Talk:Colonial Williamsburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colonial Williamsburg article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 But how authentic is it? 2 Acting 3 Ad 4 History vs visitor info 5 Cultural influences 6 Missing Information Re: Historical Buildings 7 Local Lingo 8 It Still Reads Like an Advertisement 9 Is "reenactor" an accurate term for CW costumed interpretors? 10 "Colonial Williamsburg Foundation" Should be a Separate Page 11 Please Check References Before "Correcting" Dates

[edit] But how authentic is it?

I read through this article, and felt it was very uncritical. There is no discussion of how authenticity of the reconstruction was assured, or if it was at all. I am not in a position to contribute material, but feel that to be authoritative, this article needs to be given a much more solid basis of background information and a critical overview of the processes used to ensure authenticty of the reconstruction —preceding unsigned comment by 81.108.200.176 (talk • contribs) 12:24, November 27, 2005

"If it is to be, it is up to me". I am sorry you are in no position to contribute material, but that's how wikipedia works. Be Bold. --Rogerd 20:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am also a WP writer/contributor, but this kind of depth for the article is beyond my expertise. Should anyone be truly interested in that kind of depth (a bit deep for most WP articles). I suggest this link: http://www.history.org/research/ Vaoverland 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acting

I found no mention of the many people in CW who constantly portray personalities that lived during the colonial times. When I visited the city they were a source of significant entertainment and fascination, although it has been several years since I was there. --Hetar 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the following in the third paragraph:

Interpreters work, dress, and talk as they did in the era, teaching visitors more about the site.

--rogerd 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the lead to put a little more emphasis on that also. Vaoverland 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it needed that, it would be a lot less interesting place to visit without the interpreters. --rogerd 04:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad

This article reads like an ad, and I am going to tag it as such and try to clean it up a bit. --Awiseman 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I found out why this article sounded like an ad - User_talk:12.38.190.9 is Edelman Public Relations and they added lots of marketing stuff. See this for example. [1] --Awiseman 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History vs visitor info

I noticed that the History sections for Jamestown and such are also in the "Historic Triangle" section. How do people think we should organize this? Combine them all into one section for Jamestown, one for Williamsburg, and so on? As it is now, there is some duplicate info. --AW 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural influences

In the discussion of the advertising stuff added in and taken out, a few sentences about williamsburg in the popular media were omitted. I stuck em back in, hope that doesnt offend too much. I think we need more context on how Williamsburg is part of the culture BrandlandUSA 04:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Information Re: Historical Buildings

Hi. I do community-relations work on behalf of Colonial Williamsburg and I've noted that a few parts of this entry could benefit from an update. Per our interaction with other Wiki editors, we feel the most productive way of updating the entry is engaging the community and providing you with relevant information. It is our goal to provide the Wiki community factual information that may be missing from the present article and to start a discussion about how they might be included. Our goal is to cooperate with the community in ensuring that Colonial Williamsburg is represented accurately with factual information within this important resource so that your readers are properly educated.

For starters, what are your thoughts on expanding the list of notable buildings in the article? Governor’s Palace and the Capitol are currently included, but other historical buildings such as the Raleigh Tavern, Peyton Randolph House, Courthouse and Bassett Hall are not yet part of the entry. Similar to the Governor’s Palace and the Capitol, Raleigh Tavern and Bassett Hall have an entry within Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on adding these to the list of notable buildings in the first paragraph? All of these places have independent historical relevance, though they are also integral pieces of the Colonial Williamsburg patchwork Colonial Williamsburg Rep 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea..start stubs on each of the individual buildings that are not listed (wythe house, etc), and build from there. Put a list at the bottom of the wikipedia entry of the different buildings, buildings built by cw, original buildings, removed buildings, that sort of thing. The other thing, it would be helpful if CW could upload pictures of each of the buildings when the stub is started. The other thing CW can do is to provide the current name of the building according to research, but also include the former names so that this is clear as folks have visited over the years and know some by different names. In addition, CW could add histories of how each of the buildings have evolved over the years. BrandlandUSA 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local Lingo

The two intersections, "college" and "confusion" seem a bit mixed up. I just graduated from W&M and can say with great confidence that "Confusion Corner" is that where Richmond, Jamestown, N/S Boundary, and DoG street all converge. Infact, I've never heard it called anything buy Confusion Corner, even by my mother, class of '71.

I've never heard of anything called "college corner." As far as the second intersection (which really isn't that confusing, I've never heard of a witty title for that one.

I'll go ahead and change this bit. If someone, like the original author, wants to fight over it...well, I'll meet you at confusion corner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.146.220.2 (talk • contribs).

Go ahead and fix it --AW 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It Still Reads Like an Advertisement

This reads more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedia article (Travel Directions?). It is all about Colonial Williamsburg as it is now and includes only talking points from official CW advertising. There is none of the fascinating, messy history of how it came to be, nor of any of the controversies it has been a part of. It simply leaps from 1926 to the present. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be balanced, I hope to add some interesting historical content. Artemis-Arethusa 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I've done a lot, but it still can use a lot of work --AW 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some, and hope it's informative without being too cranky. Artemis-Arethusa 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Aaand ... Still more yet. I think a perusal of the works of Ada Louise Huxtable is probably in order.Artemis-Arethusa 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "reenactor" an accurate term for CW costumed interpretors?

In some programs CW interpretors do present reenactments of specific historical events. However, it seems like the accepted common usage of "reenactor" is for the hobbyist who participates in reenactment events and activities rather than the full-time costumed interpretor. Use of the term in this article to describe CW personnel seems awkward. Neitz 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so. On the other hand the CW term "interpreter" is not quite satisfactory either. In the article it links to language interpreters. What term do employees at living history museums use themselves? "Docents" maybe? Artemis-Arethusa 14:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the book Living the Past, by Val Horsler (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, in Association with English Heritage, 2003), "re-enactor" is the standard term in the UK for all costumed participants in living history museums, whether full-time employees or hobbyists. Artemis-Arethusa 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And as it turns out, among the hard-core museum trade people, the respectful term is "docent" after all. Artemis-Arethusa 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Colonial Williamsburg Foundation" Should be a Separate Page

At the moment it serves as a redirect page to this one. But the Foundation is of separate and distinct interest. For example, many foundation pages identify mission, executive members, and history of actions taken; these may not be of interest to readers simply looking up CW, but probably should be somewhere in the database.Artemis-Arethusa 14:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Check References Before "Correcting" Dates

Alphaboi867, while I appreciate your attempt to fix the date of the awful polyester red-white-and-blue pantsuit experiment to 1976, the fact is that it was a test done in anticipation of the Bicentennial, not during the Bicentennial. It was in 1973. Following the reference I had put into that paragraph would have led to an official CW site which declared that it was in 1973. It was probably just as well that they tried it out beforehand, because it would have been a real fiasco in 1976. Artemis-Arethusa 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)