Talk:Washington, D.C./Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Name

There is no discussion of a common question of where the name is derived from. This website, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/COLUMBUS/col3.html, says: "...and the new capitol in Washington was subtitled District of Columbia, in deference to those who would name the country after Columbus." Is this true?67.8.85.33 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The name Columbia is certainly derived from Columbus. However, by the 18th century the name "Columbia" became a popular name for the United States; this is explained in detail in the article Columbia (name). It is clear that the commissioners charged with developing the capital named the territory because of its association with America, not as a tribute to Christopher Columbus himself. If you substitute the names, the city would be the "District of the United States", which absolutely makes sense when you think about it.

As for the source you cite above, I would be careful about using it. The website seems to be a class assignment and is therefore not a Reliable Source. The fact that they claim that Washington was "subtitled District of Columbia" is completely inaccurate and makes me question the second part of the paper's uncited claim. I hope this answers your question. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Uses

The hatlink at the top of the page is to help guide users who may have been misdirected to this article. The state of Washington already exists in the primary article namespace. The only way to get to this article is to specifically type "Washington, DC", "District of Columbia" (or some variant thereof) or to link from another article page. Given this situation, it is highly unlikely that those looking for Washington state would be mistakenly directed to this article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Black population history

Hi. Thank you for contributing to the article. I wanted to lay out my reasons from removing the information to the history section. One, I did update the percentage of freed black in DC. The information was actually already in the citation from the Library of Congress, so there's no need to add an additional reference. I did, however, remove the statistic about the number of freed blacks following the Revolutionary War. That 10% figure was for the nation as a whole, not just the District and therefore is inappropriate. That is clearly true because the District didn't exist during the American Revolutionary War; it was formed years after.

Since this article is an FA, I also think the H-Net source is problematic. H-Net is a community website. While scholars do submit information to the site, not all of the people there are. Nor, for that matter, is the information verified or reviewed in any manner. The particular article you cited was actually a book review from an "independent scholar", and probably would not pass WP:RS.

If you have another source for the information about the freed black communities in DC, please feel free to re-add it, but possibly to the Demographics section. Thanks for your help. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, not all of the information is demographic history. Believe me, when I rewrote the article for FA a while ago, I went through and added in information about the city's freed slaves, DC emancipation, black culture in the city, contributions to music and art, and made sure that the city's black history was reflected in the article's main photograph. I'm just a stickler for sources, and I have a pretty good feel for which sources pass muster and which ones don't. The fact is that almost anybody can post to H-Net. If the UMD scholar has this information published in another source, or better yet if the information is in Washington History (that's HSW's publication, right?) then that would be the appropriate source to cite. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I readded much of the removed material back into the demographics section. I think it makes more sense there since it can be tied into the information about the city's current black population. I'm hesitant to add additional details given the article's current size. I appreciate your comments. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Education and Health Care

Currently, the images in this section include a school and university building. Should one of them be replaced with an image of a hospital since the section is titled Education and Health Care? I have pictures of Howard University Hosptial, George Washington University Hospital, and Georgetown University Hospital if they're needed. APK is not a Womanizer 13:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey APK. I don't have any objections to adding an image of a hospital. My only concern is that hospital buildings tend to be rather drab and generic. Like, if I had to pick between an image of Founder's Library and HUH... Founder's Library is the much more iconic image. I also think that GW and Georgetown are already well-represented in the article (main image and economy section). If you do have a good image of a hospital (maybe Washington Hospital Center, since it's the largest?) then we could replace the image of Georgetown Prep. Best always, epicAdam^(talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, you're probably right. Hospital architecture doesn't scream fabulous. ;-) APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 17:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, Guam, and federal laws

Unlike U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal laws and taxes.

I removed "laws and" from the above sentence. As far as I know, everyone in Puerto Rico and Guam has to obey U.S. federal law. Tempshill (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Famous Lafayette

I see why you chose to remove "famous", but I think you're wrong. I wasn't saying he was famous, although he undeniably is, and that is not a matter of opinion, I was saying that he was the Lafayette we all know about from the Revolution, not some other Lafayette who happened to be a Major General. Stop reverting everything I'm doing here. You do not own this article, and I know what I'm doing. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have noticed, I have not reverted everything; just instances in which you have unnecessarily added commas. Not everybody is familiar with revolutionary history and calling somebody "famous" is not going to aid readers in that respect. The Wikilink to the appropriate Lafayette is sufficient, should any readers be confused as to which one is being referenced. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. I apologize for getting a little hot there, but I'm putting in work that's being wasted. Who has the right to just revert like that? --Milkbreath (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:PEACOCK. --Golbez (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be a peacock word in an article about Lafayette, but it's simply an identifying word here. And I believe I've edited the peacock page. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am with EpicAdam on the commas. Those that he reverted back out made the text harder to follow, rather than easier. There is no virtue to copyediting in that case. As for "famous", perhaps there is another way to make the point. "Lafayette of Revolutionary War fame" identifies him without the flavor of evaluation, of assessment, that the simple adjective "famous" conveys. JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This comma is not susceptible to our judgment here. They are a part of the printed English language and have been for a long time. Why are we talking about this? This is a wiki, and I'm allowed to put in what are mandatory commas in the real world if I want to. As for "famous", I understand the objections and agree that "Lafayette of Revolutionary War fame" is better. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I still dislike the use of the word "fame" and other variations of it. To say "of Revolutionary War fame" supposes that readers have knowledge of American history, which is certainly not the case for many Wikipedia readers. If you didn't know who Lafayette is, his "fame" isn't going to help your understanding. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)OK, then, how about "the Marquis de Lafayette"? My problem with "Major General Lafayette" was that the specifying of the rank made me wonder whether this was the Lafayette of Revolutionary War, well, fame or some other one I was unaware of, since I'd never heard him referred to that way before. It was like encountering "General Alexander" for "Alexander of Macedon". He has always been "the Marquis de Lafayette" or, more usually, simply "Lafayette", which, come to think of it, works. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose simply stating "arrived in the American colonies with Major General Lafayette during the Revolutionary War". I doubt there can be too many Lafayettes who arrived during the Revolutionary War, and the edit also conveys the time period. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Commas separating elements of a place name

There is disagreement concerning the comma after "D.C.". There must be a comma after it for the same reason there always is after the name of a state in sentences like "He was born in Feefer, Utah, in 1902." This is not open to debate; it is common practice in every edited printed work since the dawn of time. Our Manual of Style is silent, so we should adhere to common practice, not decide helter-skelter on an article-by-article basis, letting whoever shows up "decide" something that was decided long ago by experts unlike ourselves. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll pretty much repeat what I said above. Punctuation that creates ambiguity or makes a sentence harder to read is not helpful even if it is correct. Those commas aren't helpful. I suspect this has something to do with the way we tend to parse "Washington, D.C.", which is as a unitary name for the place rather than the city/state formulation that it technically follows. I'd be just as happy to leave out the comma between Washington and DC. Indeed if we did that then the comma after "D.C." would track fine. As in so many other things, Washington, D.C. appears to be a bit of a special case. JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The great thing is that language is that it does evolve. For example, I was taught in journalism school to never include a secondary period at the end of a sentence like you've done with "D.C." By the same token, I very rarely see such commas either. This brings me back to my original argument: people can debate endlessly about orthography, that's why we do rely on deciding things on an "article-by-article" basis. I think that the addition of the commas is unnecessary because they do not help readers. I also believe the addition of a comma after "D.C." changes a sentence's structure. For example, the addition of a comma in "If Washington, D.C., were a state," I believe transforms "were a state" into an apposition (a phrase used to describe the subject). To me, if the addition of punctuation is unhelpful in better aiding readers and potentially changes the grammar, its inclusion is unnecessary. And, for what it's worth, I do agree with JohnInDC that "Washington, D.C." is a bit of special case in that it does not follow standard place names. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you guys been through this before? You seem to have prepared statements handy. The comma in question is invisible if you're not looking for it. Please look at any, and I mean any, reputably edited printed matter of the last 50 years. Yes, language changes, but there is a school of thought that says "That's what the guy who made a mistake said." Language has historically changed by a process of mistakes becoming accepted, but I'm mystified by those who take that to mean that we should go out of our way to make mistakes and defend them to hasten the process. Let's do our best to get it right as it stands. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its duty is to be accessible. We should not invent new typographical conventions here; it distracts the reader from the material. (That was not a double period, by the way. The quotation mark intervenes. Nobody taught you not to do that, and if they did they screwed up.) --Milkbreath (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Adam, but I'm just writing this stuff down as it comes to me. It's very easy to do when what one is saying makes sense! JohnInDC (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've worked at different publications which have several separate sets of style guidelines. At times, guidelines at each publication directly contradicted each other. Does that mean that one is right and the other is wrong? Perhaps they're both wrong. Here on Wikipedia, since we don't follow any particular set of editing guidelines, we make our own based on consensus. Just because a particular consensus does not reflect what you see as "standard" doesn't mean that it's wrong or needs to be changed. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me a stylebook that allows that comma to go. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I drift through Wikipedia copyediting, and I like to touch up the FAs before they hit the street, so to speak. Those habits lead me all too often into confrontation with [,the word "troll" being taken and meaning something else,] badgers who turn to face me snapping and snarling no matter how I come at an article to fix it. I think I have a better sense of that aspect of Wikidom than a lot of editors do, having prowled the hinterlands so much. The badgers are always wrong. Sometimes it seems to be some form of mental illness on their part, sometimes they are fighting to preserve their cherished POV, sometimes they are so caught up in the subject of "their" article that they inflate its importance. One shibboleth is "special case". Every true believer thinks that his article involves a special case. The dog people want to capitalize every word having to do with dogs, for example. The bio folks think there is some wonderfulness in their logic that justifies "bacteria" in the singular. We have an article called Antlion, for crying out loud, and we narrowly avoided Antivenom. Consensus, sure, for subject matter, but the language is above it all. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your copyediting prowess is appreciated. I can't show you a style book that "allows the comma to go" as proving a negative is notoriously difficult. To me, however, this comma debate is akin to the fights over British and American English. The British have a few problems with American spelling and punctuation. Americans point out that our language is different, the British point out that they've been writing it longer (they may, in fact, say "since the dawn of time"). Who is right? I certainly couldn't tell you. What I can say is that edits on Wikipedia are made with the benefit of the reader in mind. To me, the inclusion of the comma provides no discernible benefit to the reader and is archaic at best. And with that, I've exhausted all thought on this matter. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I have yet to exhibit much prowess here. I forgot to mention that not only are the badgers always wrong, they always win. That is one of the flies in the ointment around here. So you are saying that the quirky aversion a few editors at a single Wikipedia article have to a comma that the rest of the world uses makes them a dialect unto themselves on a par with an ancient country. It's hard to type while scratching my head. Um, ?????? And the benefit to the reader is that he doesn't wonder where the comma went, the comma that every other printed thing he's ever read uses. I could explain the rationale behind its use, that the higher-level place name is parenthetical and that the preceding comma makes it necessary to finish off lest the reader sense a false continuation, but that all goes without saying. To label a usage "old-fashioned" is mere name-calling, and the only equivalent reply is "Oh, yeah? Newfangled." I think I've countered every argument presented here in favor of reverting my commas, and nobody has effectively countered mine. Is that consensus? --Milkbreath (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this small group of editors is like a country, more like Wikipedia itself is. A people with its own norms, standards, etc. And, as much as I would like Wikipedia to be based on logical debate, that's not always the way it works. However, I will not stand in the way of other editors if they think the comma should be included. That is how consensus works. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Layout of the city would be nice.

