History of Washington, D.C. received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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.
I'm removing the baseball section for a few reasons:
Baseball is tangential to the history of the city. If anything, Washington is a football-loving town. (I'm not advocating a Redskins section to this article.)
Similar history articles on Wikipedia have no sports references. If History of New York City can avoid mention of the Yankees or the Dodgers, we can do without a baseball section here.
It's absurd to have a baseball section in this article that begins in 2004. Anyone remember the Senators or the Grays?
I know I've read about this in several books, but for some reason I have not been able to find a link to this Board online. Does it still exist? If so, what is the link or other contact information? Thanks!JJ4sad620:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the D.C. Financial Control Board? This was a temporary group appointed by Congress with authority over the city's finances. It was put in place in the late 90s after Marion Barry's administration got the city deep into debt and was dissolved around the year 2000, I think. It should be mentioned in this article and perhaps an article of its own. --dm(talk)06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
welll actualy i do think it still exists im not sure
A Southern site for the capital was agreed upon at a sit-down dinner between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson agreed to support Hamilton's banking and federal bond plans that involved the Federal government assuming state debts in exchange for the choice of a Southern locale for the capital.
According to Joseph Ellis' Founding Brothers, the dinner was hosted by Jefferson, but for Madison and Hamilton, who then worked out the deal. I corrected this on the main Washington, D.C. page a while back. Can anyone back up the passage in the article as it is? If not, I'll change it soon.--Osprey39 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I see no page consensus for this move, and inadequate discussion developed before the merge. Article is part of a series of articles relating to state and territory involvement in the ACW. I won't edit war over this, but I may canvas some longtime ACW page editors to assist in the discussion. I'd also like to see the page restored before this discussion takes place. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to restore the page, but just because its a part of a series doesn't mean it warrants its own page. The information present on that page wasn't its own material as much as it was just copied (almost verbatim) from this article. Also, there need not be a consensus for a page merge; this talk dialogue was more of a courtesy. However, since now that there's an objection, I'd be happy to restore the page until a consensus is reached. Best, epicAdam (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your willingness to more closely measure consensus before reaching a personal conclusion. I can't deny some of the points you raise above, and while I have placed requests on talk pages of two known ACW editors to join the discussion, I'm not 100% sure your merge was such a bad idea. My concern lies in the way many of the ACW cluster articles have begun--longtime dormant stubs often become starts and then B-class articles. Since there was already a fair discussion as to the merit of this (informal) series, my natural presumption was no merge. I'm not wedded to that position. I'm the primary editor on the American Civil War portal, so knowing about consensus is of interest to me. This article is a potential subject for this portal subpage. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the BusterD and think they should be kept as separate articles. The current problem is that the article on the Civil War side is rather short, almost a stub. However, maintaining the separate identity of "<geographic entity> in the American Civil War" potentially encourages authors with Civil War interests to expand the article, whereas keeping the information embedded within the overall city history article will not generate as much attention. I am not personally volunteering to expand the article because I have other fish to fry, but I know there are editors in our space who enjoy working on such articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil War task force is trying to develop separate articles for various cities in the war, and once i get my latest two manuscripts put to bed and sent to the publishers, I plan to personally tackle a couple of these, including Washingtobn. I am opposed to a merger as a result. Scott Mingus (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started expanding this article, and will continue to do so as my limited schedule will allow. Hopefully this will suffice to keep this as a stand-alone article, as the entire series would lack something without a separate article for Washington. 198.203.136.200 (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to leave a note here for those wondering why I removed the subsections on the "Hanafi Muslim hostage situation", "Ronald Reagan assassination attempt", and the "Air Florida crash" from this article. In essence, not every event that happens in Washington, D.C. should be mentioned here unless that event directly affected the city. Contributors should not confuse events that occurred in D.C. with the history of D.C. itself. There is a List of District of Columbia-related topics where it may be appropriate to link event information. It may even be appropriate to create a separate article Historical events of Washington, D.C. (or something to that effect) to mention events like the ones that have been removed from this article. Best, epicAdam (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, just so you know, providing coordinates is not a valid reference. Second, and more importantly, the current center of the District of Columbia is near 4th and L Streets NW, according to the USGS. So I have no idea where the information about these axes is coming from. Please provide a proper source for this information. -epicAdam (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I described the axes of the original District of Columbia, I provided a reference, as follows: "Axes of corners of square of the original District of Columbia from map of boundary stones by boundary stones.org"
"Boundary stones.org" provides the coordinates of all of the boundary stones of the original District of Columbia, including the cornerstones. All of the cornerstones remain in their original positions. They define the locations of the corners of the original District of Columbia.
