Talk:Maryland/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Maryland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Climate

Baltimore, Annapolis, and St. Mary's City are a part of the Atlantic Coastal plain as well, according to every geography textbook I've read, and the climate is rated CFa by geographical standards, which is a humid subtropical climate. Whoever keeps changing this needs to find sources to back this up.

I haven't been involved in this but I would really like to see some authoritative citations or references for calling any part of Maryland "humid subtropical". I tried looking up definitions of this climate zone but the definitions vary from reference to reference (and not all agree with the definition given in the "humid subtropical" Wikipedia article this links to). Many references cite the "southeastern" states but without specifically citing Maryland, which is is arguably one of the northeastern states. MrDarwin 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the USDA zone map should be removed from the climate section. The USDA zones are not climate zones, they are plant hardiness zones. Such a map would be more appropriate in an agriculture section. Downtown Baltimore is in zone 8, but so is Tucson,AZ and Atlanta!! And those cities have much warmer climates than Baltimore. So if nobody objects, I will remove the USDA zone map in a few days. It is NOT a climate map. And Strongbad, where does it say that Baltimore City is 90% subtropical? Faz90 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to 'subropical upland' does not work - it puts you at the 'maritime climate' page. Also, according to Rober G. Bailey's Ecoregions (1998), the subtropical upland climate ('Subtropical Regime Mountains') begins in southwestern VA, considerably below Western Maryland. Western Maryland is clearly in the 'Continental Regime Mountains' in the book's map. The Piedmont region should probably be listed as a transition to the humid continental climate, as it used to be, until the source that has Western Maryland in Subtropical Regime moutains can be clarified.

In response to the above remarks, the eastern parts of the state are indeed in the "humid subtropical" climate zone according to both Koppen and the Bailey source I listed above. This is 'subtropical' according to technical standards rather than intuitive ones, which uses isotherms for annual mean temperatures, July and January mean temps. etc. Palustris4 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Responsibility and History

How can we call Maryland an enviromentally friendly state when the Chesapeake Bay is in such poor condition. [1]][2] Also, why is there little mention of Baltimore's hosting many national politcal conventions? It's a major turning point in the development of the Modern American Two Party System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.214.215 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Chesapeake City

As the topic indicates, Chesapeake City, Maryland is a town (not a city) with less than 1000 residents. In the same area, Elkton, Maryland, the county seat, has about 12000 residents. There's no indication in the former topic why it should be more notable than Elkton. Tedickey (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the multiple new mentions of Chesapeake City include source citations, which lends to strong suspicion of original research. My opinion is that these edits constitute undue promotion of the town. —ADavidB 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ocean City is not considered a "city" by the US Census. Although Chesapeake City and Ocean City have the word "city" in their name does not make them cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myryspace (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and removed the two statements that were marked as dubious because they've sat there for eight months and no one defended them here. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me in a reply. — Mike J B 04:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)

I was thinking maybe a sports, demographics, and/or transportation articles, any other ideas?--Levineps (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Crime rate in ethnicity section

I have restored a removal which was twice reverted, so I am bringing it here. The removal is of a sentence in the Ethnicity section describing the higher crime rates in the areas where African Americans are concentrated. This seems out of place to begin with, but it is not supported as near as I can tell by the crime rate may cited. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the crime rate does not belong in the Ethnicity section. First and foremost, the data cited is completely inaccurate, as a longtime resident of Southern Maryland I tend to think my knowledge of the area is superior to an outsider. As an example, the data shows that Prince Frederick is riddled with crime (giving it a 1 out of 100 for safety), which it is not. Unfortunately, this seems nothing more than vandalism. Good catch TeaDrinker. Brightwell (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair it was actually caught by two anonymous editors, both of whom were reverted by the original author of the sentence. I only spotted it when I saw those reverts. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The history seems to show that the original author of the statement was also an anon-ip, who created an account immediately after the first revert. (Agree that the source doesn't support the statement...) Tedickey (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

State Emblems

Where is the list of state emblems? I'm sorry if it's there and I idn't see it, but could somebody put that in? Andreahays (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is the List of Maryland state symbols. Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Service Reduction Day"