Can someone please download a map of the layout of the city similar to the one issued by the National Park Service? My personal opinion is that it would greatly improve the article. Does anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of map? Something like a road map or a map of the national parks? If so, I think that sort of material would be best left to a travel guides like WikiTravel. You'll notice that Washington, D.C.'s entry on that site includes those sorts of maps. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a demographic map would be very useful for the Demographics section, and I certainly need to re-do the infobox map which was done when I was a newbie. The infobox map could show the city closer-up with some of the layout, along with an small inset overview map of showing DC's location within the region. --Aude (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that DC's GIS data, which is very rich with details, is usable [1] within our licensing terms. So, I could make new neighborhood maps or locator maps for other places in DC. --Aude (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Aude: Go for it. Not sure what kind of demographic map you'd like... just total population? race? gender? income? I'm thinking of the ones at Demographics of Philadelphia, which I do not find particularly helpful. They just look like colored mosaics to me. The other issue is that census 2000 data appears to be severely outdated at this point. I don't think anybody can claim that this is the same city that existed 9 years ago. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Census data is available to the census tract, census block group, and census blocks level. The decennial census data is most detailed, providing data at census block level, which is finer detail than neighborhoods but there is an issue with the age of the data. The Census Bureau does annual surveys, such as the American Community Survey, but they don't sample enough people to provide data at a fine level of detail that can be mapped. There are other types of data that are recent and at a fine level, such as crime, vacant properties, food stamps, and probably other types. Or it would be possible to provide a time series, showing demographics (e.g. race) for the 1960-1980-2000 census years. The Philadelphia maps could be a lot cleaner, with less noise, but mine would be similar with color shading (probably light to dark red). Multiple colors is a problem, since people might print them as black and white, and some people are color blind. --Aude (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington or District

The Act of Congress of 1871 states

this portion of said District, included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington

— District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

The name of the city in the infobox has been modified without consensus, and I suppose it must be restored as "Washington" --Jalo 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME says "Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist." the official name seems to be "District of Columbia (see [2]). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Both "District of Columbia" and "Washington" are official. The website you link to uses both terms. —D. Monack ^talk 06:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a link to the articles of incorporation, but the official name seems to be "The Municipality of the District of Columbia". The page I linked above, http://www.dc.gov/ is titled "District of Columbia". Also, I note at http://about.dc.gov/symbols.asp, titled "District of Columbia: About" and headed "Official Symbols of the District of Columbia", shows the Official Seal, which is embossed "District of Columbia". However, I note that the U.S. Census reports statistics for places named "District of Columbia" and "Washington city" within the "District of Columbia Incorporated" (see Table SUB-EST2002-10-11-District of Columbia Incorporated Place Population Estimates, Sorted within County: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, July 10, 2003. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

D. Monack is right. One can argue that both names are "official", as each named is used in a number of various capacities from legislation to license plates. There is, however, only one "legal" name, the District of Columbia. That is affirmed over and over again. While Jalo does provide that one line from the 1871 Organic Act, he fails to mention that the legislation then says: "And upon the repeal of the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, the District of Columbia be and is hereby declared to be the successor of said corporations, and all the property of said corporations, and of the county of Washington, shall become vested in the said District of Columbia". As such, I see nothing wrong with the Wikipedia article's current language. It's accurate, precise, and does a good job explaining a complicated situation to casual readers. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 14:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoyas in VZ Center caption

Adam, just a quick note about an old question. I hate cluttered captions as much as the next guy, and pride myself on being extra concise. I also see the point about each of the previous teams being "The Washington so and so's". My first thing is that there is very little about college sports in the section (not that I'm saying there needs to be more) but if there was to be a note, you might mention the Hoyas. The second thing about the caption was that it completes the list of tenets, and shows how the arena is central to DC sports at all levels. Lastly reading it over, it should go "and the NCAA's Georgetown men's...", but I hesitate to add even more text. As a side note, if more college sports were to be added, we might mention that EagleBank Bowl at RFK.--Patrick «» 07:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I don't have so much of a problem with it. I just know that it was added and then removed in the past, I think by one of the copy editors before FAC. Honestly, it's just a caption and nobody else has brought it up. I'm not sure we should be adding more college sports to the article. Colleges and universities already get a lot of mention in the article. Additionally, to add more info to this article we'd have to show that the college athletics have been in some way adopted by the city as their own. For example, USC and UCLA act (essentially) as LA's football teams. Besides perhaps Georgetown basketball, I don't think any other schools or teams in the District really approach that level of city-wide recognition. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 14:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Top Hat redirect

A hat link was added recently to redirect to Columbia District, in case users who type in "District of Columbia" get to this article. I made the top hat link more general by directing users to Columbia, which includes all variations of the word, including the Columbia District. Either way, I'm not sure the redirect is necessary. To me, a redirect is only helpful for very close terms. I'm just not sure how many people would actually type in "District of Columbia" and not mean the city. Thoughts? Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting rights act

Kudzu1 has inserted some information about the new DC voting rights act that passed the Senate. I think we should hold off mentioning it in this article for a number of reasons:

1. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia doesn't report on future events. i.e., what is likely is not relevant here
2. A number of provisions, such as the Kyl amendment that overturns DC's gun laws are highly controversial and will probably be rejected by the House, leaving the bill in limbo (again)
3. The way the legislation is written basically sends the issue to the Supreme Court as soon as the bill is signed (if it passes). We will therefore have to wait until the court issues a ruling on the law's constitutionality before the law is actually implemented.
4. The proposed legislation is covered adequately in District of Columbia voting rights.

I think any information should be added to the main article only when it is "concrete". Best, epicAdam^(talk) 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Washington leader in foreign investment

An editor has clarified a statement saying that Washington, a city not noted for huge capital investments abroad, is the world leader in investing in foreign real estate. I would believe New York city. DC seems a bit of a stretch. Student7 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reducing median family income

Thanks for deleting the Washington Post reference about median family income in DC. They were quoting the US Census. But you can't trust the Post, can you?Student7 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Burning of Washington

There is actually no occurrence of the phrase "burning of Washington" in this article, and no link from this article to that one. This should probably be corrected. 68.34.11.192 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The link is there. It was originally under "burned the capital" but I broke it out. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

From the article: "On August 24–25, 1814, in a raid known as the Burning of Washington, British forces invaded the capital during the War of 1812, in retaliation for the sacking and burning of York (modern-day Toronto)."

This is wrong, as is clearly stated in the article it references, the Burning of Washington. Rear Admiral George Cockburn had planned an invasion of the National Capital soon after he arrived in the Chesapeake, but lacked sufficient forces to carry it out. When Vice Admiral Alexander Cochrane and Major General Robert Ross arrived, they were determined to sack Baltimore, because it was the homeport of many Privateers that were harassing British commerce the world over. Initially, they were reluctant to attack Washington, since it was of little military significance and was likely to be well defended, and the effort might lessen their available forces and risk the success of an attack on Baltimore (which turned out to be exactly what happened), but Cockburn was able to convince them otherwise.

