Battle of Caving Banks

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Museums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Reenactment (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reenactment, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ReenactmentWikipedia:WikiProject ReenactmentTemplate:WikiProject ReenactmentReenactment articles Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: YasminNajjar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.220.2 (talk • contribs)

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

This now reads less like and advert, and more like a page from the Lonely Planet - the "getting there, getting around" section in particular adds to the guidebook feel. Dxco 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am one of the aforementioned interpreter/re-enactor/docents; I've been with the CW Foundation for over 10 years, and I can completely understand why there's so much confusion about what to call us. Here's my take from the inside. (Remember, of course, that I am but one employee, and my opinion may not reflect that of all my colleagues.)

We generally prefer the term "interpreter," which is short for "historical interpreter." I would define an historical interpreter as a museum guide who "interprets" various concepts of history by representing a personality of the period. CW has many types of interpreters. Some serve the traditional role of a guide, some demonstrate a particular trade or profession, and some are actors who perform in dramatizations of historical events related to the Revolutionary War.

In my opinion, we don't prefer the term "re-enactor" for the exact reason you've given, Artemis: to avoid confusing visitors who would expect an experience similar to a Civil War battle or a Renaissance Fair, staffed by volunteers. The term "docent" isn't really accurate either. You could think of an historical interpreter as being a comprimise between the two; if you think of "re-enactor" as one extreme, where you are completely involved in the world of the period without direct interaction with the visitor, and "docent" as the other, where you don't play a character and simply deliver information, then what we do is somewhere in-between.

Perhaps a clearer definition of "historical interpreter" might be added to the article, or maybe the term needs its own Wikipedia entry altogether, if examples from other living history museums exist. Vincent Rubio (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "reenactor" (and I believe this is supported by this paper) generally is avocational, i.e. it referrs to a hobbyist. "Interpreter" is probably a better term for paid staff or regular long-term volunteers. cmadler (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As a recent visitor to CW, I looked over the web sites related to it and I did not find a clear "visitor's guide" on how best to experience CW. Even the official website was confusing to the first time visitor.

I also checked out a few travel blogs/columns and they too were light on practical advice and solid recommendations.

As a result, I've written about three screens worth of material that I found helpful to know. As I shared that with other recent visitors they all said: "I wish I had known that before I came." and "Where did you find out that stuff?"

Would you like me to post it? Shall I share it here or just go ahead and put it on the page?

Perhaps it needs it's own "Visiting Williamsburg" web page?

Terryvh47 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide a picture of the magazine? It would go well here and at Magazine (artillery) which is woefully lacking in a picture of a building for storing artillery. -- ke4roh 12:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - some two years later.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Colonial Williamsburg" is a long phrase repeated numerous times in the article. CW is indicated early in the article as the abbreviation to be used subsequently, which saves space... This should be done more consistently... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Wikipedia has unlimited space. Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 14:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tommy2010. I'm dubious that's it's a widely used or recognized abbreviation, and there's not necessarily a need to abbreviate it in this article. cmadler (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue should be whether it's according to the Manual of Style and whether "CW" is more readable than dozens of repetitions of "Colonial Williamsburg". More readable for general readers? An aesthetic decision, I'm an educated native English speaker, and I would say CW isn't more readable. For non-native English readers, "CW" might present a considerable puzzle. Also, as an editor who came to a random point in the article due to changes by an anon IP, it took extra time to figure out whether "CW" had been properly defined in the opening paras. One thing in favor of "CW" is that, as long as the article is, it does get slightly wearisome to read constantly (it's used 84 times in the article!) If the article was, say, five times as long? I might be swayed to using "CW". Piano non troppo (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(An aside: I only count 59 uses in the article text itself; the other 20 (my search says there are a total of 79) are in the article title, TOC, section headings, image captions, sources/references/links (12 there!), navigation template, and a category.) cmadler (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I didn't count so much as quote a report from MS Word. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments: Should "CW" mostly be used in place of "Colonial Williamsburg" in this article?

Would the above discussed usage be a constructive improvement to this article? 140.139.35.250 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running tally:

• Strong support: 140.139.35.250 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC), 23 Apr 2010[reply]
  
• Strong oppose - per my comment above. cmadler (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per my comment, but also, this would be a difficult standard to implement widely in Wiki, because 1) There would be endless discussions about what initialisms were appropriate, and 2) Casual editors would add non-initialized terms, being unaware that there was a special rule applying only to that article. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my last edit wasn't clear. I restored the use of "programs" in conjunction with Rev City since it isn't just one program, but different programs on different days. http://www.history.org/visit/whatToSeeAndDo/activitiesAndPrograms/RevolutionBegins.cfm So while Rev City is one entity as a whole, it is make up of multiple programs. Feel free to debate my take on it.Bob98133 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest notice: I am a public relations manager with the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and have a professional connection with the subject of this article. Please contact me directly with any concerns you may have.

I request that an objective editor please tag this article for cleanup due to issues including:

1) Sources: Content that implies original research and/or is not verifiable with citation to reliable written sources, in particular in the following sections: Lead; “Outlying landscapes and viewsheds,” in particular the subsection “Kingsmill;" “Colonial Williamsburg Today,” in particular the subsection “Merchandising;" “Management,” in particular the subsection “Attendance;" “Financial Challenges:" Transportation:" “Criticism and Controversy,” in particular the subsection “Issues of ‘accuracy’ and ‘authenticity’”

2) Style: In particular the length, content and tone of the Lead section, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

3) Neutrality: Content that does not reflect a neutral point of view, including judgmental language, contentious labels and editorial terms as outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Thank you for your consideration.