Noted and wiki-linked on Public_holidays_in_the_United_States#Legal_holidays_by_states under Maryland, yet doesn't have it's own page, nor does the State page address the day at all. Either there's an alternate name for it that needs a redirect from someone familiar with the area, or it needs an article. A brief Google search seems to point as the phrase being the official reason used to create a 4-day weekend. Perhaps something like Administrative_holiday would be a good catchall for this type of situation? I'm sure there are other instances of official reason being put to unofficial days off (the Friday after Thanksgiving) on the official calendar. (will be double posted on Talk:Public_holidays_in_the_United_States as it's something for both groups/pages to possibly consider.) --EvilEdDead (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Culture Section

I noticed while skimming through this article that there appears to be no section on Maryland's culture. Other state articles such as Virginia have detailed sections on their individual cultures. Maryland shouldn't be an exception. If anyone is interested, I would be glad to help.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

This would have to be another article. There is a separate article on the Culture of Baltimore that s good but is in no way comprehensible. This would be quite the undertaking and, believe me, a source of much contention because the majority of it would be based on perception and opinion. I vote it is best not to attempt this.--173.59.249.85 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regional cultures: Maryland definitely has four or five very distinct "regional cultures" and the accents of people of those regions vary widely (probably because Maryland is at the border of the American North and South; and also has a sharp cultural change along East-West lines, with the Eastern "tidal" accent being very old and quite different).

For example, Southern Maryland and Baltimore have dramatically different accents, and the "Chesapeake Bay" accents (of older populations) and also the "Mountain" accents of Western Maryland are also dramatically distinct from each other.

For a small state Maryland has very major regional differences.

None of this is "merely perception"-- there are lots of strong and cite-able sources out there on this, for anyone who has the time to get them and add them to the article.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't be based on opinion at all. I'm sure that there are many usable non-opinionated sources and references available on the culture of Maryland. All one has to do is visit their local library or spend an hour scouring Google books. We could even use Virginia's culture section if we need guidance on what to include. -(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

I don't know about accents, but the "America in miniature" slogan was well-chosen. I can't name another state that is so small with so many diverse areas. Student7 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"History' snippet

An editor added the following: " Cumberland is located over the river from Cumberland, Maryland the airport was built in 1946 to replace the Mexico Farms as the commercial and General Aviation that did serve the are from 1925 due to demand of air travel and growth of aviation. the Cumberland Airport did serve as a commercial Airport from 1946 untill 2003..." This was correctly reverted since it was uncited and contained pov-type text which I did not copy. It seems to me that this belongs somewhere in history though probably not at the state level. County or city maybe? Student7 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indigenous History?

I actually came to this article because I was interested in finding out which indignenous nations lived in the Maryland area before and at the time of contact. I was surprised to find no mention at all. It would be essential to include indigenous history to any geography, especially at the time of contact and during the colonial process. I was interested in finding out a history of the relations between Maryland's native groups and the early colonists; once again I was disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you only needed to look and link a little farther. The "History" section of the article begins with a main article link to the History of Maryland article, where you'll find a long list of Native American tribes, and mention of widespread fatalities among them upon exposure to European diseases from the early colonists. Any additional details that are verifiable can be added by other readers who choose to be editors as well. —ADavidB 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Life Sciences" section in introduction paragraphs is unnecessarily enormous!

What in the world is the justification behind the "life sciences" blurb and subsequent "run-along paragraph" noting medical researchers in the introductory paragraphs? Who decided this should be the main focus of the most important section of the whole article? Is anyone else in the agreement that the introduction needs to be cleaned up and the last paragraph in it listing life science researchers deleted, or moved to its own section further down in the article? When I think of my home state of Maryland, this is not something that comes to mind as an identifying facet of the state's character worthy of consuming more than 50% of its introductory section on a world-renowned research source. Could someone who has the resources, ability, and time please consider revising this introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.199.83 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved it to it's own section under Economy. I also revised the reference to one that is current. David (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ill-Fitted Pictures

I just made changes to these photos, feel free to revert/respond/etc

"Sunset over Hunt Valley"

This is in my opinion a really poor photograph, it's of an office park drainage pond. I strongly feel this is not the right one to visually summarize Maryland's native fauna.