Though Cockburn arrived in the Chesapeake after the Battle of York, he had conceived his plan to invade Washington long before he learned of it. Remember that, before the railroad and the telegraph, news only traveled as fast as a man on horseback. TCav (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. While a number of reliable sources claim that the burning of Washington was in retaliation for the burning of York, I am aware of the source in the main article that says that Cockburn never mentioned York. Although Cockburn himself may not have thought of the burning of Washington as direct retaliation, it is probable that the Battle of York was used to rally British troops. However, considering that there are probably multiple motives for the burning of Washington, I have edited the article to use the word "following", thereby making the sentence more neutral. Best, epicAdam^(talk)

Actually, no. If you look closely, you'll see that there is only one source that claims that the burning of Washington was in retaliation for the burning of York, and all the rest have just plagiarized the first. That does not consititute "a number of reliable sources." In fact, quite the contrary. But thanks for the edit. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." TCav (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AIDS highest in US?

wonder if this information is correct and encyclopedic. --Docku: What's up? 04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, if it's the hightst in The US, but 3 percent is quite a lot. Here is an article in the Washington Post: At least 3 percent of D.C. residents have HIV or AIDS, City study founds, Rate up 22% from 2006 and I think the information is correct and encyclopedic. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

done. --Docku: What's up? 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3% figure is the official estimate, but most sources (one example: Newsweek) suggest it's actually higher (because 1/3 of the people carrying the virus don't realize it; people not getting tested, etc.) But I guess we should stick to the official numbers? APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

jibberish

Can someone tell me what the jibberish (dfhyijli) is that's located between two templates in the EL section? When I click on the "edit" button, it's nowhere to be found. Is it vandalism? APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey APK. It was vandalism in the capitals of north america template. I removed it. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Periods

Not sure if this has been brought up before - but the Washington D.C. official government website does not place periods after the D and C--158.59.194.251 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This lexical ambiguity is based on the fact that U.S. states are shortened to two letters (MD, VA, DE, etc) and the District of Columbia has requested congress to be admitted as a state, but has been continuously denied. As a way to protest the continuance of being a colony that is subjected to Taxation Without Representation the District of Columbia government chooses to use DC instead of D.C.Justicelovespeace^(talk) 1:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality of living in DC (with reference)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following to the end of the Economy section (reference included):

The UK consulting firm Mercer, in a 2009 assessment "conducted to help governments and major companies place employees on international assignments", ranked Washington, D.C. 44th worldwide in quality of living; the survey factored in political stability, personal freedom, sanitation, crime, housing, the natural environment, recreation, banking facilities, availability of consumer goods, education, and public services including transportation.

Thanks. 67.100.127.253 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Request fulfilled. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the information now, but I just question whether its really necessary. The ranking is relatively meaningless as doesn't provide any additional information about the city itself. I'll leave the question up to discussion. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it added much. I'm sure there are lots of entities that rank "livability" of a lot of cities. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. If there is no objection from anonymous user 67.x.x.x, Porchcrop, or another editor, I will remove the information added shortly. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 07:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Secret Service Police Car Picture

I would like to remove the good faith addition of the picture of the Secret Service police car to the article for the following reasons:

1. The Secret Service isn't even mentioned here; it's left to the subarticle.
2. The Secret Service is not directly related to the city but rather the federal government and the President.

As such I have opened the topic up for discussion. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've made an effort to keep the images tip top, and don't see the reliance of this one. A D.C. police car (see here or here) makes more sense. There is also, a plethora of available images on Flickr from one Andrew Feinberg. I like this one or this one, of his arrest series. Alternatively, we do have graphs, or perhaps we don't need every section to have an image.--Patrick «» 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note Adam, how do you feel about replacing the license plate with this "voting rights mural" or an image of Norton, like this? I may also try to set up a better photo of that mural this week.--Patrick «» 01:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Patrick. I think it would be best to just remove the image rather than trying to replace it with other photos of law enforcement. My reasoning is that Crime is described as a sociological phenomenon as it relates to demographics; police and law enforcement isn't even mentioned in this section at all, except for the "see also" to the MPD... As for the other question, I do like the license plate; I think its unique, iconic and easily understood. I don't think too many people would get the relevance of a picture of a mural in the section, especially since the text is difficult to read as a thumbnail. Plus, I think there may be copyright issues with the image... just because the mural is public art, doesn't mean that the painter has granted a free license. The DC Vote rally may push WP:NPOV just a little too far. I know a few editors (User:SMP0328. comes immediately to mind) who would have a serious problem with the image. Let's see what other editors think. Thanks for your input; it's always appreciated. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the mural idea, especially since I took the photo... It was on the Dc voting rights page for a while, but removed as NPOV by SMP0328. -- Autopilot (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The car looks pretty much like every other police car one would see in any other jurisdiction in the country. I don't see that it adds anything to the article. JohnInDC (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever removed it is kind of not following what wikipedia is built on, and that is the ability to communicate with the editors. I added that picture last night so I would say about 3/4 of a day passed and it was already gone. Thats not how you do it. Next time I ask you to please talk about it before automatically removing it and then deciding to create a discussion. The point of the discussion was to see if it should remain, and I quite don't see the point of this discussion since its been removed. Thanks for pointing out the D.C. police car photos, I missed those, we could put that back up in the crime section, I like MPDC_cruiser_130.jpg. I think that that it also takes common sense to pickup the fact that the secret service has a substantial presence in the city, but I think since its not "officially"(bureaucratically) correct why don't we put up a picture of the that D.C. cruiser. ZStoler (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a picture of any police car. Maybe if DC had an all-amphibious fleet or something else special. As it is, people know what police cars look like, DC's look like everyone else's, and a photo here doesn't add anything particularly enlightening about Washington. JohnInDC (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

District of Columbia

I think we should split this article into two pages: Washington (City) and District of Columbia, as they are not the same thing. The District of Columbia is a seperate thing from the city, as Washington, D.C. is only a part of the federal district. The District of Columbia page would have info on it's history, origin of name, size, and the return of part of it to Virginia.--Carolinapanthersfan (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nowadays I think this distinction is meaningless. But if they were to be separate, what would be in the Washington (City) article? And, how would we sensibly write up that article separately from Washington, D.C.? JohnInDC (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia, when two entities are coterminous and politically identical, we combine the articles. For example, there are not separate articles for:

• Orleans Parish and New Orleans (the city is coterminous with the parish)
• San Francisco County and San Francisco (consolidated city-county so it's a single entity anyway)
• Monaco the city and Monaco the country (the city is a coterminous city-state)
• Singapore the city and Singapore the country (see above)
• Washington, DC, and the District of Columbia (the city is coterminous with the district and the two share governments completely)

The only exception I'm aware of is Philadelphia County and the city of Philadelphia, not entirely sure why it's treated differently from New Orleans. But the point is, the trend seems to be to use one article. Washington and the District are politically the same entity, and share the same borders. There's zero point to split them. --Golbez (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I could not disagree more with Carolinapanthersfan. The argument that the District of Columbia is a separate entity from Washington, D.C. is erroneous and perpetuates a misconception of the uninformed. --epicAdam^(talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The District of Columbia may not be separate entity from the City of Washington but it is enough that the District of Columbia should be treated like a state (D.C. statehood movement) and the City of Washington like the City of New York. Mr Taz (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I can think of precious little history and few facts that apply to one and not to the other. *Even if* Washington DC achieves statehood, I can't imagine what you could say about one that you wouldn't say about the other. If in the future we wind up with a "state", including the "city of Washington" and some smaller, separate, included "federal enclave" - then, maybe, you'd have a conceptual reason to split the article. (It would probably still be a silly thing to do even then.) But today? It's a pedantic distinction, and would only confuse users of the encyclopedia possessed of the popular and commonsense notion that "Washington" and "D.C." are coterminous and indistinguishable. JohnInDC (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree with Mr Taz. First, Washington, DC is a unitary entity. End of story. Doesn't matter if you call it a city/state/federal district; all the information belongs in a single article. Further, not since 1871 has the City of Washington even existed. Finally, the article split tag is ridiculous. There is 53KB of readable prose, well within Wikipedia guidelines at WP:SIZERULE. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Split:

Mr Taz (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm... okay, and on what lines would you split it? We've repeatedly established that Washington City and the District are - politically, geographically, culturally, fundamentally - the same entity. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 combined the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and the County of Washington into the District of Columbia. It should be noted that at the top of nearly all legislation that comes out of Congress, they use "City of Washington," at the beginning and not the District of Columbia. Justicelovespeace^(talk) 1:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be confused as the situation in regards to Congress is exactly the opposite. All legislation from Congress makes reference to the District of Columbia... Check out the Library of Congress and try searching for each phrase. "City of Washington" does not appear in any bills, whereas the "District of Columbia" is referenced in almost 150 pieces of legislation. As such, I think the lead is just fine. Additionally, there's no reason to use color and bold font on a talk page; some people may interpret it as being uncivil. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving the Federal Capital

I believe that it is worthwhile to mention that after the British looting and burning of Washington during the War of 1812, there was some serious consideration in Congress of moving the Federal Capital inland to a much more defensible location. Have read that the new location that was most discussed was an are in or around Cincinnati, Ohio. However, as a long peacetime was settling in across our country, nothing was ever done about moving the capital, and the idea died out.

It is interesting that several states have moved their state capitols several times apiece. For example, there is Georgia, which moved its capital the last time, following the War Between the States, from Milledgeville, GA to Atlanta, GA. That might seem like a long time ago, but it really isn't. Among other states that have moved their capital cities are Alabama, California, Iowa, Tennessee, and Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.175.127 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 in the History Section

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

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

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

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

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

Columbia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable people lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

editsemiprotected

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

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

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

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

1. The information comes from this page: [3], a portion of a newsletter by an unnamed author; I question whether this constitutes a reliable source. Other sources about the 1780 act do not make a similar claim that the law was a "key factor" in moving the capital. (Independence Hall Association) Nearly every other source puts the decision to move the capital squarely on the Compromise of 1790, and the fact that Maryland and Virginia legislatures passed laws to grant land to the Federal government; Pennsylvania did not.
2. There is also a bit of a logical fallacy in the argument that this act was a key factor in moving the capital. The Gradual Abolition Act was in effect while Philadelphia was the capital until 1873, when the Congress was run out of town; it seems like this would have been a reasonable problem at the time as well. When the founders wrote the new constitution in 1787, the capital remained in New York City. When the federal capital did return to Philadelphia, the founders knew full well that the law was still in effect, yet again, this did not prevent their return. In fact, based on the above text, Washington seemed to remedy the problem himself through the use of indentured servants. In addition, slavery would have been legal in any federal district if Congress approved. It therefore seems peculiar that a state law would have been a determining factor in where to put the federal District.

