Talk:Point Lookout State Park

Map
I don't know how to fix it, but the map showing the location of Point Lookout State Park within the United States is incorrect. The map shows the park as being on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, when it is on the Western Shore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanfickes (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

British forces take Point Lookout
There is a reference to " President Adams was later faulted for not aiding the militia in Point Lookout." First off which President Adams is this referring to, and any cite? Neither Adams was President during the War of 1812 so for either of them to get the blame would need to be substantiated. 76.25.102.80 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Deaths
Apparently, although there are less than 4,000 marked graves, estimated deaths is 14,000. -THB 14:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently not, according to the State of Maryland. Also, removed the external link that calls it a "a genocidal, ethnic cleansing, concentration camp" with the inflated 14,000 figure (someone wasn't even creative enough to make it 13 or 15 thousand, they just added a "1" in front of the official 4,000 figure to support a "genocide" claim). -- Stbalbach 16:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallout 3
A new thing in the game is set at Point Lookout State Park. Would someone mind putting this in? -99.235.198.60 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Federated AK74-u

I don't think that is significant enough, but we will see once we get more information about the dlc. Jayrossss (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a popular culture section, which is generally frowned upon, especially with little to reference. I'd have to say that the DLC doesn't have much place in this article. --96.243.180.70 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadnt actually heard of the park before the DLC was announced, and, given the enormous Fallout 3 fanbase, I'd say other people may be wondering if they are indeed the same place. 86.44.41.145 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no policy "frowning upon" pop culture sections, only an essay. Even using that as a guideline, however, the Fallout 3 reference is notable enough to be included: "Exhaustive lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject. For example, a city's article may list films, books or television series in which the city is itself a prominent setting, and a musician's article may list television series or films in which the performer has made guest appearances." It's enough to say that the content is set in and around this park, and it would be of interest to readers (and to players of the game) who would like to know whether the Point Lookout in the game is a real place and might be interested in finding out about the real history of the place. PaulGS (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, there's frowning on advertisements, as well as spurious tie-ins. Tedickey (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not presented as an advertisement (see NOTADVERTISING); by that logic, one could argue the page itself is an ad for the state park or that any article about a product is an ad. It's not a "spurious tie-in", since the game is set in the park, not just "the park is mentioned in the game". And considering that multiple editors keep adding this particular information back in, that seems to lean towards keeping it. PaulGS (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the edit history more carefully - some of the "multiple" editors are the same person. Tedickey (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It smells like promotional placement to me. In any case, if it stays, it needs to be reworded for clarity. Rivertorch (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look how many topics are linked to it - it's advertising Tedickey (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's promotional placement, then so is every other "in popular culture" section in Wikipedia. It's not advertising to mention products/films/games/etc. It IS advertising to write about them in a promotional way rather than in a neutral, factual way. I don't see anything there that's promoting the game. If "downloadable content pack" is the objectionable language, maybe "add-on" or "expansion" is better. PaulGS (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every "popular culture" trivia spams to several dozen topics. That's advertising.  So far, you've not made any valid points. Tedickey (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, the sentence needs to say what Fallout 3 is; no WP user should have to follow the link to discover it's a video game. Second, yes, "downloadable" sounds like a marketing come-on. Maybe "expansion pack"? (That phrase has been used a lot for various apps over the years—not sure about games.) While I don't think that all popular culture sections are equal—mentioning a 40-year-old film or TV show or novel, for instance, is hardly comparable to providing specifics related to something on the market today—I don't really object to this inclusion per se. Perhaps due to the brevity of the article, it sticks out like a sore thumb because of its relative triviality, but quantifying triviality is always a judgment call. Rivertorch (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Downloadable content" or "DLC" is apparently the term used for this - "expansion pack" is generally larger. Maybe "add-on" will work. And agreed about mentioning what Fallout 3 is. I'm not always a big fan of these pop culture sections, but I think inclusion is appropriate when it's more than just "X is mentioned in Y". The Fallout series has been around for quite a while and been pretty successful as games go, so I think it qualifies as notable. I see your point, although it is POV to say that a current video game is trivial and a recent TV show is not - some might say they both are, or that a game is better than a particular show. Certainly if this park has been featured prominently in other media, that can be added to balance it out. PaulGS (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In plain English, you're saying that you're entitled to provide as much information as you need, since the spam merits it. Tedickey (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It sticks out like a sore thumb because its relationship to the topic is obscure. It also appears (besides the large number of links) to be marketing because of the timing. If WP linked every walk-on-role and casual mention, most topics would be cluttered with long lists of "trivia".  Looking at the other games from the corresponding vendor, it looks as if this is not an isolated case. Tedickey (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Tedickey, my gut reaction is pretty much aligned what you say, although I can't quite put my finger on why it bothers me. Sure, it's obscure. Other than possibly drawing a few new visitors to Point Lookout, the game is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the park. Certainly it is of little or no interest to anyone who doesn't play the game. But if the game itself meets notability guidelines and the connection with the park is clear and well-sourced, I'm inclined to put on my inclusionist's hat in this case. I don't know of any policy or guideline that explicitly proscribes including it, at any rate. Spam? Not according to the letter of the wikilaw, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Btw, Paul, I didn't say anything about recent TV shows; I talked about 40-year-old TV shows. In terms of advertising and promotion, there is an objective difference between those and new video games. Fwiw, parts of the article Fallout 3 read like ad copy, which is a common problem with articles on currently available products. It's very important that that doesn't spill over into other articles, such as this one. In any case, the passage in this article does read better now. Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this would be called spam. Section removed as spam, see WP:SPAM. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dysfunctional map
The map on this page is practically useless. It doesn't even have a larger view. This brand of map occurs altogether too often in the various Wiki' pages. Was it installed by a bot, or by someone who had no sense of image quality and usefulness? Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