JoeStrawCW (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and for mentioning your affiliation. If you have not already read WP:COI please do (but it sounds like you have!) You can tag those areas yourself if you would like! --AW (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined it, and looked at the statement made by the content editor. I have reverted to a prior version for now. Scr★pIron^IV 21:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate editors' work, which has resolved a large portion of the issues cited. I believe the article would benefit from further cleanup, primarily with added citation, but also style refinement and removal of remaining language that does not reflect a neutral point of view. Based on your helpful guidance I intend to tag the article and as always I welcome further feedback. JoeStrawCW (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors: Style and content issues of the types listed above remain. Much of the article's content lacks citation and does not reflect a neutral point of view, for example:

"The Historic Area is an interpretation of a colonial American city, with exhibits of dozens of restored or re-created buildings related to its colonial and tangential American Revolutionary War history." (lead, paragraph 1)

"In World War II it indoctrinated soldiers and sailors, during the Cold War it promoted anti-Communism and it purports today to advance citizenship." (lead, paragraph 2)

"Of the approximately 500 buildings reconstructed or restored, 88 are labelled original.[14] Many of those 88, however, are such minor outbuildings as smokehouses, privies, sheds, and a well head, and three are outside the Historic Area. At that, the definition of 'original' is muddy." ("Resoration and Reconstruction," paragraph 5)

"Commercialization and a trend toward unequal treatment of Colonial Williamsburg's supporters and publics came to trouble some supporters. For example, the popular fictional American Girl character, Felicity Merriman, purports to be from 1774 Williamsburg. Despite the doll's faux association with the city, she was sold with the history museum's imprimatur. Felicity was subsequently dropped, but efforts to monetize aspects of the Restoration persisted. Costumed employees and tradespeople were encouraged to perform after hours for hotel guests. Made-in-China goods, and knick-knacks vaguely related to American history are peddled in Historic Area stores. Conversion of the historic St. George Tucker House to a donors-only facility with limited access offered to ordinary ticket buyers consigns ordinary students of the community's history to second class status. The Dr. Barraud House is set aside for the exclusive use of top-level donors, and special access to such events as Grand Illumination and the Fourth of July is given to contributors to the disadvantage of the hoi-polloi." ("Merchandising," paragraph 2)

"No such farm before existed and its creation was another departure from even the approximate authenticity Colonial Williamsburg once attributed to itself." ("Land Divestment," paragraph 1)

"Issues of 'accuracy' and 'authenticity'" (sneer quotes in section heading)

"To the extent that such modifications render the survivals inaccurate, the houses are less than 18th-century authentic. Reconstructed buildings, no matter how faithful to 18th-century designs, are by definition but facsimiles." ("Issues of 'accuracy' and 'authenticity,'" paragraph 4)

"Concerns about the authenticity of the history Colonial Williamsburg presents are also voiced. In what appear to be efforts to inflate the importance of the city, perhaps to stimulate attendance, exaggerated claims are sometimes made about its contributions to the formation of the republic. For example, in March 2015 the foundation's new president and chief executive officer, Mitchell Reiss, gave a statement to the community's biweekly newspaper which said, in part: "At Colonial Williamsburg, we well know that a nation’s past is a foundation for its future. It was here that the idea of American independence was first established, where our founding democratic institutions were conceived, and where our foundational values of human dignity and religious and economic liberty were first given voice. All that we are today—and hope to be tomorrow—started here.” Such claims overlook the contributions of such places as Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, Providence and New York—and wrinkle brows at Colonial Williamsburg itself." ("Issues of 'accuracy' and 'authenticity,'" paragraph 7)

I intend to tag passages that lack citation and I encourage editors to contact me with any concerns. Thank you!

JoeStrawCW (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no problem adding the tags you have mentioned. Feel free to do so, and to eliminate the "sneer quote" - good term :-) Scr★pIron^IV 14:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JoeStrawCW (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to eliminate public relations material, and slanted, pro-CW material from the article are repeatedly frustrated by the foundaton's public relations and marketing staff. Material inserted to provide perspective and balance is cut almost as soon as it is added. The Wkipedia article cannot be trusted, or taken seriously,as long as such tampering continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.220.131 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colonial Williamsburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vagazette.com/news/local/va-news1_070908jul09%2C0%2C7697451.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613053647/http://www.vagazette.com/news/local/va-news4_061108jun11%2C0%2C5993505.story to http://www.vagazette.com/news/local/va-news4_061108jun11%2C0%2C5993505.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement appeared in the Colonial Williamsburg wiki page.

"In the 1950s, African Americans were only allowed to visit Colonial Williamsburg one day a week until after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 began dismantling segregation laws and practices.[citation needed]"

A [citation needed] flag was added to this statement in September 2020 to request a reference to back up the statement. No citation was provided by November 2020. Based on the information below provided by Colonial Williamsburg, this statement was deleted.

Colonial Williamsburg researched this statement in its corporate archives collection and found it to be inaccurate. According to Colonial Williamsburg’s review, in 1950 the National Urban League published a report titled “A Review of the Economic and Cultural Activities of the Williamsburg Area as They Relate to the Colored Population.” The report gave a critical but nuanced assessment of the city of Williamsburg’s and Colonial Williamsburg’s accessibility to Blacks under legally mandated segregation. In 1951, the Urban League queried Colonial Williamsburg about whether it engaged in the alleged practice. Colonial Williamsburg President Kenneth Chorley assured the Urban League that it did not, and there is no internal Foundation record of the practice. In fact, Colonial Williamsburg’s Historic Area sites had been integrated since the first exhibition building opened to the public in 1932.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonial Williamsburg 1920 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Williamsburg 1920 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited state of this article, about one of the US’s premier attractions, is shocking, with countless statements that could easily be editor OR or attraction self-promotion having been left uncited for many years. If there’s a US editor with the necessary knowledge and skills, improving this article should surely be a priority? MapReader (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]