Talk:Washington, D.C.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2024

• • • • • • • • • The first paragraph of this wiki should be replaced with this amended and more acurate version*********

"Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia,(renamed in 1871) formally the Territory of Columbia (named Sep 9th 1791) and now commonly called Washington or D.C., is the capital city and federal district of the United States. The city of Washington is positioned on the Potomac River, across from Virginia, and shares land borders with Maryland to its north and east. The city of Washington, was named for one of our founding fathers and 1st President, George Washington. The surrounding territory, the District of Columbia, was named in honor of Christopher Columbus. Columbia, being the female personification of Columbus, and at the time, it was a commonly known patriotic reference for the United States during the American Revolution. The city of Washington was founded in 1790. When Congress passed the residence Act, the 100 square mile territory established around would eventually become the Territory and then District of Columubia. Although the territory would not be recognized by the states, that it was taken from until 1801. Even so, the 6th Congress season was held in the unfinished capital building in 1800. 2603:6080:EA05:A148:84E3:7DD4:BCEF:4E8A (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Too much detail for a lead's first sentence, less concise, and not within MOS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Why omit the part about Christopher Columbus? 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

FAR

FAR absolutely needed, unless someone’s willing to save the article here. the most prominent problem is in the number of citations needed, in addition to numerous unsourced sentences/paragraphs. other problems include the excessively long lead, the and tags, and the numerous single-sentence paragraphs. if i’m being honest, most city WP:GA articles are better than this. 750h+ 14:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead was reworked last month and is now of a reasonable size (IMO), but the other issues remain unaddressed, and I agree it's FAR time unless someone steps forward soon. Queen of Hearts ^talk 06:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I may take a crack at the next section, "Founding", which slogs through several over-detailed paragraphs of (often unsourced) background before it gets to the actual founding. But before I do that I have to figure out what the actual narrative there should be. It's kind of hard to tease it out of the current material, which is itself a sign. JohnInDC (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues are still present - 20 CN tags among other things. Some content is also outdated, such as The Government Accountability Office and other analysts have estimated that the city's high percentage of tax-exempt property and the Congressional prohibition of commuter taxes create a structural deficit in the district's local budget of anywhere between $470 million and over $1 billion per year. sourced to sources from 2003 and 2011. Since D.C. does not have enough shelter units available, every winter it books hotel rooms in the suburbs with an average cost around $100 for a night. According to the D.C. Department of Human Services, during the winter of 2012 the city spent $2,544,454 on putting homeless families in hotels,[310] and budgeted $3.2 million on hotel beds in 2013.[311] is also statistics from about 10 years ago. Private school enrollment figures given are from 2008, while the charter school enrollment is from 2010. The rest of the article needs reviewed for such out-of-date content as well. Hog Farm _Talk 23:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tackled a few of the cns, mostly by removing tangential content. I think this is salvageable but it'll still be a lot of work. Content not actually about D.C. has crept in in a number of places; lots of things that should be one-sentence summaries wind up accruing several sentences of fluff; and the Media section is an undersourced mess based largely on primary sources. (Disclaimer: I have a COI with respect to The Atlantic, which is the subject of one of the offending paragraphs.) Primary-source .gov cites are also a major issue regarding demographic claims in a number of sections. I'll keep poking at this but I think the issues may run too deep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Arlington National Cemetery and other things that are not in D.C.

This article has a major problem with staying on-topic.

Dmford13 has restored an off-topic paragraph I removed about Arlington National Cemetery. The cemetery is one of several details I've removed from the article lately because it is not in Washington, D.C. Dmford's argument is

Also appropriately mentioned on this page despite not actually being in DC: Pentagon, Washington Commanders, Rosslyn, Tysons, Silver Spring, BWI, Reagan National, Dulles Airport, almost the entire private sector part of the economy section, US Air Force memorial, National Harbor, Old Town Alexandria, 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, Mount Vernon, tomb of the unknown soldier, PBS, MARC, VRE, numerous bus systems. They're mentioned because they all relate to DC and the people who live there or visit.

