Talk:Maryland

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

"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.

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)