Talk:Charles County, Maryland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

It would be interesting to know where Old Charles County was, geographically.

The Old Charles County was once located in what is now St. Mary's County in Southern Maryland sometime around the year 1650. A reference to this event can also be found in the Maryland Geological Survey (vol. 6), published by The John Hopkins Press in 1906. The reference to the original geographical location of the Old Charles County is noted on pages 474-475, and the changes brought about for the "new" (i.e., present day) Charles County are mentioned on pages 475-477 of the Maryland Geological Survey. →Lwalt ♦ talk 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-reliable sources[edit]

The recently added link also is inaccurate, since it states that the first was in Indian Head. Tedickey (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INCORRECT: Indian Head (the CDP) is 100% in Charles County. Indian Head Highway (which is going to be renamed soon), is mostly in PG County, but partly in Charles County.
This editor ^^^ will probably not see this (since it's an old post) but any current editors should be aware that the CDP "Indian Head" is a real community in Charles County. Please always make sure you know your facts well before making edits like that.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

largest arson claim[edit]

For something like that, the reader would expect to see a source quoting a government agency, or the insurers, whose job it is to know about other instances of this kind. TEDickey (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is a reputable news organization, there is no reason not to question the validity of this citation.
please address my point (there's no mention of "largest" or whatever in your source) TEDickey (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does....Look closer.--Phoon (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see - the image caption. Not very good. I'll restore the maintenance tag while you look for an indisputable source TEDickey (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To remind you, read WP:RS TEDickey (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you not to include your opinion into this dispute, again, CNN is a highly publicized, well known, and trusted source for information therefore it is a valid and reliable source.--Phoon (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If CNN happens to be the source of the item, that would be useful to know. I'm asking for the source of the "largest", rather than any number of second-hand repeaters. The latter aren't reliable sources of that information, since none of them identify the origin TEDickey (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to Stay cool I'm refraining from further comment until another editor inserts their views. --Phoon (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources as to largest residential arson in Maryland history: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/national/main659400.shtml http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/east/2005/01/03/features/50855.htm. David (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will add to references. Will also remove tags. --Phoon (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, none of your links answers my point. Probably you are unable. If that's the case, then with the sources you're providing, it's only "as reported in various media", etc. TEDickey (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both CBS and CNN are reputable sources. Unless you are stating they are no longer reputable, then the three references should be plenty. Otherwise, shouldn't every item with CBS and CNN be taged as dubious? I have found a document from the United States Attorney's Office (http://www.justice.gov/usao/md/Exile/files/Annual%20Report%202005%20Violent%20Crime%20Program.pdf document page 5, pdf page 9). Is this what you are looking for as reputable? Here is another source from the Charles County Government http://www.charlescounty.org/unityinourcommunity/history.htm David (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninterested in whether CBS and CNN are reputable, nor am I interested in your opinion of their infallibility. I'm interested in the source of the comment, rather than in the number of media sources you can find who have repeated it. Looking forward to constructive discussion from you - on that point only. TEDickey (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed out 2 media sources and 2 government sources to the fact WP:SOURCES states "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." These media sources are respected mainstream publications. Furthermore, the USDOJ and Charles County government state the same fact. I see no Wikipedia Policy that states these sources do not verify the fact. If they do not verify the fact, please let me know how. I believe adding at least 2 media sources ,to the article for the disputed fact, as well as the USDOJ site meet the requirement that all content be verifiable. David (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for you, and any other me-too. Lacking a source that identifies the origin of the comment, none of your edits are of any interest to me, and are non-responsive to this discussion. TEDickey (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your original comment states "...reader would expect to see a source quoting a government agency..." I have provided a government agency as a source. David (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a "source" only in the Wikipedia sense. For anyone else, it's someone repeating what they got from the newspaper or TV. TEDickey (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tags are gone, issue has multiple citations. Dispute over.--Phoon (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major news Media equate too Reliable sources?[edit]

A dispute over weather or not CNN is a valid news source for citation within the article.Phoon (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cnn is generally considered to be a reliable source.

You could maybe write instead, cnn claims that it is the largest arson in Maryland history. Are there any sources that point to a larger arson occuring? - - "After that, Baltimore Mayor George William Brown, Marshal George P. Kane, and former Governor Enoch Louis Lowe requested that Maryland Governor Thomas H. Hicks, a slave owner from the Eastern Shore, burn the railroad bridges and cut the telegraph lines leading to Baltimore to prevent further troops from entering the state." This is from the Maryland Civil war article. However, since this was war time I'm not sure if its still considered arson. Railroad bridges aren't residential though. There may have been something else during the civil war.