To be clear, there are obviously some cases when not-in-D.C. locations would be due to mention here: Namely, when secondary reliable sources discuss them in the context of D.C. The only secondary source cited for Arlington National Cemetery is this listing in a USNWR list of "Best Things To Do in Washington, D.C." However, the cemetery is ranked 15th on that list. All of these are ranked higher, but not currently mentioned: the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the WWII Memorial (also wow what a horrible pick for #4), the Korean and Vietnam War Memorials, the MLK Memorial. the Air & Space Museum. the African American History Museum, the Holocaust Memorial & Museum, the National Gallery of Art, the Kennedy Center, the Natural History Museum, and the National Cathedral. But instead we mention four semi-arbitrary spots in D.C. (Jefferson Memorial but not White House??) and then, inexplicably, an entire paragraph on a place in another state, most of it sourced to its official website.

Now, if there are secondary sources about the impact of Arlington National Cemetery on D.C.'s tourist economy, by all means, let's cite that. I don't know if they exist, and they probably still wouldn't justify a full paragraph, but certainly such sources exist for the relevance of a number of things Dmford mentioned. But otherwise, yeah, a lot of these shouldn't be in the article, at least not unless someone can show sources discussing them in the context of D.C. This is an article about D.C., not about the D.C. Metro area, not about the United States federal government. Those things are covered in their own articles; they only belong here where sources show their relevance. So of the remaining examples Dmford gave, I would propose that, in addition to removing the Arlington paragraph (without prejudice against mentioning it more briefly per the USNWR source, if someone gets the Tourism section to a decent place), we should also remove:

• Media companies based in nearby jurisdictions. Washington metropolitan area § Media already covers this.
• The paragraph about companies based in Northern Virginia. (USA Today and Gannett, despite not being based in D.C., manage to get mentioned in two separate sections this way.)
• The paragraph about landmarks in Northern Virginia and in Maryland, including the utter trivia of the National Spelling Bee being held in Maryland.
• Probably more, but this is just based on the examples Dmford gave

... unless there exists adequate reliable secondary sourcing showing that they are relevant to D.C. or its residents. Even there, the prose should be phrased in that context, e.g. Many D.C. residents work for businesses in Northern Virginia, such as... (which I imagine one can find sources for).

What do others think? This is a featured article in name still. I don't see any way to give it even a chance of staying that way without cutting all this bloat and meandering. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for raising this here. Your presentation is much better than the one I wasn't going to get around to doing anyhow.

It's a little sticky, because "Washington DC" is shorthand for so many things that aren't necessarily confined to the District's actual borders, and this article is a handy place to collect them. Tourist activities, headquarters of national organizations - it seems at some level a little pedantic to exclude them from mention simply because (in the case of Arlington, since we're talking about it) they may lie immediately across the river.

But at the same time I agree about bloat and cruft, the desperate need to pare the article down. I further believe that most of the other examples offered by DMFord do not warrant mention here. Maybe linked (almost as a See Also) in a separate section, "Nearby points of interest" - I don't know. Passing mention at most. The article of course is not, in the end, a Tourist Guide. There are websites for that.

What I do think is that, whatever rule or principle we strive toward, it should be as simple and objective as possible. Maybe 3d party sourcing is the way to go. Part of me fears that then instead of arguing about our own opinions we'd probably wind up arguing about how much 3d party sourcing is enough; but it still seems like a step in the right direction. JohnInDC (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

One approach, which would sidestep some of this, is to put the article on a sort of primary source "diet". For every primary source in the article that doesn't have an accompanying secondary source showing its relevance, slap an {{npsn}} on it. Anything someone tries to find a non-primary source for and fails, or only finds limited coverage that would not satisfy WP:DUE/WP:BALASP, remove it. I think this would be needed to survive FAR regardless, so the only radical part of this idea is doing it in an aggressive push rather than piecemeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph about the surrounding attractions, sure. A paragraph dedicated entirely to a single attraction not in DC? No. I agree with the OP that it should have been removed. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think either of these approaches could be made to work, and I would vote for the one that is more likely to help this article claw its way back firmly into FA category. I do kind of like the raw utility of a quick-list of "Washington" type things that aren't actually in the District, but acknowledge that that can get quickly out of hand. Arlington National Cemetery, sure. (Not that it really matters but Arlington was part of the District when the Lee Mansion was built!) Likewise the FBI, if it moves to the 'burbs. But the NRA in Fairfax or NIST in Maryland? I don't know. Of the list at the top of this topic I can see mentioning the Pentagon and whatever new name FedEx field just got, if directly tied to the Washington Commanders, but everything else just seems - adjacent.

