'd leave to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxonthedog (talk • contribs) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final fixes before GA nomination

Hi all. I think the page is almost ready for GA nomination status. If any of you have any thoughts on what should be added, removed or changed, please let me know.

In specific, I would like your thoughts on removing the "Infrastructure" section altogether. Browsing through other city pages, very few articles (and none with GA status) have information on health systems, etc. Please let me know if the Infrastructure section should be removed and whether you think the article is able to proceed to GA reassessment. Thanks for all your help. Best, -Epicadam (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)