"LDS cathedral"

While Visually appealing, I feel Maryland has more noteworthy religious structures to choose from. One that represents the demographics of the state would also be more appropriate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.194.153 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:MDSTHSE.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MDSTHSE.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MDSTHSE.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Largest Cities Template

I did some pretty heavy editing on the "largest cities template," mainly because it misrepresents the populations of Maryland's "cities." While many of these places, such as Columbia, are not technically cities, they should definitely be included on this list because they are among the highest populated places in Maryland. Therefore, I changed the template to represent not just technical cities and towns, but census-designated places as well. I tried adding pictures of Columbia, Germantown and Silver Spring from other pages, and while I think it looks good, they are a little large. I'm sorry I didn't know how to fix that but the main problem - the list of populated places - is now fixed and does a much better job "painting a picture" of the most highly-populated cities/places/etc in Maryland. signed by Jampilot, September 20, 2012

Great job :D ElliottBelardo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

disagree - the template doesn't match the given WP:RS, and doesn't match the consensus for "cities". Typical WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Zone map

The image for the "2012 USDA zone map for Maryland"--credited at the file source as "own work"-- shows a significant area of zone 8a in Maryland. The source of this information is unclear and does not coincide with the zone map published by the USDA:

http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Images/150dpi/MDDC.jpg

At the very least, if this map is included, the source of its information should be clearly identified, and it should not be attributed to the USDA. Why not just use the USDA's own image? From the USDA website: "Most information presented on the USDA Web site is considered public domain information. Public domain information may be freely distributed or copied, but use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Attribution may be cited as follows: "U. S. Department of Agriculture." 160.111.254.17 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me, if true, the file itself should be deleted from WikiMedia. Wikipedia may not be the only user, nor this article the only one in Wikipedia. The only way to be sure is to rm the map entirely from our sister project. Student7 (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Religion

I don't understand how this works, but there are Mennonite communities in Washington County as well. And the religious chart is strange, ie Lutherans are Protestants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.179.216 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I added Washington County and "other" Protestants. Source citations are still needed. —ADavidB 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

Does "LGBT rights and community" properly fall under "Demographics"? A cursory search of other state articles (AL, AK, CA, MA, ME, NY) shows that NONE of them include a discussion of sexual orientation under "Demographics" (although the article for California includes it under "Politics"); as a general rule, it seems that the main subjects are age/race/income/religion. This section, on the other hand, seems to be more a coverage of the political movement to legalize gay marriage... Considering also that: 1) five out of the six citations are from the same source, and 2) there is already an article that covers everything that this subsection covers - in more depth, no less - (Same-sex marriage in Maryland), this subsection seems unnecessary. Would there be objections to its removal? 173.10.131.218 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out.

The subsection is clearly history. I've moved it to start a new article Politics of Maryland, a stub, at this point.

I left a count, though not sure it should be there. Because of the heavy editing of the Project LGBT, we're getting a lot of statistics/material on that type of activity, overwhelming non-LGBT material. A bit WP:UNDUE at times. Student7 (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

History

Could somebody add something about the history/prehistory of Maryland before Europeans came? That was what I came to this article to learn after enjoying that section on the "West Virginia" page. But I didn't see anything about it here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.107.65 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Do a search for "Piscataway Indians". 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

mid-atlantic vs north-eastern

POV-based editor added the template for North-Eastern states here, contrary to consensus, and a (presumably) different editor restored that that with a change comment which refers to "Southern State". Neither change was an improvement. TEDickey (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's POV? I thought it made sense more than Southern, which was the category that was restored, and Maryland definitely does not fall in that category. If Delaware and DC are Northeast, certainly Maryland is. Scarlettail (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

POV - you have to review the edit history, which has at times removed one category in favor of another. As for "certainly", there are applicable reliable sources to use; personal experience is not a reliable source. TEDickey (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I take their edits with good faith and thought they made sense. Southern is a minority label for Maryland originating from the old Mason-Dixie line, which does not apply today, and is not nearly as widely used as Mid-Atlantic or Northeast. As for northeast, our own article, Northeastern United States, includes Maryland. Although Wikipedia is not a reliable source, consistency is useful, and, as I mentioned, it makes no sense for DC to be NE and not Maryland. In addition, there are other sources, such as weather forecasters like the Weather Channel and Accuweather that include Maryland in the NE, and the EPA includes Maryland in the NE, such as here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/northeast.html

A large portion of maps on a Google image search also put it in the Northeast. There are some sources that put it into southern, such as the Census Bureau putting it into South Atlantic, so perhaps we can have that category, but I don't see why we can't have all three of South, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic if we have to. Northeast seems pretty well sourced. Scarlettail (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the smallest states?