I appreciate the "secondary source" approach but wonder if that will work for anything but tourist attractions. You won't find many that assess different agencies or attractions along the measure of "Washingtonian-ness". JohnInDC (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well I think that as long as something is in D.C., there's a presumption that it's relevant to this article (although not necessarily DUE). The idea of a source establishing D.C. relevance is only for things that lack that presumption.

But my point about secondary sources really runs deeper than the concern that led me to post this section. For instance, § Federal government has

• one sentence sourced to a primary source
• one sentence that stealthily has no source
• one sentence sourced to a tangential source and bordering on SYNTH, which is just regurgitating White House stats anyways

§ Diplomacy has:

• one sentence sourced to a .gov
• one sourced to washington.org, run by the local tourism industry
• one sourced to two self-published works
• one to populartimelines.com, which does not appear to be an editorially-reviewed source
• one to a second .gov

So between those two sections, there is not a single source that is independent, reliable, secondary, and actually about D.C. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, here's a breakdown of every source currently in the article:

136 government sources

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136]

40 other non-independent sources, including tourism organizations

[137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176]

10 historical societies and preservation organizations (degree of reliability and independence varies)

[177] [178] [179][180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186]

24 unreliable or questionably reliable third-party sources

[187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210]

10 (probably-)reliable third-party sources not about D.C.

[211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220]

168 (probably-)reliable third-party sources actually about D.C.

[221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335] [336] [337] [338] [339] [340] [341] [342] [343] [344] [345] [346] [347] [348] [349] [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365] [366] [367] [368] [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387] [388]

I'm sure I made a few mistakes in there, and the boundaries between some of the categories is a bit blurry, but I think overall this paints a picture of what we're up against: With an FA you'd expect most sources to fall into that last category, none from the fourth, and a moderate amount from the others in the cases where those are the best sources. Instead, only 43% of the sources are in that category, and the overuse of non-independent sources allows room for stealthy SYNTH and undue weight.

As you can see, I also uncovered a significant reliability issue among even the independent sources in the course of this audit, but that's easier to fix, and if I have time tomorrow I'll get to replacing or removing those as appropriate. The awkward middle ground of reliable-but-not-independent is where it's a bit tougher, but again I think dramatically cutting back on our usage of such sources would fix a number of this article's problems. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I was called in as a experienced FA source reviewer and writer as a consult. What I see from reading the article is that it is currently is trying to be the article on the DMV such as things that are in NoVA or MoCo. The article needs a trim down to a focus on the city itself. It also take a very east of Rock Creek, transplants, and visitors-focus on the city. See the passing line about Go-Go next to paragraph about Dischord Records. Chocolate City and other high-quality RSes about the Black experience in DC are nowhere to be found. I am willing to help, but this is more than surface-level work. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Very serious problem with article

There's a very serious omission in the current version of this article: there's no map that shows which counties of the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland are adjacent to Washington, D.C. Please fix! 98.123.38.211 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

While not in map form, the first paragraph of the Geography section informs the reader which counties of neighboring states border Washington in each direction. Not even the Geography of Washington, D.C. article includes a map with county names. Why do you believe it needs to be in map form here? —ADavidB 02:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Demonym: "Washingtonian" vs. "DC resident"

Let's bring the discussion about the correct demonym for people who live in Washington, D.C., from the edit summaries to here. Devryjones says it's "D.C. resident," citing DC laws and governmental usage; Cristiano Tomás says it's "Washingtonian", citing common usage. PRRfan (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is that people from the entire DC Metro (or DMV), including Maryland and Virginia and sometimes even as far as West Virginia, commonly refer to themselves as “Washingtonians;” the people who live in the District proper are “DC residents.”