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

Demonym

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

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

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

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

avenues in the district

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

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

Sports Teams

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

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

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

Include ASL as a language in DC

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

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

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

Comments from user talk page

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

DC Architecture and a Few Miscellaneous Items

Dear Adam:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your efforts!

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

Regarding item 1, above:

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

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

Washington DC minimum elevation

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

Regarding the comment above by Raymondwinn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

L'Enfant Footnotes

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

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

District of Columbia as county-equivalent

If 84.60.216.55 believes the District of Columbia is a county, try posting a brief explanation at the content noticeboard. Someone may be able to assist you. APK because, he says, it's true 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In the whole article I have nothing read concerning the topic, that the District of Columbia also forms its owns county-equivalent (and thus counts as a number of 1 in the list of counties & county-equivalents). Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:U.S._Counties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:U.S._Counties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States Maybe someone could mention, or detailingly explain or point it out (maybe "D.C. as county-equivalent", e.g.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.216.55 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC) In the United States, a county (or in Louisiana, a parish) is a political subdivision of a U.S. State. The District of Columbia is neither a state nor a subdivision of a state. Therefore the District of Columbia does not form its own "county-equivalent". If Washington, D.C. is included on some Wikipedia lists of states and counties, it is for comparison purposes only. Best, epicAdam(talk) 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Well, but the article County-equivalent states that D.C. is one; in addition, as you would have been able to see, in my listed links for D.C. on the County statistics page, on the US Census Bureau site itself you can in the county(&county-equivalents) section select D.C. from D.C., indicating, that it forms it own identical unit, but because it is definitive no regular county, it must be a county-equivalent, that's why I did that. Maybe it should be researched, if it is right or false, when the county-equivalent page states that DC is one or not. Sorry, I'm only now seeing your talk page, because I thought if you would talk about the county statistics page, you would do it on the talk page of the article. Hm, but, whether or not D.C. is in or not, you shouldn't have deleted all my changes; that the county-equivalents are the 42 independent cities, louisiana's parishes, alaska's boroughs & census areas is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.216.50 (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I think I'm not going to go on to revert your re-changes on the pages County (United States) and County statsistics of the United States by now, although I'm not thinking that you did have the right to delete all other things that had nothing to do with D.C. (maybe i will change them back; for example, the old versions of the pages stated that there were 3140 counties, but because the source for this was the 2000 Census data, it does not include the two new alaska counties, as i stated in the edit summaries, which can easy be seen by all people; a disfunctioned Viriginia county was even excluded before i started editing). Anyhow, both the County-equivalent page and the County (United States)#County equivalents page state that Washington, D.C. IS a county-equivalent. Please research that before. However, i have seen that an IP has written in the county-equivalent page that D.C. is one and without source, indeed its text rather seems to fit for the description of Washington, D.C. as an independent-city-a-like description, and maybe this unproofed information was just picked up by someone and filled into County (United States)#County equivalents page. Isn't there any possibility for us to clarify this? I mean, the U.S. Census Bureau pages are ridiculous in its orientation and navigation and clarity, but eventhough i have nothing absolutely 100% clear read that D.C. forms a county-equivalent, i have nothing read elsewhere that D.C. is absolutely clear nothing counted as county-equivalent, although i must admit that that's no real argument, i know. But, in addition, if D.C. is none of these things, i think then D.C. should not be brought in in all of the county statistics tabularys, or, if it is only for comparison reasons, it should be clearly noted on the tabularys. I have wondered, too, in the beginning, when i thought that all counties are from the states, and why D.C. is in there, but i thought, the double blocks would come just because the formal district and the formal county-equivalent would be identical. If D.C. is none such thing, I'm sorry for having made wrong changes, but i wouldn't have done it, if not these two wikipedia pages would have said that D.C. is a county-equivalent, and i think that then someone else has not watched that these pages stated and always states wrong facts (or not?). I think that, in general, it's a big problem, that there's no responsibility for every single article on wikipedia, because so such situations just can exist. Besides all of this, I'm not sure whether it's that clear that it would be absolutely impossible, that the USCB would threat or handle D.C. like/as a county-equivalent - I mean, it even says that the Alaska Unorganized Borough consists of 11 census areas, which it says are county-equivalents (although nearly nobody even lives there)... Whatever, maybe it could be clarified, why the two named pages states that D.C. is a county-equivalent. If D.C. really is none, I'm the last in starting an edit-war. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.216.50 (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The District had two counties, Washington County, D.C. and Alexandria County (now in Virginia). According to our article, "Washington County ceased to exist in 1871, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871." If a secondary source says that the District became, in any sense, a successor to the county, that would be helpful. Abductive (reasoning) 02:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County-equivalent speaks of of two counties and two independent cities, but, as said, i don't know how much you can trust this page anymore; however, if i got it right, there could not only e.g. exist counties within a u.s.-state, which can be determined and controlled by the u.s.-state and even can dissolve them practically, as e.g. in the case of Rhode Island, where the counties only exists formally and does have absolutely no function. Or, in turn, the Alaska county-equivalents are not determined by its u.s.-state, but by the US Census Bureau directly; thus, in the same way, even if D.C. itself does not manage a county-equivalent by itself, i think it could be possible that the USCB just declares it for its statistics as a county-equivalent, just formally on the paper (like Rhode Island). However, if the USCB formally decides whether or not something is a county or not, or a county-equivalent or not, maybe it can just asked by e-mail or so if they does count D.C. as a county or a county-equivalent or whatever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.221.163 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I think I have it, I was right: If you got to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ and then compare http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html with http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11/11001.html , you will see that, while the first one of this both links compares D.C. itself with U.S.A. data, and the second of this both links (when you have selected it as a county above) compares D.C. data with data of... yes, of what? There stands D.C., too, and all data are the same, but at nearly the bottom of the tabulary, you can see the line "FIPS Code": on the right "11", the normal FIPS Code for a u.s. state - but, what can be seen on the left? "001" - But what it this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_county_code says that the normal 2-digit FIPS Codes are of the u.s. states, and that there are also 3-digit codes, which are the counties (although the 3-digit county code don't have to be unique, e.g. there could be two or more states which share for one of their counties the same 3-digit-combination - but the county-code is unique in combianation with its state FIPS Code, in this case 11-001); http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/codes/state.html , http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/codes/dc.html , http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/download.html , http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/data/national.txt does absolutely clearly say, that D.C. DOES have a "county" (meaning county-equivalent), but because it is the only one D.C. has, it is in form identical with D.C.; thus, D.C. forms its own county-equivalent - even though it could be possible, that, as I have pointed out above, not D.C. itself manages or even formally directs this county, but the USCB itself for statistical purpose, or whatelse (as said, it does with Alaska also, which government has nothing to do with its own county-equivalents, also). So, I suggest you tell this in this article here, maybe as undertopic "D.C. as county-equivalent", and do it here your way - and let me do it my way in the County (United States) and County statistics of the United States pages. Thank you. Epicadam, you was right that before there was no real proof that D.C. is a county-equivalent, but with this data here, including the USCB link itself, that does itself list the D.C. county, I will revert your revert of my changes in that pages by giving this links as source. If there are any queistions or still things to discuss, please feel free continuing it here, I will look if here comes something new, again, in turn, but I think, it's clear now: " Geography QuickFacts District of Columbia District of Columbia Land area, 2000 (square miles) 61.40 61.40 Persons per square mile, 2000 9,378.0 9,378.0 Federal information processing standards codes (FIPS codes) are a standardized set of numeric or alphabetic codes issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to ensure uniform identification of geographic entities through all federal government agencies. The entities covered include: states and statistically equivalent entities, counties and statistically equivalent entities, named populated and related location entities (such as, places and county subdivisions), and American Indian and Alaska Native areas. FIPS Code 001 11 " " Note that each county is only shown with the 3-digit code unique for that state; for the number to be unique throughout the United States, it requires it be a five digit number, i.e. the three digit code for that county in that state, prefixed with the two digit state number. Click on the highlighted State abbreviation for a list of Counties and County FIPS codes. State Abbreviation FIPS Code State Name DC 11 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA " " County FIPS Code Listing for the State of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA State FIPS Code State Abbreviation FIPS Code State Name DC 11 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County FIPS Codes County Name FIPS Code DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 001 " " FIPS Lookup | Dowload FIPS | Main FIPS Page Download FIPS 6-4 Information National File This file contains comma-delimited records for each state and county. The records are of the format: State Abbreviation, State FIPS, County FIPS, County Name, FIPS Class Code For example: FL,12,011,Broward,H1 DC,11,001,District of Columbia,H6 " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.221.163 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I really don't know what else I can say. I have never seen (nor have you produced) a single reliable source that claims that the District of Columbia is the "equivalent" of a state or county. The U.S. Census Bureau provides statistics on the District, as I have already mentioned, for comparative purposes only; the U.S. Census Bureau does not have the magical power to determine what constitutes a city, county, or state. And with that, I have exhausted all thought on this matter. Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Oh yes, indeed, you're wrong: Exactly that is, what USCB can do - just designate a new census area, borough, county, or somewhat: I know that you mean that a county is more than just a formal unit on a piece of paper, and it often is, but sometimes its just that, its just a formal form the USCB has decided; if the USCB would tomorrrow say, hey, we split Alaskas Unorganized Borough not in 11, but in, let's say, 61 census areas, then there would be from one second to another 50 county-equivalents more - got it? In this way, you are right in suggesting that the USCB has "magical powers" - that way they do, really. As said, e.g., the Rhode Island counties totally absolutely exist only still on paper; if the USCB would say that they would see Rhode Island not divided into 5 but instead into 55 counties, then there are also 50 counties more on the list - but it is just because this list is a list on the paper, independent whether or not a county is really filled with life, that it can be so. And even if D.C. is not a county-equivalent in that way that it would mean something to itself, then it is FORMALLY so, instead (as Rhode Island counties, e.g.). Well, maybe you have not looked carefully enough: As I said, and as that says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorganized_Borough, Alaska , for example, even if it is just a formal construct on the paper (as it is the case with Rhode Islands counties, as you can read there), not the u.s. state, but the US Census Bureau itself can "create" or just say what counts as county/county-equivalent (it does not depend whether the D.C. government itself knows about what they are for the USCB or not, it just doesn't matter) - as it the case, for example, with Alaskas boroughs and census areas. Now, I repeat the links you maybe have not noted above, because not only the U.S. Department Of Environment, but also the U.S. Census Bureau ITSELF, please see again: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11/11001.html / http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/codes/dc.html / http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/data/national.txt Nobody who's not blind can see it (sorry) - not that even there the county-equivalent is listed, it even has its own FIPS county code (11-001), like all other counties/county-equivalents, too; you can't tell me that there's a number for a thing which doesn't exists at all - come on. Don't forget that in 2007 and 2008 the USCB just new created two new Alaska county-equivalents from the Unorganized Borough's census areas, Skagway and Wrangell, see List of boroughs and census areas in Alaska (because the old numbers of county count on the wikipedia pages were sourced by the county number of states of the old 2000 Census data, they did not display this 2 new county-equivalents, rising the number from 3140(one Virigina county disfunctioned meanwhile) to 3142, and, with D.C., as we have seen now, it are 3143 in total) - there you have your magical power. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.221.163 (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think that 84.60.221.163 understands that primary sources cannot be used in cases where another editor challenges the claim. What we need is a secondary source that says DC counts as a county. Personally, I think it does, because the map shows it as purple. Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Hm, okay, I have not thought over your secondary source mention above - but, if I'm thinking it over, I can not that easy see why here is a secondary source needed, just because of the simple point that the US Census Bureau itself indeed just can determine or disfunct theoretically as many counties or county-equivalents as they want. What I'm meaning is: If they can decide themselves alone, to just create or discfunct counties, then everybody, every secondary source just can repeat what they see what the USCB does or formally handles. BUT, because, we know of the both links (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11/11001.html / http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/data/national.txt) from the USCB DIRECTLY ITSELF, I can't see why this could be of any doubts. Okay, they could have given in their data on their own website wrong, but, hm, I don't know where other, secondary sources could get their information from if not from the USCB. But, besides this, it, too, is just not true, that there's no other secondary source then the USBC websites: Above I have also listed the it clearest displaying link of all from the U.S. Department of Environment (again: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/codes/dc.html ), PLUS, all other sources and all sources, which contain the whole FIPS Code data, clearly show FIPS county code#External links that, as I stated above, there's a unit "11-001", meaning that District of Columbia (FIPS state code "11") has [identical with/as/in/forming out of itself] a county[-equivalent] (FIPS county code [D.C./11-]"001") - that's just it, from my point, but I don't want you feel uncomfortable to proof it, please do so; I don't want to say that the one or the other one is right just because of it; I just want to know how it really is - I can understand that it could be a little unbelievable that there's such a thing not known, about a topic you're knowing nearly all about, but, as I said, it don't have to be a concrete link to D.C., maybe it's just like the census areas, that the USCB have made it just up their minds on a boring day they didn't know what to do with time. And, as said, as in the case of Rhode Island, it can be, that this thing here also only exists on the paper, formally, in the statistics. I wouldn't make up this whole thing here, if I wouldn't need it exactly for that: just to fix and complete the statistical data on the pages and because I just wanted to know how many us counties exist and because I wondered about all the different numbers of them, they differed here even in this same wiki-version, so I looked it up, just for the tabulary purpose, and that's it, that's all. I never would go that far and it never was or will be my intention to say or mean that D.C. runs its own completely functionally county with all indicators other normal counties have or do or administer or just are. I have no idea of that, which probably only the USCB or the D.C. local government know, but for me that's not for interest, just because e.g. the 5 Rhode Island counties are totally "unreal", they exist nothingwhere else than formally on the paper, but that's it - if they are counted, the D.C. thing also have to be counted. It's just because the USCB itself runs the county statistics and thereby decides what they disfunct, create, count as a county/county-equivalent; as said, it's how it is with the census areas - who cares in how many they part the Alaska Unorganized Borough, what does it have for practical consequences? Nobody/nothing. That's it. It's only an unnatural statistical number, nothing else, and nothing which has a real influence in D.C. or how or what it is. D.C. wouldn't also change if the USCB would part it into their statistics into 99 red ballon-formed census areas... ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.221.163 (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I'm finding it difficult to find any source that lists counties and county equivalents. Let's concentrate on that. Maybe ask a librarian? Abductive (reasoning) 07:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, uhm, the link of the department of environment would've shure not been my first choice to mention it here, if I would've seen something else... but I only have used the USCB links from wikipedias County-page and the external links from the FIPS county code page, I have still not tried to google or somewhat of that, of that data - but I believe you that there's surprisingly practically nothing to find about it, just because I had it the same with other FIPS Codes and u.s. state statistic data. Mainly, because the should-be-main-source, the USCB itself, even if they collect data, they obviously unable to present them all as it should be, even the obviousliest things are sometimes hard to find on their sites, and some common, old main data are just not there, it's a pity. As I said above, I find, too, that their navigation, selection, searching is nothing but ridiculous, it has nothing to do with clear data presentation, it's more a pop-up-site... However, as far as I have seen it, I wouldn't bet that the USCB itself has created a list of all counties/county-equivalents that far - for me it rather seems as if the whole list and the total number just can be resulted by adding and counting all countys together by ourselves. So, if you would just look at an entry for every single county on our list if there's also one on the USBC sites, then, as we have seen, it appears that for D.C. there also is one. Thus, even if in state libraries or archives there are printed U.S. Census exemplares, I doubt that they will contain a complete list with a mentioned total number of counties, but rather in that way the USCB displays it here on the net, just one, two single small pages mentioning something like a D.C. county[-equivalent]. Thus, I wouldnot notsuggest asking a D.C.librarian, but maybe rather someone from the local D.C. government which runs the city(/district), or/and just ask someone at the USBC directly what they're concretely meaning with their cryptic tabularys, maybe all things via e-mail? But about the local D.C. officials and their contact adresses you all here will probably know better than I, maybe sending the same question to some different adresses? (Oh yes, map another hint for the suggestion, I haven't realized it before, just saw your comment now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.221.163 (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I don't live in DC, so my librarians will be unbiased. I'll try to remember to ask next time I'm over there. Abductive (reasoning) 02:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I added something yesterday, but I do not know why I wasn't able to manage that it was saved, I thought I clicked the "save page" button, hm, whatever, it just was that I saw that when you have http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/index.html and select D.C. from the list OR give in as FIPS Code "11001", you get this: " State FIPS - State Name - County FIPS - County Name - Class 11 - District of Columbia - 001 - District of Columbia - H6 H1 identifies an active county or statistically equivalent entity that does not qualify under subclass C7* or H6. H4 identifies a legally defined inactive or nonfunctioning county or statistically equivalent entity that does not qualify under subclass H6. H5 identifies census areas in Alaska, a statistical county equivalent entity. H6 identifies a county or statistically equivalent entity that is areally coextensive or governmentally consolidated with an incorporated place, part of an incorporated place, or a consolidated city. C7 identifies an incorporated place that is an independent city; that is, it also serves as a county equivalent because it is not part of any county, and an MCD equivalent because it is not part of any MCD. " OK, we not also learned that the USCB had different categories for its counties/county-equivalents, what the page on wikipedia haven't mentioned with only a word, but also learned that D.C. there is/have a "H6"-class county/county-equivalent (of its own). There are only a few other H6-class units on the list ( http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips.html : http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ansi/ansi.html :) INCITS 31:200x, (Formerly FIPS 6-4) Codes for the Identification of Counties and Equivalent Entities of the United States, its Possessions, and Insular Areas: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ansi/download.html : http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ansi/national.txt ; here the ones I saw: AK,02,020,Anchorage,H6 AK,02,110,Juneau,H6 AK,02,220,Sitka,H6 CA,06,075,San Francisco,H6 CO,08,014,Broomfield,H6 CO,08,031,Denver,H6 