What weasel words... I could accept 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. Maybe 4th or 5th. 6th or 7th is really stretching it. But 9th???

And a total area that is 2-to-8 times that of the actual smallest states?

Come on.

198.228.216.159 (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The 9th smallest out of 50 states is in the smallest tier, and it's clearly small when compared to the majority of states that far surpass its size. I don't think it's a stretch at all. Scarlettail (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

remaining loyal, etc

There's no clue where the opinion about "remaining loyal" came from; if it came from the cite regarding 49%, a relevant quote would be appropriate, since it's unlikely that non-voting people exercised much influence over the legislature. TEDickey (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

poorly sourced anecdote

recent edits have dwelt upon fringe opinions, selecting sources - not at all encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a children's historical novel TEDickey (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That new picture caption is ridiculous in length. I'll look into trying to trim it down. Scarlettail (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

references about painting...

recent edits have cited information not found in the disputed source (verified by reading it, courtesy of google). Suggest you actually find a source - some may be hard, since the information appears unlikely. TEDickey (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the cited information does not actually appear in the given source, that means that each instance added fails verification. Link spam doesn't get better treatment. TEDickey (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Boldface added just for emphasis (of key points)-- :-)

You didn't check very carefully, because they are all in there. It's late and I'll cover this tomorrow.

For starters though, you began by tagging the first footnote as "not in the source", (the footnote that says that the painting is of a 1634 event).

The book does mention the year-- 1634-- the year the colony was born, just like the reference says. I just looked at it again one minute ago.

Also--

1) the digital books are numbered differently

2) the digital books do not show all the pages.

3) The author says that she wants to expose the inaccuracy in traditional expressions of history and perhaps, supplant them (she has a political/theoretical belief ),

(Not exactly my belief-- hers. I am more prone to keeping the old narratives anyway, while nevertheless understanding that they are strictly mythic and symbolic.) I believe that mythic narratives have intrinsic value, although understanding where they part from reality should be the work of historians.

But please-- lets not lose the old myths in the effort to get at reality (there should be space for both, without losing the value of myth).

- A) however despite this belief of hers, she acknowledges what the painting is supposed to depict in detail

- and that B) this depiction is the traditional, hundreds of years old "founding narrative" of the beginning of Maryland.

Very important--

She is saying this painting is Maryland's traditional artists representation of the founding of Maryland, not a photographic rendering of the real event.

:Which is exactly what the caption starts out by saying.

So she is not disputing that the painting says certain things, she is reminding us that it's an artists representation.

But she ALSO says--

The painting itself is a part of Maryland history. (It's a very famous Maryland painting).

So, in summary, the reference source says the painting is not photographic of what happened in 1634-- it says that the painting is a representation of the state's founding. And the painting itself is a famous part of Maryland history, which relates to it's founding.

- - It's a widely recognized symbol of the founding.

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For example, see the Wikipedia article Washington's crossing of the Delaware River. That article is about the actual historical event, but the article opens with the famous painting, Washington Crossing the Delaware , which everyone knows (and the Wikipedia article about the painting states) has historical inaccuracies.

Nevertheless the painting is allowed to be in the opening of the otherwise factual article about the real historical event. Why? Because the painting is the iconic, widely recognized, traditional symbol of the event. Everyone associates the painting with the event, traditionally and historically, that association has always been made.

Even more than that, the painting represents the "icon historic narrative" of the event (the notable "story" of what happened, which is not always what really happened, but it is the famous story about the event).

So the painting is a part of the history. It's the widely recognized symbol of that history. (And the "historic narrative").

Even though it's widely known not to be photographically accurate.

Which is why it's still allowed in the factual Wikipedia article about the event.

The writing has to be factually accurate-- but the symbol (and it's depicted "fairytale") only have to be notable symbols of the event.

So long as you make it clear that's what it is (it is the traditional "historic narrative" / the traditional "fairytale"), depicted in a famous painting that everyone associates with the event.

Which is exactly what the caption (that we are discussing) says-- The caption states "The painting represents the main elements of Maryland's centuries old founding narrative." (the iconic, symbolic, fairytale about the event).

The caption is saying "Here is the famous (popular version of) the story of the founding of Maryland, depicted in a painting".

