Talk:Colonial Williamsburg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  But how authentic is it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  --Awiseman 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History vs visitor info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cultural influences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Information Re: Historical Buildings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Local Lingo 

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

text: Thanks.  I've added some, and hope it's informative without being too cranky. Artemis-Arethusa 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: It ''Still'' Reads Like an Advertisement

message: 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)
thread_title: "Colonial Williamsburg Foundation" Should be a Separate Page

message: 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)
thread_title: Please Check References Before "Correcting" Dates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Visitor tips and helps 

message: 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)
replies: text: - some two years later.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine picture wanted 

message: "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)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. Wikipedia has unlimited space. Tommy2010 14:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CW

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rev City defined as "programs" or "program" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Puffery 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black visitation in the 1950s reference 

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations needed