DC,11,001,District of Columbia,H6 FL,12,031,Duval,H6 GA,13,059,Clarke,H6 GA,13,215,Muscogee,H6 GA,13,245,Richmond,H6 IN,18,097,Marion,H6 KS,20,209,Wyandotte,H6 KY,21,067,Fayette,H6 LA,22,071,Orleans,H6 MT,30,023,Deer Lodge,H6 MT,30,093,Silver Bow,H6 NY,36,005,Bronx,H6 NY,36,047,Kings,H6 NY,36,061,New York,H6 NY,36,081,Queens,H6 NY,36,085,Richmond,H6 PA,42,101,Philadelphia,H6 TN,47,037,Davidson,H6 TN,47,169,Trousdale,H6 In addition, as I have suprisingly seen at nearly the end of the list, and as is also at the bottom of the selection of the first link - but where it is a little bit irritating, because all other entities you can select are also seeable and selectable via the map thereby which does not show: "Puerto Rico" ( http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/data/72000.html ) & "Island Areas" ( http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/data/99000.html ); as said, they are also at the bottom of that list, under the last u.s. state, WY: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ansi/national.txt That's a little bit confusing, because it seems as if then there are these counties of the U.S. territory, and they seem technically to be just the same way counties/county-equivalents as the u.s. states and D.C. also are... (the very most all are normal H1 class) I wonder if it is then making any more sense still counting the number... I wonder why this thing also is not with one word mentioned on the wikipedia County (United States) page, because, I mean, if the title would be "Counties of the U.S. states", then, okay - but when D.C. and U.S. territories does have counties as the states do so, then it just have to be mentioned in the page about Counties of the United States... I don't know who the heck did that terrible editing of this other page, this desinformation is just unbelievable, how can they have written something about a topic they obviously have so minor knowledge of? OK, whatever, we'll not get to know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.193.220 (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC) These are good, if still primary. By the way, counties can exist in territories, and many counties predate the states they are in. Does the objecting editor have any comment? Abductive (reasoning) 02:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Abductive hit the nail on the head. When something is the equivalent of something else, that means "the same as." There are many cases in which this is appropriate. For example, a Louisiana parish is the equivalent of a county elsewhere in the country; the only difference between a "parish" in Louisiana, and a "county" elsewhere in the country, is the name. Likewise, four U.S. states are officially termed as "Commonwealths", but again, there is no legal or practical difference between those four U.S. states and the other 46. There are, however, many many practical differences between the District of Columbia and every other city, county, and state in this country and is therefore not "equivalent" to any of them. User 84.60.193.XXX continually references the Federal Information Processing Standard (or FIPS) as evidence that somehow the District is the "equivalent" to (i.e., "the same as") a county. I cannot even begin to describe how ridiculous that line of reasoning is. By that logic, the U.S. insular areas of Guam and the United States Virgin Islands are also equivalent to counties because they are labeled in a similar manner. The FIPS also assigns "state" prefixes to the District, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa (see: [4]). Using our anonymous friend's logic, one could then declare each of those political entities to be the equivalent of a U.S. state. However, I do not believe anybody (and certainly no reliable source) could reasonably conclude that the District, or any of these territories, is the "equivalent" of a U.S. state. If they were, then each would have full representation in Congress (including two senators) and each would have the same level of internal sovereignty as any other U.S. state, but they do not. User 84.60.193.XXX's argument is based on a logical fallacy and is one that I will not seriously entertain any further. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I understand that the primary sources are insufficient. But the Congress had no problem having two towns and a county inside DC until 1871, when they took over its administration. Even then, they preserved the structure in the number of councilpersons, 2 from the former county. Again, I am inclined to believe that DC is a county equivalent the way all independent cities in Virginia and Maryland are. The 1871 move could be interpreted as a expansion of the City of Washington. I also understand that the IP is long-winded. Abductive (reasoning) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Ah, well, only because the FIPS people are to lame or not accuratly enough to label their tabularys' headlines with "U.S. state / territory / etc.", that's no reason to say that the information given in the tabulary itself are wrong, and that's what you have not proven and not given any explanation that that's not the case. In addition, your thought that if the data I gave are that way they are then it would have to be said that the units there (counties of u.s. states, of D.C., of territories) are all equal - was made by me myself above, that's exactly what I said with: "it seems as if then there are these counties of the U.S. territory, and they seem technically to be just the same way counties/county-equivalents as the u.s. states and D.C. also are... " And the link you give ( [5] ) and which was given first by me above, was labeled by YOURSELF as no reliable secondary source - ah, you have to decide, whether you think whether it's a relevant or irrelevant source for you; if you think it isn't, then okay, I have already given the new links above, see; if you think it is a relevant source (as i would say so, but there are more sources i have cited above, see), it is ridiculous that you try to falsify the sites' data's information just by saying "oh yeah, but look, the tabulary's headline of the row with the 50 states and D.C. reads 'state'" - you're not meaning that seriously, or? I can't tell you how much times I on the County wiki page have changed the term "counties" in "counties & county-equivalents", word-by-word you're of course right, but also there it does not read "u.s. state" - maybe the EPA does mean some very other "state"s and not the "u.s. states"? Come on, THAT'S ridicoulous. That's so word-dropping, of course the headline is not exactly, but there's no doubt what they mean - the only thing resulting in your guess would be that you would mean that the EPA would seriously mean that D.C. is a u.s. state? Come on, you're not really going to say that, or? No, of course you're not going? But why then did you do so? Try to think over your "logic" and stop trying to falsify the sources just because you want them to be not true, just because you don't want to believe what the sources say. Realize how you act. "Using our anonymous friend's logic, one could then declare each of those political entities to be the equivalent of a U.S. state. However, I do not believe anybody (and certainly no reliable source) could reasonably conclude that the District, or any of these territories, is the "equivalent" of a U.S. state. If they were, then each would have full representation in Congress (including two senators) and each would have the same level of internal sovereignty as any other U.S. state, but they do not." Well, again, again, again, again: If you would have read my sayings in this discussion seriously, you wouldn't talk that illogic: Just because the USCB seems to part the whole U.S. in its statistics in subdivisions which counts as all the same "counties", that of course does NEITHER mean that a USCB statistc "county" can declare itself as a "real" u.s. state (county), NOR that a territory or D.C., in which such a USCB "county" is located in, is able just by that to have the status of a u.s. state. The whole thing you're saying has NOT been claimed by ANYBODY, and I have NOT claimed it, too - don't try to mix up what I have said. In addition, you're comparison is not thought well trough: Even if of course a u.s. territory or D.C. does not have the same status as u.s.state - but you went far to this bigger political division level: When you seriously take the same comparison look on the subdivision level, it is objectively clear, and I think that even you agree, that, as I said and we have seen again and again and again, the USCB can create itself new "county" status units, thus resulting in e.g. the existence of a RANDOM NUMBER of Alaska the census-areas, whre nearly nobody lives in, but it is obviously undisputed that they count as "county-equivalents"; (Virginia has just said "OK, we think all of our bigger cities should be independent cities", resulting in that they are also undisputedly counted as county-equivalents;) as I pointed out, some New England states' counties have lost nearly all of their vital functions, and Rhode Island's counties entirely (please see e.g. List of counties in Rhode Island, if you're not believing me): THEY ARE JUST EXISTING ON THE PAPER - thus, I ask you, if counties on the list are only on the paper, and even if the D.C. "county" exists not "real", but only "officially", "on the paper" - then why the hell should it not be on the "officially on the statistic paper list"? Tell me that. There's just no difference between a practically disfunctioned e.g. Rhode Island county and a practically not vitally existing D.C. county. But even if both things have counties only existing "virtually", then it have to be on this statistic list, even if this list is of virtual nature, too. That's all I'm saying, please understand that. I'm not going to say D.C. runs/has a vital county itself. You're definition of a county seems to be that it exists in reality - but as we have seen, the Rhode Islands doesn't exists in reality at all - but they are undisputed even though; just because the list of counties is just a "official list" that has nothing to do with the circumstances in reality (including the political divisions', e.g. territories' or D.C.'s, status in reality). Please try to think about that. Anyhow, it seems to me as if the little word "is" could be the key reason for our dispute, maybe we can solve it just there - more to this thought i have written at the bottom, please see then. A little bit irritating only is that on the map Abductive have mentioned, which is sourced/released by the USCB itself ( [6] ), that there are not pictured the U.S. territories, because when D.C. is on the map, as Abductive said, and the USCB counts D.C. as the same way as county as it does with the territories, then they should have to be pictured; in addition i would guess that the USCB was just to lame to correctly add the territories on a normal u.s.a. map, and therefore the wikipedia page headline is just wrong, because as we have sourced by the lists, and the territories counties are also listed so by the USCB page itself, the headline must read ""County outlines of the u.s. states and D.C.", because it misses to picture the territories, which also have counties as we have learned - but, on the other hand, as we have seen, i also have wondered why on [7] you can select as a "state" D.C., Purto Rico and the Island Areas (you see, the same inaccurancy word-by-word as your claim with the falsity of the EPA tabulary, even though that of course does not change the fact), altough D.C. is pictured on the map on the right there and you can click a direct link on the map where D.C.'s location is, the selectable county-having-"states" Puerto Rico and the Island Areas (which counties' lists are displayed when you select them by the list) are not pictured on the map on the right - but it is obviously clear that this is only due to the same lamety which was the other map also, because of course the standard map is this, without the territories, but that makes their counties not inexistent, they ARE their - at least on the USCB papers, and that's all, what this here is about. ([8] gives the codes for the counties, but it only does so because the counties exists in one way or another, the list does not create the counties by itself just to have some codes to outspread; it gives the existing counties the codes. These counties are not a just thought, but partly maybe a just thought of the USCB in creating them on their paper, for their paper.) Well, another point is, that you are continuingly argumenting in a circle: on one hand, when i give a link from the USBC itself, that says that unit "11001" is D.C. county, you say "oh yes, but that's no secondary source!" - and on the other hand, when i give a link of not only but e.g. of the FIPS Code page, which ALSO lists the D.C. county, you say "oh yeah, come on, that's ridiculous!"