That's where the "History section" of the article starts (with the notable popular symbol, which represents the notable popular "narrative").

But then the purpose of the Wikipedia article (or the scholarly history book or article) is to go from there and tell the real story.

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, both paintings (The "Founding of Maryland" painting AND the Washington Crossing the Delaware painting) are works by the same artist-- Emmanuel Leutze.

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your footnote(s) says page 51. I read the whole page (and have a snapshot of it, to aid my memory). Your comments are unsourced because they make statements not found in the source. (Your comments above are largely non-responsive, and irrelevant to the verification issue: Wikipedia isn't a forum for you to write essays based on your opinion of how the facts should have been recorded). TEDickey (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I can write as much as I want on the talk page. Show me the rule that I can not write a lengthy explanation in a talk page, especially when it relates to the verifiability of a source.

I was assuming that you were somebody that might actually think and reason about a source, but I should have remembered that you usually make assertions without ever backing them up (much like you are accusing me of doing).

You read one page? And you are telling me the sources are not in the book?

Ok.

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As TEDickey wrote, the footnote refers only to page 51. Specific references allow verification. If additional pages include the info, please refer to them as well. If the info comes from other reliable sources, please add them. —ADavidB 14:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying about the King's book (Landscape architecture...)

I was in a hurry when posting to the conversation (above) and I oversimplified what I was saying-- I've clarified it (above and here)--

But here also is what I meant, was trying to get at:

3) A better way to put it is that the author says that she wants to expose the inaccuracy in traditional expressions of history and perhaps, supplant them (she has a political/theoretical belief),

(Not exactly my belief-- I am more prone to keeping the old narratives anyway, while nevertheless understanding that they are strictly mythic and symbolic.) I believe that mythic narratives have intrinsic value, although understanding where they part from reality should be the work of historians.

But please-- lets not lose the old myths in the effort to get at reality (there should be space for both, without losing the value of myth).

I don't know if it really matters, but just in case it does (that's ^^ what I was trying to say-- that was my real concern).

She does say that she uses the old myths too, but if I understand correctly, to illustrate their historical role, and then also to illustrate how myth making can diverge from reality.

But I worry a little that we might lose these old myths, because I believe they have other value-- like how Joseph Campbell used to relate to myth. Thats what I mean. We don't believe the Greek myths, many believe they have healing or life-affirming power, even if not true.

So myths are not only scientific, they have other value as well. That was what I didn't express fully before.

However, I do also believe (in terms of fact) that founding narratives about struggles for democracy (for example, first mandate for religious tolerance and related historic struggles; first request for a Woman's right to vote, etc.) that these are not only real, but worthy of special focus.

However everyone has the right to disagree. Hopefully I do too.

Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Mariana

Does avoiding that name have anything to do with the Inquisition? Or was it actually because Mariana endorsed tyrannicide, which Charles I didn't like...

http://books.google.com/books?id=3BBEU2LKi_8C&pg=PA381&dq=Juan+Mariana+maryland+terra+mariae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XB0SVNDAFY2xyATUgILAAw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Mariana%20maryland%20terra%20mariae&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.10.9 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

question to whoever is slinging around the original research template (Suggestion)

could you perhaps identify the statements you are taking issue with? I do see the remaining loyal one, ok, and that one I do not know the answer to or feel up to researching. But. As my random act of wikipedia for the er...month probably, I came in to try and address some of this because I lived in Maryland for quite a long time and eh why not. I did fix two citation needed tags -- one of which wasn't really in my opinion, but ok. I have no idea how to fix the date problem in the law review citation for the income tax reference -- the date of publication really is simply December, which wikipedia seems to feel is inadequate. Hopefully some other helpful wikignome will eventually address this. Meanwhile, there are several sections here that are accused of original research and no indication here of what the issue is. Most of these statements have footnotes (?) It is unclear to me what you would like me to find a reference for. Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I see these tags and there is no discussion on the Talk page as to what the specific concerns are. If the tagger could discuss the specific issues needing improvements in the sections that would help steer editors to what needs to be improved? WatchDogUS (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100223001733/http://www.automotivelogisticsmagazine.com:80/aml/buyersguide/baltimore.shtml to http://www.automotivelogisticsmagazine.com/aml/buyersguide/baltimore.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This archive link is broken. —ADavidB 13:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150331234748/http://www.umaryland.edu/about/ to http://www.umaryland.edu/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This archive link is broken. —ADavidB 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Maryland. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mary?