terminology not corresponding to reliable sources
If you're going to introduce terms such as "mass grave" you need a WP:RS rather than poetic license. TEDickey (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The term is already in the article, it is sourced and cited (by someone else).


 * Also "mass grave" is not "poetic" at all, it is an exact description of a certain kind of grave, where large numbers of people are buried in one place.


 * Here, see how Wikipedia describes it-- Mass grave.


 * Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The National Park Service also calls it a "mass grave".


 * Here, http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/maryland/point_lookout_confederate_cemetery.html


 * Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to argue (I noticed the webpage a little later), but the webpage doesn't follow the sense conveyed by the memorial plaque: the point of the plaque is that the actual location of the burials is mostly unknown. A "mass grave" per definition would identify a more precise location than a few square miles.  You might consider improving the topic by looking for what historians say - some of the NPS pages aren't any better than Wikipedia, for accuracy. TEDickey (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem and no offense taken. I saw another article that said that between 3 and 4,000 original graves were dug up in the 1800s and then they were re-interred together in one pit where the monument is now. I'll find the article later this weekend, time permitting.


 * Here is an article that also talks about this (but this one doesn't give the number of graves). I think I read (elsewhere) that there were space concerns at the time because Point Lookout isn't that big-- Here, http://www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/ptlookouthistory.asp


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Captain John Smith exploration date
Both of Captain John Smith's voyages of exploration of the Chesapeake Bay and the rivers that flow into the bay, including the Potomac River, were in 1608. This is beyond dispute despite the error in the Maryland DNR publication. I changed the date in the article, which I also rearranged into chronological order. I cite three references and many more could be cited. The 1608 date for Smith's voyages is also given in the National Park Service reference cited in another section of this page: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/maryland/point_lookout_confederate_cemetery.html. The Maryland DNR reference which states that Smith explored the Point in 1612 is quite obviously wrong and cannot be used as a reliable source. Smith returned to England in 1609 and never returned to Jamestown or the Chesapeake Bay region. His map and book about his voyages were published in 1612. Perhaps that is the source of the mistaken date. Donner60 (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Civil War battle, related
See Benjamin Franklin Cooling III, published accounts of Confederate General Jubal Early's invasion of Washington, July 1864 -- Battle of Ft. Stevens -- and the plan to liberate Point Lookout. 129.2.129.38 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's one source. Looking at possible sources, it's one of the more optimistic ones.  The range of sources (here are a few    ) tend to point out that it was either naive or more realistically just part of a distraction away from the main activity, as well as giving more than one reason for the failure. TEDickey (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Possessive case
I am writing in response to N-HH's objection to and reversion of my use of the possessive case, in two instances.
 * In the first instance, I changed, "All of these factors led to Smith describing the area", to, "All of these factors led to Smith's describing the area". For the rule, see the "Possessives & Gerunds" section at http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm.

Froid (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the second instance, I changed "holdings of Leonard Calvert" to "holdings of Leonard Calvert's". Use of a more commonly recognizable parallel construction explicates the point here: you wouldn't say, "so-and-so's a friend of me"; rather, you'd say, "so-and-so's a friend of mine".  For the rule, see the "Double Possessives" section at http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm.
 * I don't want to get bogged down in this fairly marginal grammar point, but will briefly respond since you have reverted my reversion and posted here. I am aware of and understand the principles involved, but as I said, the changes I reverted were not necessary and not improvements, and the edit summary was incorrect on the second issue in referring to it being one of "tense" (as now acknowledged) and also by its analogy with pronoun use. On the first, the original construction – which relied on the "-ing" form as a participle, not a gerund – was fine as it was. There is no rule against such use. On the second, "friend of me/you" is indeed grammatically incorrect, and a change to ".. of mine/yours" would be a necessary correction. However, as noted, that principle does not carry across directly from pronouns to nouns. Double possessives are a legitimate alternative with the latter, and sometimes offer greater clarity, but are not a required correction. Indeed, they are often deprecated in formal writing as, although idiomatic English, by using both an apostrophe and "of", they prima facie involve redundant duplication of the signifiers of possession.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Free tours (relevance?)
Point Lookout State Park offers free tours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:8000:967:CD97:77B5:824C:734A (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

long had a reputation
For a statement like that, the reader would expect 3-4 reliable sources, i.e., different (independent) writers, no "reader comments" TEDickey (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Point Lookout State Park. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721075221/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/983/983990p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/983/983990p1.html

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) 01:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)