The GPO recommends using the archaic term “Washingtonian”, although the territorial government has legislated the term “resident of the District of Columbia” and uses “DC resident” to advocate for people who live in the territorial boundaries. I am a DC resident and take this seriously. Devryjones (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Has the DC government legislated that? I didn't see that in either of the citations in your edit summary that said "Cited DC's legislation naming "resident of the District of Columbia" and "DC resident" as the official demonyms or DC.": one and two. Instead, they refer to "D.C. resident(s)" for legal clarity. This is common; for example, in Missouri, where the demonym is indubitably "Missourian", government sites commonly refer to "Missouri residents". This is no doubt because demonyms are fuzzy; are you a Missourian only if you're born there? If you've lived there a while? 10 years? That legal affairs require more precise terminology does not (necessarily) define a demonym. Or am I missing something? PRRfan (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering that the law passed with the definition of a “resident of the District of Columbia” included, I’d in fact argue that the term has been legislated.

A better example of a comparable term is “Hoosier” for someone from Indiana. This demonym was legislated by the state’s government and took years for the GPO to recommend.

People who were born in DC tend to use “DC native” or “District native”, with the former term being applicable to the general region and the latter being specific to the District itself. “DC resident” refers specifically to people who currently reside in the District.

It’s complicated, but DC residents advocate for a distinct identity from our Marylander and Virginian neighbors. Devryjones (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

When you say "the law," are you referring to Sec. 503 on p. 5 of this document, where it says "A resident of the District of Columbia is one who is living in the District of Columbia voluntarily and not for a temporary purpose"? That passage defines what "a resident of DC" is for the specific purpose of establishing eligibility for public assistance under this law. It is not a general declaration of "what we call residents of DC". I daresay you will find such language in many DC laws, and indeed widely in the laws of states with fully official demonyms. Take, for example, Indiana's law on family assistance: it talks about "residents of Indiana" with nary a mention of Hoosiers. So I don't think you're going to be able to rely on passing use of "DC resident" in official documents to win consensus here. I would, of course, welcome official DC-government statements on demonyms.

I hear you saying that some DC residents, at least, are advocating for "DC resident". Good citations would help buttress that line of argument. PRRfan (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve identified in the past a DC government page specifically defining a person who lives in the District as a DC resident and giving reasons why for research for a project before. Unfortunately I’ve been having a hard time relocating that page.

When I find it again, I’ll cite that DC.gov page Devryjones (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In doing more research: Mayor Bowser and some of her appointees use “Washingtonian;” the remainder of the District government uses “DC resident.” With this in mind, I’d be willing to equally represent both terms as legitimate. Devryjones (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm a former resident of DC, Fairfax County, and Montgomery County. I only ever heard "Washingtonian" used in the context of someone living in Washington. No one ever got confused with other states. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

But once again, "DC resident" is not a demonym its a description. Washingtonian is the demonym. There is no legislation referring to the actual terminology on how to refer to a resident of DC, merely what the definition of that residency is. Washingtonian is used by a variety of sources, including:

• DC Government, in both a general sense, such as "giving every Washingtonian a fair shot..." (FY 2020 Proposed Budget Highlights), or in a specific sense referring to individuals, such as "fifth-generation native Washingtonian, she is committed to..." (Mayor's Office on Women’s Policy and Initiatives)
• Major local publications, such as Politico, see "I’ve Never Seen Washingtonians So Scared" - or The Washingtonian (obviously), see Washingtonians of the Year - or the Washington Post, see ...crisis that has killed more than 2,000 Washingtonians...
• Minor local publications, like Secret DC - see "is frightening, some Washingtonians might be surprised to hear" or The Washington Informer, see "Washingtonians Call for Fair Representation in Congress"
• Local news channels, such as WUSA9, see Washingtonians who rely on scooters to zip around the city won't be left without options
• Capitol Hill lawmakers, such as "...without breaking the backs of hard-working Washingtonians..."
• Local businesses, from trade organizations such as a Greg Lane of the Building Industry Association of Washington: "they know Washingtonians want energy choice.” to local restaurants like Osteria Mozza, “a major coup for Washingtonians”