The sentence in the lead claiming that the state may have been named after Mary, mother of Jesus, is substantiated only by a reference to a letter written to a Roman Catholic magazine that merely mentions "many scholars". This is pure baloney. Other related articles say nothing of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.61.167 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And the grounds for claiming "this is pure balony" are? I don't know whether the colony was really named after Queen Henrietta Maria or Mary the mother of Jesus, or both -- or some entirely other Mary. I do know, however, that Samuel Elliot Morison, an historian of some repute, wrote in his "Oxford History of the American People" (Oxford Univ Press, 1965, p. 80) that "the province was named Maryland ostensibly after Queen Henrietta Maria but really in honor of the Virgin Mary." This would not have been unreasonable given the colony was founded as a refuge for Catholics, and the original capital was known as "St. Mary's City." 24.20.217.112 (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The line "The intent may never be known." should certainly be stricken as it is pure editorializing by the author and not supported by the footnote.

I find this entire debate to be disingenuous and the worst example of what wikipedia can provide: the vast majority of scholarship accepts as established historical fact that the state was named after a royal, not a religious, figure, yet one Catholic Register source can "cite" "many" unnamed historians who believe otherwise. The claim does not hold up to scholarly standards and reflects not history but an agenda.Thus, I think, yes, it is reasonable to believe that this source is not a source at all, and yes, "baloney." If you disagree, cite an actual source please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:a:4880:258:7141:841:94f2:556f (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 April 2015

Why don't you just say that the colony is most commonly said to have been named after Henrietta Maria, but that there have been suggestions that it is named after the Virgin Mary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juglice25A (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

State Dinosaur

I was trying to add the state dinosaur Astrodon johnstoni. It kept adding it under inanimate. Is this correct, since the species is extinct?<ref><ref>Maryland.govJuglice25A (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The {{Infobox U.S. state symbols}} template does place a state dinosaur under inanimate insignia, as opposed to living insignia. This is correct. —ADavidB 01:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Maryland. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 14:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Maryland. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maryland. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 12:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Persecution of Catholics

Would it make sense to mention Oliver Cromwell here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MildKid (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maryland. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 18:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maryland. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 13:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The Plundering Times

Were they in the 1640’s or the 1650’s? Or both? The article does not make it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.144.200 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018 - the cited reference says the B&O which is definitely NOT the same as the C&O railroad!

This edit request to Maryland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change: Irish American populations can be found throughout the Baltimore area,[105] and the Northern and Eastern suburbs of Washington D.C. in Maryland (descendents of those who moved out to the suburbs[106] of Washington's once predominantly Irish neighborhoods[106][107]), as well as Western Maryland, where Irish immigrant laborers helped to build the C & O Railroad.[105]

to: Irish American populations can be found throughout the Baltimore area,[105] and the Northern and Eastern suburbs of Washington D.C. in Maryland (descendents of those who moved out to the suburbs[106] of Washington's once predominantly Irish neighborhoods[106][107]), as well as Western Maryland, where Irish immigrant laborers helped to build the B & O Railroad.[105] 207.68.122.248 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Montgomery County Task Force

There should be a Montgomery County Task Force under WikiProject Maryland.

More than 1 million people live in Montgomery County, and the articles that read about Bethesda, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Silver Spring, etc are all of low quality in my opinion.

A Task Force should be formed to improve the breadth and depth of these articles. Montgomery County is more than just a DC Suburb and more most be done on Wikipedia to improve the coverage. SeanSmith81 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No naturally occurring lakes

Currently, the article claims, "...the oft-repeated claim[23] that Maryland is the only state without natural lakes is not true." The source cited, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources - Maryland Geological Survey does not say this is an "oft-repeated claim". It says it is a fact. We do not have a source saying this reliable source's claim is "oft-repeated" or "not true".

Instead, we are offered some synthesis: "Laurel Oxbow Lake is an over one-hundred-year-old 55-acre natural lake two miles north of Maryland City." Citing three sources:

The Nature Conservancy says, "Another important element is Laurel Oxbow Lake, which is the largest naturally occurring body of freshwater in Maryland; other lakes are the result of damming creeks."