... Shall i tell you what? YOUR way of argumenting is ridiculous, because YOUR "logic" is just illogic - try to think about it. Again, I just want to say that, as long as no one has proven that, from what reason or ever, this link gives wrong information, then okay, we can discuss, but it absolutely clearly says, that not only the FIPS itself, as we have seen can designate counties/counnty-equivalents just like it wants, but that the USCB ITSELF compares the D.C. unit with the D.C. county-equivalent unit: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11/11001.html : "District of Columbia: 11 ; District of Columbia [county selected]: 001" In addition, it is ridicoulous that you say its nonsense that the FIPS data sets are of no real proof or relevance - just think about who makes and runs the FIPS data system? Well, the data come from the USCB ITSELF, which makes the census data statistics! Again, let me repeat that i understand that the USCB source is a primary source. BUT, as we have seen, the USCB itself can designates counties as it wants, and thus, it can decides alone whatya in the statistics is labeled as county or not. I understand that it maybe could be hard to believe, as you say, to not have known such a thing about a thing you're knowing nearly all about. But let me say that even if the D.C. has no other then just statistical purpose by the USCB, and even if it is only existing on the papper (like the undisputed Rhode Island counties) - then okay, but: If the USCB, which decides what it labels as a county or not, decides that it want to label D.C. and the other territories' parts also in (USCB's FIPS coded) counties/county-equivalents, then it is labeled so, and it doesn't matter if you find that nice or not. Additionally, above I have shown you, that even if D.C. itself has a special status in the U.S. as capital federal district and so on, that, for the USCB, it not only counts as having/being also a county(-equivalent) unit, but it also is no single special county(-equivalent), it is "class H6", see above, and there are more units in its class, not only D.C. itself. Let me repeat it: you say that and that cannot be, just because D.C. is soooo special - well, I don't want to discuss that, but the only thing is important here and what you have not or do not want to see is that for the USCB that has no meaning, no effect, in designing/designating county(-equivalent) units - that's the point: For the USCB's statistical purpose to divide the whole U.S. in county units to have all the U.S. as comparable units to compare the data of each place with each another, it is clearly locial, that, when all is in one tabulary, to see, e.g. the employment rate or population density, or infrastructure things of one region, it is totally irrelevant, what political status these units have, doesn't matter if they are states or D.C. or territories. All what you're saying is for the point of political importance and uncomparableness of such a thing like D.C. with the status of territories. But I'm just not going to say that they have the same status. Only thing I'm saying that, whether we find it nice or not, FOR THE USCB PAPER STATISTICS THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. Please try to realize that. I have no interest in convincing you that D.C. itself is/has a county with vital functions, that's not what I want to say all the time, and i can understand that you're not going to accept that. Only thing for me of interest is the statistical list of all counties, and if such disfunctioned counties as of Rhode Island or the Alaska census areas with nearly no life in it counts just because the USCB says that they see it as counties, and if they also say, that they also see a D.C. county and the U.S. territories' counties, then all these things are and have to be equally on the list - even though, where I'm totally with you, of course D.C. is special, as some others are; but, as you even yourself has pointed out, e.g. it has totally no effect that there are u.s. states which officially are a "commonwealth" - so, if it has no effect of this "officially status" in their being as u.s. states, why should an "officially status" as county-equivalents have an effect on D.C. (and the U.S. territories)? You're trying to say that there's a thing which cannot be/exist, because of another thing - but those two things do not collide, as you try to let it appear. If you are not able or willingly to try to ask someone of your local D.C. government or of the USCB, I will do it by myself - if the USCB designates what a county is and what not (as we have seen above), then they have to know and can tell that the proof is right. Maybe we sould in the concerning wiki pages and on this page here just don't discuss over the word "is", i see that that can be a little confusing and unclear - can't you agree with me on a formulation like "In statistics the USCB parts/divides the USA into so-called "counties"" (county as a statistical unit designation of the USCB); another thing from the "real", vital, self-working and governing counties (which are so in the most us.s. states) (altough i wonder if e.g. the u.s.territories' counties have vital functions like local governing, as in the most u.s. states?)... Maybe we can concentrate on that key-point? What do you mean? (Remember I'm not going to say D.C. is a county - but for the USCB statistics it counts as "statistical county unit" (although this difference is not cleared by the USCB); maybe we can divide between "real" counties and "virtual" counties (even if this difference is not made by the USCB (or FIPS, which is run by the USCB) in its statistics (only the known "class" difference is made, as you have seen); as said, in the USCB statistics it are all only the same "counties")? At last, I saw a similar thing: [9], where the description of the known list link reads the following: "Codes for the Identification of Counties and Equivalent Entities of the United States, its Possessions, and Insular Areas", thus making the word-difference between units which are "Counties" and units which are "County-Equivalent Entities". Maybe we can agree in the point and formulation that even though D.C. (practically) has no (identical with itself) county, the USCB ("officially") sees and counts D.C. as (having) a "County-Statistically Equivalent Entity" for its statistical papers' purpose (note that I have left out the evil "be/is"-term ;-)) 84.60.246.98 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Your anonymous friend (why should anyone add these tildes when the signpost-bots does it their way also alone by their one without you?) P.S. Because the territories counties make it seem that the key conflict is how to handle/whether to decide in statistic count between "real" and "virtual" counties, and is not only focussed on D.C. alone, I must admit, that, for me, it doesn't that big matter, if you on "your" D.C. page state that the USCB sees D.C. as (having) a "County-Equivalent Entity" - or not, or whatever you want, if you have the bigger standing here than I. But you edited my changes on the County (United States) page, and there I have to stand exactly on the point I'm on, and I think that there D.C. just has to be mentioned that way the USCB defines its "County(-)Equivalent Entity" and it has to be that way on the tabulary there, maybe list of "real" counties (by state) - list of "virtual" counties (by state) - total number of "counties"; the thing making it a little bit complex is that obviously, even though it is not, e.g. the Rhode Island counties counts as "real", altough, as said, they doesn't have more life than, e.g. a "virtual" D.C.- or territory-county, just because the divide is not made by the USCB itself, because, as we have seen, they do not divide counties by that way, by its real functioned/disfunctioned status, but only divides them as all the same into different classes, where, as we have seen, D.C. has no special status, no all-alone-status - that's what would make me tend to rather have a total list of all counties (by political divison (state/capital federal district/territory)), where maybe just can be a row with explanations, e.g. for the Rhode Island counties' line "all practically disfunctioned", for Virginia's counties' line the mentioning "including 39 independent cities", and when it comes to D.C. and the territories (which both could be e.g. in italics or at a special place in the tabulary), there could be read a short explanation as I have written down above - additionally, a longer explanation, dividing between "real" and "virtual" counties could be outside/under/above the tabulary, too, just with the normal text on the County (United States) page). Thus, maybe this discussion could be transferred to the discussion page of the County (United States) page, although I have set a link there to this discussion page's underpoint here, I don't know; but if we could agree on such a thing as the suggested formulation, maye the solvation of the discussion is also near, but I don't know if you're tending to say okay that could be an agreement, or if you have further thoughts, I mean, if it could be solved by that way, I'm not going to go on the discussion, but if you still see some points still out to discuss, of course I'm interested in going on to talk about them here for finding a solvation. What do you mean, could you maybe live with the suggested formulation? ( At least, also if you don't want to have it to be true or don't want to believe it, as you said, of course the D.C. thing is something "equivalent", as standing above: [10] [note: FIPS is made and used by USCB] and select D.C. from the list OR give in as FIPS Code "11001", you get this: " State[meaning "Political Division"] FIPS - "State"[meaning "Political Division"] Name - County[or "County-Statistically Equivalent Entity"] FIPS - County[or "County-Statisticall Equivalent Entity"] Name - Class 11 - District of Columbia - 001 - District of Columbia - H6 H1 identifies an active county or statistically equivalent entity that does not qualify under subclass C7* or H6. H4 identifies a legally defined inactive or nonfunctioning county or statistically equivalent entity that does not qualify under subclass H6. H5 identifies census areas in Alaska, a statistical county equivalent entity. H6 identifies a county or statistically equivalent entity that is areally coextensive or governmentally consolidated with an incorporated place, part of an incorporated place, or a consolidated city. C7 identifies an incorporated place that is an independent city; that is, it also serves as a county equivalent because it is not part of any county, and an MCD equivalent because it is not part of any MCD. " , thus, seen (and counted) as (having) a "County-Statistically Equivalent Entity" (class(of all units): H6), it's totally clear. ) Okay, if I'm thinking about it, that way you were a little bit right, but it's just the accurancy of the wording, of course it's not a "equivalent" thing, but a "statistically equivalent" thing - couldn't we make it just by/like that way? I would hope that you could agree with such an formulation, being so exactly that there should be no room left for misunderstanding for any random reader with no deeper knowledge of such a formulation as headline of a tabulary, making it impossible to think that D.C. is (itself) just a county thing. Maybe there could be another formulation even more exactly: maybe "comparable" than "equivalent"; because the USCB's "statistically equivalent" for me does nothing else mean that it's for making the ability to compare the data sets of those things. I hope you would agree that even if D.C. is not equivalent to anything in the U.S., it is comparable (although being special) with other units, at least in the statistical field, e.g. population density, etc., as I stated above. Wouldn't that be also a solution? Division between a "County" and a "[County-](Statistically)Comparable Entity"? Or even "[County-](Statiytically)Comparison Entity" OK, that way you were right, it's of course NOT an "equivalent", all it is is that it's just in the statistics a unit with data sets making the comparison with other data sets (of real counties) able, but that's all I'm saying all the time, too. Hm, for me it seems the USCB itself with its own wording this thing "equivalent" has done a bad job - as we have seen, it's only "statistically equivalent (or: like the same)", just because for the data sets it doesn't matter what polictical division it in reality is... "County-Statistically Equivalently-a-like Handled Entity" would be another suggestion by me. What do you think? I think you can write a lot of text. Delving into the minds of statisticians to make legal distinctions is not how we operate here on Wikipedia. We need secondary sources to make these determinations for us. If no secondary