The axes of between opposite corners of the original District of Columbia (which was a nearly perfect square) cross at the center of the original District. One can therefore physically draw axis lines between opposite corners to find the center of the square. Alternatively, one can calculate the coordinates of the center of the square. The center of the square has the average (mean) longitude of the north and south corners and the average (mean) latitude of the east and west corners. The result of the two methods of locating the center of the square is the same.
The point at which the axes cross (the center of the square) is within the grounds of the Organization of American States headquarters. The link to the coordinates of the center of the square in the Wikipedia article permit readers to see this point on a map or satellite image.
The following book states that the center of the original District was at the Pan American Union building, which is now the headquarters of the Organization of American States: City of Washington : an illustrated history / by the Junior League of Washington ; edited by Thomas Froncek. 1st ed. Publisher: New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977.
This confirms the location of the center calcuated as I described. I could describe all of the above in a footnote to the Wikipedia article, but that would probably be excessive.
This is original research and I have removed it. What assurance do we have that your calculations are accurate? Also, slight inaccuracies in the sources you use (the boundary stone locations, the maps) can lead to final results that are way off depending on your methodology. To include this info, you need to provide a reliable source that says The center of the original District is at X. —D. Monacktalk09:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read your comment more carefully the first time. You apparently do have a source (the book you cite). The book is what should be cited in the article, not the website. I'll fix your reference. —D. Monacktalk09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No editor can remove cited material without consensus, even if you disagree with it. Please note that Wikipedia policy on verification clearly indicates that the threshold for material is "verifiability, not truth".
Any additional material you would like to provide must be from a reliable, published source and be cited. If citing something available online, that means providing a title, URL, and publisher. If you're citing a printed source, then please provide the author, title, publisher, and page numbers.
I'm not really sure Native American history belongs in this article at all. As far as I can tell, at the founding of Washington, D.C. there were no Native Americans living there, nor any archaeological evidence of settlements within DC. The fact that a group inhabited the area when the first Europeans arrived isn't directly relevant to the history of the city at all.
You are incorrect, there is abundant archaeological evidence of settlements within DC; we even know the name of the village Nacotchtank which is also well attested from historical sources, and there are abundant sources that are more reliable than the sloppy misinfo you keep reverting to. I will add more reliable sources shortly, and you might want to do a little research on it yourself. I agree that mention of the Powhatans is probably not so relevant, since they lived far from DC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're misunderstanding my third objection. Even if there is archaeological evidence that Native Americans were located in what is now Washington DC, how is that relevant to the history of the city? Unless the presence of Native Americans had some direct affect on the city, they shouldn't be mentioned in this article. There are places for that information to go. Perhaps in the articles on about the colonies of VirginiaorMaryland, as their histories were directly affected by the presence of Native Americans, but not here. Best, epicAdam(talk)22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had put more details in about the Native settlements, a while back, with the reference. But, notice what I originally put has been trimmed and reworded to lose details of what the source says. I have put back some of the details and source material, and welcome others to adjust or improve it. Though, I do ask for any material added to be cited to a reliable sources. --Aude (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's definitely worth mentioning that the territory that now is the District of Columbia was previously settled by Native Americans, including settlements in Anacostia. (hence the name) And, the name of the Potomac River is derived from those who were settled in the area. And mention that the Native Americans were pushed further west by the European settlers. This puts the history of Washington, D.C. in better context, and I think makes it more neutral. --Aude (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Aude. I don't object as much to mentioning Native American settlements in the history sub-article, even though I do believe that Native American settlements had more to do with the foundations of colonial America instead of the foundations of Washington, DC 200 years later when there were no Native American settlements left in the area. Best, epicAdam(talk)23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, I totally get what you're saying. That's why I don't really object too much to the material being present in this article, and actually never have. I'm just pointing out that if we take the "comprehensiveness" argument all the way out to its logical conclusion and include everything' that happened in the history of a place (even before the place even existed) then we would be writing forever. We could technically start off the article with "The area that is now Washington, D.C. was possibly formed by the big bang over 13 billion years ago..." Obviously that's absurd, but you can see my point. More realistically, people can ask why we don't include more of the history of the area in between European colonization and DC's establishment. Surely the history of the area when it was still Maryland (and to some extent Virginia) is all important? I think the logical answer to that is "Well, that's included in the history of Maryland". Best, epicAdam(talk)23:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EpicAdam, Your third objection is starting to sound like classic racist white supremacist POV. If there were natives living here, we can't mention them on wikipedia, because they're irrelevant. Unfortunately for those who hold this attitude, most quality history books nowadays (2008) do mention them, and there is no valid (non-racist) reason why we shuld not. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of the deeper history can't hurt, particularly when one can trace both the names of both rivers back to Indian roots. That said, deriding EpicAdam's arguments as "classic racist white supremacist POV" crosses the line. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA. JohnInDC (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my comment was out of line. You want to pretend there is no such thing as racist attitudes like "Those people don't matter, because of their race, therefore let's not talk about their history, they are less important than everyone else" etc. Those same attitudes are alive and well, even in 2008. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pretending anything. I am reminding you of the well-established Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, which means - among other things - not to effectively call someone a racist after two or three Talk page exchanges. (WP:NPA of course prohibits such ad hominem attacks altogether.) JohnInDC (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but AGF is not a one way street. Good faith was not shown to me when I added the material, even though I have reliable sources that are verified. That broke "good faith" right there. Also I only compared his remarks to the same and similarly worded racist attitudes Native Americans have undeniable endured for centuries. Read carefully before shooting your mouth off, if you don't intend to actually do anything about it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what epicAdam says at the beginning - all of which is classic info and worth saving for future use BTW (!). I do think that the arbitrary geographical descriptions that we have wound up with do encompass past history including (correctly) even geologic history. In one article I'm looking at, we have tectonic plates colliding, glaciers etc. - minor part of the article. But all this will be forked someday "Geology of Washington DC" I suppose. I do not claim to have any info about what native Americans would have lived where when. I would have guessed Delawares had I been asked. But what do I know? Student7 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking African-American and other minority history[edit]
It is very strange to read an article on history of a city with decades-long majority African-American population that has so few references to it, other than late 20th c. riots. They developed high quality schools and students, colleges, churches, a broad array of civic institutions, a strong middle and upper class, etc. New York's and Chicago's history contains more on African American history in their respective cities. Washington, DC history is more than planning and the federal government.--Parkwells (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely true. I don't have many references on-hand to do an adequate job of providing the information. If you have any sources to add information about Washington's black community, please add them. Historical population figures and statistics would also be helpful at Demographics of Washington, D.C. Any help there would be tremendous as well. Best, epicAdam(talk)17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a CN in the Founding heading[[1]] when the article goes into detail over the Philadelphia convention deliberations. This is a minute factoid - while important, it is not cited, but should be. Spuchuu (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get what you're saying. If you mean the 4 quadrants, that is difficult to say. The quadrants originally applied only to the City of Washington (that would now be the area south of what is now Florida Avenue and Benning Road). The quadrants did not extend into Georgetown, Alexandria, or any of the outlying portions of the original 100-square-mile District. The street name and quadrant system were not applied to the whole of the District until the 1890s, well after the Virginia retrocession. I am not sure that anybody has done the calculations to determine how large each quadrant would be if the boundary lines were extended into Arlington. Best, epicAdam(talk)16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, sorry if I am not clear. I am looking for the area size of Washington City, Georgetown, Washington County. Smith03 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, the sentence that starts "At the time, the Patawomeck (loosely affiliated with the Powhatan) and the Doeg lived on the Virginia side, as well as on Theodore Roosevelt Island..." requires clarification - side of what? I presume the Potomac River. The previous reference is to the Anacostia River, which is bounded by Maryland on both sides. Hence the confusion to the reader. I am not going to correct because I am new to editing and, while it seems Potomac is correct, I hesitate to make the edit as I do not know this material.
I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on History of Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on History of Washington, D.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