Anne Arundel County Recreation and Parks Department consists of a picture and a map. The word "lake" does not appear, much less anything to back the claimed "not true". Instead, it refers to the "Oxbow Natural Area (Patuxent River Greenway)".

Russett Community Association is a permanently dead link to a homeowner's association which, based on the cite text, apparently said, "Oxbow Observation Platform, may be the largest naturally occurring fresh water lake in Maryland". "May be" is weak wording to claim the MGS is wrong. More to the point, a homeowners' association is not a reliable source for geological information.

Searching for more definitive sourcing, I came up with the following:

The Washington Post: "Fact: Maryland has no natural lakes"

Maryland.gov: "Maryland’s lakes today all were constructed....No natural lakes survive in Maryland."

Reference.com: "Maryland has no natural lakes. The lakes within the state are all artificially made, often resulting from river embankments and dams."

The next claim, "", cites a search at USGS to turn up a name on a map. Yes, the proper noun contains the word "lake". That is not a reliable source for claiming it is a natural lake in Maryland contrary to USGS's direct statement elsewhere.

The rest of the section deals exclusively with artificial lakes.

We have numerous reliable sources saying there are no natural lakes in Maryland:USGS, MGS, maryland.gov and the Washington Post. The only thing contrary is the Nature Conservancy, which off-hand refers to Laurel Oxbow Lake as a "lake". What definition of "lake" they are using and how stringent they are with the definition is anyone's guess. I don't particularly see an environmental charity as a reliable source for this info, especially as it is not discussing the question and synthesis is needed for the claim.

I am updating the section to state there are no naturally occurring lakes in Maryland. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The claim I removed was added by DLinth a couple of years ago.[3] While they haven't edited since September 2018, I'm adding this note in case they do come back. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source saying it’s the only state without a natural lake? Calidum 18:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent catch, Calidum, in my zest to clean up the WP:SYN that was there, I missed that. None of the sources I've listed say anything about it. I've removed that bit. If anyone can source this one way or the other it would be a great addition. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(The headline for the reference.com article, "What U.S. State Has No Natural Lakes?", implies it. The site, however, reprints articles from a wide spectrum of sources, from unquestionably reliable to Wikipedia, so that doesn't help.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This Washington Post article backs the claim, mostly [4] Calidum 20:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

In a 2005 document on the state's streams,[5] the Maryland Department of Natural Resources defines an 'oxbow lake' (p. 26), and includes a succession of images (p. 27) showing an example formation as of 1997 in Carroll County, Maryland. Whether the Carroll or Anne Arundel County oxbow lake formations were fully natural (though there's no suggestion they were not), or the extent to which either still exists to this day, remains unsupported by reliable sourcing, however. —ADavidB 06:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

When discussing lakes is an oxbow lake a lake? (When discussing pigs, a guinea pig is not a pig.) A lake created by a human-made dam is not a natural lake (per one of the sources). Is a lake created by a beaver's dam a natural lake? Is a lake on the boarder of two states a lake in that state? These are all questions we would have to answer, if we were researching the question for a magazine article or school paper. Wikipedia, however, doesn't like synthesis. Reliable sources say Maryland does not have any natural lakes, so Wikipedia says the same. If other reliable sources directly state that Maryland does have natural lakes, then Wikipedia reports what both sets of sources say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"remains unsupported by reliable sourcing" —ADavidB 17:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging Politics of Maryland into this page because it (the politics article) is very short and only covers one topic. There is a generalize template that has been on the page since 2016 an a talk page post on the same page since 2013, but no substantive edits have been made in years. SCC California (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Maxime de Cromot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"one of the best governed states in the country"

The sentence asserting that Maryland is "one of the best governed states in the country" includes a citation to a source, but that source doesn't provide evidence for this assertion. This sentence or the source needs to be revisited. (2600:6C56:7D00:750E:9D6B:426D:506C:6C2E (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC))

I've removed the sentence in question. —ADavidB 04:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you lived here you would know that isn't accurate. It is highly verifiable that Maryland has struggled with corruption for generations. Up to the present.

Did they mean the corrupt leaders are the best at what they do?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. states

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 September 2002 (UTC)

"Flora and Fauna"

There is an interactive version of the USDA hardiness zone map just for the state of Maryland at http://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-maryland-usda-plant-zone-hardiness-map.php that might serve as an excellent reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterusso (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Popishness

I changed the word “Popishness” in the lead to “Catholicism” because 1) no one uses that word anymore and just saying Catholicism is clearer and 2) it’s a slur.