If there are any sources that contradict cnn on this matter than both could be noted. Cnn is generally considered to be a reliable source.

If you still have questions, the best place is to take this is the reliable source noticeboard where veteran editors can take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is. I think the real question here is whether or not someone specifically wants it to be included as a citation. This, of course, is a question of NPOV. --A3RO (mailbox)
Do read my response in previous edits. I've not attacked CNN as a reliable source, but am asking for a source that identifies the origin of the statement. TEDickey (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is the source since it reported said information.--Phoon (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh. Can you help by quoting the part where CNN provides the information that I was looking for? Thanks TEDickey (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you looking for? It seems you change it every time someone disproves your argument. --Phoon (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to the current discussion of Charles County on the rs board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_CNN_a_reliable_source.3F Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep repeating myself: several media reported that it was the largest arson. I'm looking for where the information came from, whether it was from a government agency, an insurance agency, or whatever. TEDickey (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to suggest that we can not rely upon large reputable news organizations too accurately fact check their respective writings? --Phoon (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I can, I check or cross-check. It's interesting what misinformation creeps in. I wrote a paper long ago explaining an example of misinformation which became accepted as fact, and have more than one example in mind should I care to revisit that area. TEDickey (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside the point, a Talk page is not a forum, Since you have not replaced the infamous tags I will refrain from any further comment. --Phoon (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still appear to be attacking me here, so this is unresolved TEDickey (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt I am attacking you but if you feel that way feel free to continue this discussion at the WQA. This page is reserved for improving the article not you trying to make a moot point.--Phoon (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC response: Has this issue been resolved? CNN is generally considered a reliable source, and it can be cited for that statement if footnoted. I noticed there were multiple footnotes for that sentence. An insurance periodical would be a better source, and is footnoted. Figureofnine (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Nother response: Reliable is not the same thing as infallible: see Dewey Defeats Truman, List of erroneous newspaper headlines, and List of premature obituaries. The truth is, every news organ from the NYT on down makes mistakes from time to time, and most adults understand that "reliable" is a relative term. So instead of a long, drawn-out wrangle, can't the article simply say, "CNN reported that this was the largest fire . . . etc"? And leave it at that, instead of getting your feelings all wound up over this miniscule claim. Then if some editor finds a more reliable source (as Figureofnine suggests) that says different, change the statement and cite the new source? Really guys, nobody outside Maryland cares whether it was the largest or not, ya know? Trust me on this. Textorus (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my two cents, but CNN and many other news organizations usually source the bulk of their information from the two main wire services, Reuters and Associated Press. Did anything think to check the CNN article to see which wire it pulled from (likely Reuters, as CNN favours them)? From that, one could contact Reuters/AP directly to request the source of the comment. CNN is reportedly starting up its own wire service as well to compete with Reuters/AP. Should be interesting! Kumba42 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need whatsover to discount CNN as a reliable source. Wikipedia maintains a list of reliable sources and CNN is on it. Insisting otherwise is not an accurate inperpretation of the relevent rules.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles County, Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles County, 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: 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) 22:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacent counties[edit]

class=notpageimage|
Map of county and neighboring jurisdictions

The text in the adjacent counties section is riveting and no one could ever benefit from seeing how those counties relate to each other in space, size, and location. Maps should always be deleted. Abel (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With no one agreeing that maps are evil, will add the map to the Geography section. Abel (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Escaped slaves from CC who fought for freedom in the Union army[edit]

This is an important Charles County story. There were hundreds of men in CC who escaped slavery and did this. In neighboring St. Mary's County there were 700 Black men who have been fully documented to have done so. So this really did happen. SMC even has a monument (statue and historical display) to honor them in Lexington Park.

This mass excape of male slaves and joining of the Union Army happened in Charles County too. (The Union Army had posted handbills offering freedom to any escaped slave who then joined the Union Army and helped fight the Confederacy. Hundreds of enslaved Charles County men responded. They risked their lives to escape and joined the Union Army and fought in many major Civil War battles).

This piece of Charles County Civil War history would be a good addition to this article.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_County,_Maryland&oldid=1206624849"