That the term is not universally used, anyone can concede, but that it is "archaic" or "informal" is ludicrous. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but the term “Washingtonian” is also broadly used for people who live in the suburbs. “DC resident” is specific to people who live in the District. People who live in PG or Fairfax County commonly call themselves Washingtonians or even say they live in DC, but it’s not specific to the 700,000 or so people who live in DC. Even Washingtonian Magazine constantly has articles about places and events in Maryland and Virginia.

Since the article is specific to the District, I argue that “DC resident” is in fact a demonym. It’s more precise to what the article is about. Devryjones (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources backing up the claim that Washingtonian is broadly used by the suburbs. Not that it matters though, as it's definition is precisely for DC. On another point, people from Arlington or Bethesda have been saying they're from DC for years, so that argument really doesn't mean anything. Heck, there's folks in Jersey City who call themselves New Yorkers - that doesn't negate the proper usage of the term. Wikipedia is not here to serve as the arbiter of who is and isn't a Washingtonian. The term is used and we record it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering what you say about Montgomery County residents, you’re a primary source. ☺️ But talk to locals; watch reality shows that brand are branded as DC-based. They’ll largely be filmed in Maryland and Virginia.

My intent here is not to arbite or gatekeep but to maintain accuracy. The article is about the District of Columbia; there is another article about the Greater Washington Metropolitan Area.

DC proper = DC resident

Greater Washington (including DC) = Washingtonian Devryjones (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You have no sources to back your claims. The page will stay as it is. There are shows branded as San Francisco that are shot in San Mateo, ones set in Los Angeles shot in Santa Monica - none of that is relevant. And P.S. I am a local (not that that matters in the slightest). Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I cited sources for the use of DC resident and resident of the District of Columbia. Minimally, the specific “DC resident” should stay since it’s a phrase to specify actual residents of the District.

——

I’ll concede that I cited no sources for Marylanders, Virginians, and even West Virginians misrepresenting themselves as being from “DC.”

I’ll also agree that it’s a common for people from suburbs commonly misrepresent themselves as from the closest city. That doesn’t make it less of a lie. Devryjones (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"I’ll also agree that it’s a common for people from suburbs commonly misrepresent themselves as from the closest city." So you would advocate changing "New Yorkers" to "New York Residents" because someone from Jersey might lie about where they're from? What makes DC special in this regard? --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering that New York and New Jersey residents both have full congressional representation, it’s not a big deal.

DC residents do not have voting representation in Congress, and laws passed by DC Council, initiatives and referendums are all subject to congressional review in a way that Maryland and Virginia do not have.

That’s what makes DC’s relationship with its suburbs from New York’s. Devryjones (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Devryjones: You say, "I cited sources for the use of DC resident and resident of the District of Columbia", but, begging your pardon, you have not. As discussed above, the sources you cited present no evidence that "DC residents" is a demonym. I will say that your arguments have given me the nagging sense that saying "Washingtonian is the demonym" is a bit too pat—like maybe it deserves some discussion in the article, or at least in a note—but unless we can present sources saying so, I don't see a consensus forming for it. PRRfan (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m guessing that the former page on DC.gov declaring that a person who lives in DC is called a DC resident was taken offline sometime earlier in the Bowser Administration. The majority of the DC.gov site refers to “DC residents” rather than “Washingtonians.”

Without being able to find that original source page, it’s an argument I can’t win. I’ll concede, even if I’ll never personally use Washingtonian to refer to a DC resident. Devryjones (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Like with all things, we use the answer to "what do the majority of reliable sources use?" I suggest you find that answer --

Spelling of "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth"

There are two instances where the proposed name of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is spelled incorrectly as "Washington, Douglas Commonwealth" (with one s in Douglas). It should be "Douglass" with two s's seeing as the name is for Frederick Douglass, as the article linked states (Reference 60). Fsbofqpybom (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Both are now corrected. —ADavidB 10:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)