It’s been reverted as “not an improvement.” If someone would find a better word than “Catholicism” I’d be fine with it, but certainly just about anything is better than having an archaic slur in the lead of an article on a US state. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Any reliable source on the topic that you're likely to find will use the term. TEDickey (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Oxford dictionaries list the term as derogatory. You won’t find me surprised that Puritans used it, as they were indeed anti-Catholic, but any academic publication would certainly just use “Catholic”. The term is outdated and derogatory, as shown by reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

So find some historian's relevant commentary to cite. The Wikipedia topic to which it's linked doesn't come close to the opinion which you are advancing TEDickey (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

An article about a term and how it was used in anti-Catholic legislation in the United Kingdom and its historical usage to attack American politicians doesn’t show it to be an anti-Catholic phrase? Are we seriously debating whether or not “Catholicism” is a better word to describe Catholicism than “Popishness”? We don’t need a source to use the common word for something. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Err, yeah. Unless we're writing this article for 17th century anti-Catholic pamphleteers, it is unlikely that readers will understand what "Popishness" means. "Catholicism" is more neutral and more likely to be understood by modern readers. It might make sense to include a quote somewhere to explain why Puritans feared the Pope, but we don't need to adopt the language of the Puritans in order to write about them. Nblund^talk 18:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh...pope-ish-ness. Boy was I confused. I wasn't sure if this was going to be a thread about pop music, pop art, or pop culture. At any rate, no, it's generally an archaic term anyway, even if it wasn't a slur, which it is. The current rewording is better than it was, but it still look to pretty much be there for the purpose of squeezing in this archaic term. We don't do readers any good by telling them how Calvert did not contemn the papist in the circumjacent towns, whither the peccant Pilgrims did not suffer them, nay. GMG ^talk 18:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Disclaimer: first heard of "popishness" today.

I think linking to popishness is good in that context, as the popishness article is relevant to that sentence.

And I would not call "popishness" a slur, as it is not intrinsically/etymologically pejorative. It is a quite descriptive term with a natural English-like word formation that is still modern (I do not know the usual terminology.), to such a degree that the word could reasonably be reinvented today, so I am not sure that we should call it archaic, either. Notrium (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's definitely a slur, as is the related "romish". You don't much hear it anymore, because anti-Catholic prejudice has all but fallen out of the popular discourse. The correct term having to do with the Pope is papal, and Rome, Roman. If you heard someone from...say mid-20th century backward use papist or romish, rather than papal or Roman, they were using at an anti-Catholic epithet. (It also tended to get tied up in prejudice about Irish immigrants to the US.) GMG ^talk 20:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A solution?

@Tedickey, TonyBallioni, and Nblund:, is it OK now? Notrium (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Your change looks okay to me TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Thats not clear and it’s klutzy language. There’s also the issue that the article uses Catholic as its internal style, so it shouldn’t be mixed with Roman Catholic (this is the decade old compromise to the Catholic Naming Dispute: stick with what is used.) I’m restoring to my changes, as reliable sources and apparent consensus here is that it’s better. Additionslly, I just checked: it was the only place the word was used in the article, so including that as a summary in the lead is also not in keeping with our practice on leads, because the article does not talk about their fear of popishness. It discusses their actions against Catholics. If you want to use it in the lead, it needs to be changed so the article actually talks about it, and I highly doubt you’ll get consensus for talking about that in language no one uses anymore and that RS call derogatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the word is essentially a pejorative term for Catholicism, so this just adds a confusing redundancy. Nblund^talk 17:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tedickey "Popish" is a totally bigoted anti-Catholic slur. You have a long history of posting claims without carefully checking them first.

You do this kind of thing on other Maryland-related articles too, to their detriment.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Maralind" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maralind. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I grew up in Maryland from age 10 and I have never seen this spelling. And I've been all over this state.

Are they talking about pronunciation? That is already addressed in the article opening.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

OK I see that Maralind is now in place as a "redirect" to Maryland, from a typo.

No one makes such a typo. "A" and "I" are on opposite sides of the keyboard. "Y" and "A" are not close to each other on the keyboard either.

The mere fact that there was a moderated "discussion" on this matter was a considerable waste of time.

Even worse that there is now such an unnecessary redirect.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)