sources say it, it didn't happen. Why don't I add the defunct Washington County to the article as an example of how a county might disappear, and when secondary sources are produced, we can adjust the article accordingly. Abductive (reasoning) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I think, if it takes that many words to explain the concept and argument, it's far too subtle for this article - JohnInDC (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, as I thought, maybe this discussion could/should be transferred to anywhere else? But I do not know where to, do you mean maybe to the Talk:County (United States) page? Why not. I wouldn't have anything against it, at least because it seems that D.C. is just one of a lot more disputed counties... Yes, okay, if it's only about the secondary source problem, then that would be not that big problem, I think, even though, as I said, it's not that clear to me what a reliable secondary source it could be, just because all secondary sources just will go back to the already cited primary sources of the USCB, I mean, I see what you mean, but I mean, you're not really meaning, that, even if we would e.g e-mail the USCB and they would tell that indeed they divide the whole USA into "counties" and "counties-statistically equivalent entities" - that that then is a source of no relevancy, just because it's "only" a primary source??? This can't be seriously - there are thousand of references in wikipedia, sourced only by links to sites of the USCB, too... OK, if we e.g. take a look at Puerto Rico as example for the territories' counties, which existnece you're not that willing to accept: E.g. [11] lists for Puerto Rico 72 "County-Statistically Equivalent Entities", and, although i have not looked why the number differs, maybe there have been mergers, too, I mean, the U.S. Census is about 9 years old, Puerto Rico#Government and politics states that "As an unincorporated territory of the United States, Puerto Rico does not have any first-order administrative divisions as defined by the U.S. government, but has 78 municipalities at the second level." - and if you look at Municipalities of Puerto Rico, it says "There are no first-order administrative divisions as defined by the United States Government, but Puerto Rico has 78 municipalities or "municipios" at the second order. For U.S. Census purposes, a municipality in Puerto Rico is equivalent to a county[1]." - the reference link goes to [12] which reads (although not under "Census County Division"): "Barrio and Barrio-Pueblo In Puerto Rico, the U.S. Census Bureau recognizes barrios and barrio-pueblos as the primary legal divisions of municipios (census county equivalents). One barrio in each municipio (except Florida, Ponce, and San Juan) is identified as the barrio-pueblo, the area that represented the seat of the government at the time Puerto Rico formalized the municipio and barrio boundaries in the late 1940's. These entities are similar to the minor civil divisions (MCDs) used for reporting decennial census data in 28 states of the United States. Subbarrio Subbarrios in 23 municipios (census county equivalents) in Puerto Rico are the primary legal subdivisions of the barrios-pueblo and some barrios (census MCD equivalents). The U.S. Census Bureau presents the same types of Census 2000 data for these "sub-MCDs" as it does for the barrios and barrios-pueblo. (There is no geographic entity in the United States equivalent to the subbarrio.) Each barrio, barrio-pueblo, and subbarrio is assigned a five-digit Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code in alphabetical order within Puerto Rico. " Municipalities_of_Puerto_Rico#Alphabetical list of municipalities lists all the actual municipalities, which, as we have learned, are "(census) county [statistically] equivalent[entitie]s", so what? I could give you a bunch of wiki pages, including the other territories, which states in the same way - there you have the units in their location, you have the explanation of the USCB that it sees them that way i say, and you have the USCB list where all of these units are on, especially, as I said, e.g. the Puerto Rico units not even has another classification than all of the most other u.s. state counties does have: H1. I mean, I understand your argumentation - but if you just say that it's just not believable what the USCB says just due to the fact that there's still no other secondary source which has is proven (impossible for my thought, because all secondary sources will have as source the USCB data itself!), then with this logic you also have to delete and edit all of the enormous data in wikipedia which is just based on all of the US Census data facts when it's just up to you saying "i'm not saying e.g. the California population density data from the US Census are wrong - but there's no secondary source for it - maybe the USCB is just telling the untruth or has made false data statements?" Do you understand? In turn, I'm now really going to say that when I would argument like you, objectively it must be said that for my position I have brought a lot of data, saying, that it's like I'm telling it is; but, if you look at the other position, neither here in this discussion nor on the still-the-old-way-existing page County (United States) or County-equivalent, there's neither a secondary source, nor even a PRIMARY SOURCE that says that it's like the way it stands there, that says that that what there is said is right and what I am saying is wrong. Even if for my position there is no secondary source (I could find, but as said, it's ridiculous, because obviously all other direct references to the USCB data are allowed - why not mine???) - for your position is not even a PRIMARY one: You have not even one single source of what relevance it might be which states that D.C. and the territories are not "County-Statistically Equivalent Entities" - the information on the County-equivalent page just have be changed also, as I said; as I see it, there are massive data sets telling this "County-Statistically Equivalent Entities" thing - and you have not made it evaluating that it's no truth, that the data are false. In turn, with the data I have shown, that the old information on the wiki pages were totally false, just because not mentioning D.C. and the territories, maybe due to the misleading, misinterpreted map of the article, but even if the map is of the USCB, I have shown that the USCB itself lists with such a map even the counties of the territories, no matter if the USCB has remembered in picturing them. All in all, I think my claim is pretty good sourced - and for your claim my claim is wrong and the old infos are still right you have absolutely no source, that's just how the situation is; and you're telling me I'm missing a secondary source? Come on, where's your PRIMARY source, ha? No matter if the number is 78 or 72 (I could look it up or ask the USCB) - there definitely ARE Puerto Rico "County-Statistically Equivalent Entities", as it is with the other territories and D.C.; can you maybe just accept that fact? Even it would be only a 99,99% proven fact, your position, the old position, claiming that it's not that case, has NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE, meaning 00,00%. Thus, please think about what position seems to make a lot of more sense - in addition, as I said, your argument is not handled that way in a lot of wiki pages which directly link as the one and only source to the USCB data - and no one knwo came to the idea starting disputing it; you can't tell me you're right in doing this here in this case - and if you want it so, as said, you have to act that same way on the other pages, and I would like to know what the pages' editors say to your claim that you have edit/delete their things, just because the USCB's data is not enough - yes, hell, who one else than the USCB should be able to deliver such data sets? Do you think the USA runs two USCB's just to prove that each other data are right? As said, all secondary sources' data ONLY CAN BE BASED ON THE SAME PRIMARY SOURCE: the USCB, which I have quoted the whole time... With your argumentation, e.g. if a daily paper would write in an article that there are these "County-Statistically Equivalent Entities" ( - EVEN IF COURSE ALSO THIS INFORMATION WOULD ONLY BE BASED ON THE SAME PRIMARY SOURCE DATA I'M TELLING YOU THE WOHLE TIME - ), then you would see this as a secondary source? That would be ridicoulus, really. I understand your thought, but it's practically unreasoned; and in addition, my position for the territory counties existing has some sources, while the old position and what still stands on the old wiki page, has no sources claiming that that's not the case and that the page itself is right that way it is now. It's just the way, that the old wiki page's editors did not know about the things we have learned hear, nor does the "County-equivalent" page's editors did, they did just not know, that's the only reason this information here is not included, plus also the fact that the USCB did not reach to manage to display the territories also on the standard USA map, which could lead to the interpretation that they are not there, but, as I have shown, and as the territories' pages themselves states they're there. The information we're discussing here is just not included on the County (United States) page because the editors did not know of their existence, not because they knew that they were there but didn't see them as what they really are. For me it seems like as if the County (United States) editors just have looked at the County-equivalent page, and because there the information was missing, not given, included, of D.C. and the territories, that's why no one there has realized that there are also counties, I mean, they not even has realized for years the existence of the new Alaska counties, you see? Now, we just have came to learn that there are even many, many more counties they haven't on the screen, due to the described things and the map, which is titled on its wiki-page also wrong, as I said, and as the data sets have cleared out. Maybe I could try to make a tabulary that way for the County (United States) page; but another thing: If we could try to agree on basis of such a formulation that gives the so-called "County-equivalent" a new, unmisunderstandingly name, then consequently its wiki page County-equivalent have to be re-named, too – as it is the same with the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_with_county_outlines.png - , as soon as there would be here an agreement, so then there should admin or so do this in the future then, or, because there maybe are some pages that links to the "County-equivalent" page, just making it more consequent, let the page with the old name exist, so does anyone who types in that name still comes to that page, but transfer all from the old-name page to the new-name page, just leaving on the old page a redirect link to the new-name page - wouldn't that be maybe the best? (I don't know if such a thing have to be also discussed on the County-equivalent discussion page itself, but if we here could agree in that way that the old formulation is misunderstandingly and that it should be called with another name, then I think it's clear if the ones who decide about such a page-name-change would follow our explanations and argumentation line, because, at least, this whole discussion maybe would've never been started to exist, if this page wouldn't have said that the term is "County-equivalent" - and, of course, I wouldn't have came to the idea to call it that way to you, if the wiki page itself hadn't stated that it would be called like that... ;-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.246.98 (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, ok, i had not not seen your two mentionings of the disfunct washington county previously, that is not a bad idea, regarding only this dc article page. if you would do so here, the general discussion of the counties maybe could be transferred to the above mentioned page. if there an agreement could be reached later, then you yourself on your own could merge the information into this article page here, i am not going in mixing up your stuff here, that you can handle just like you wants, it is your article and i am not going to say to you what you should write here or not, that is of your own decision, of course.84.60.246.98 (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, as you said, i have posted it there as Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#.22county.22 - .22County-Statistically Equivalent Entity.22 84.60.246.98 (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

solved, archived under Wikipedia:Content noticeboard/Archive4#.22county.22 - .22County-Statistically Equivalent Entity.22 84.60.223.172 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)