Talk:Patuxent River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Maryland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rivers (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Naval Air Station Patuxent River[edit]

Should add information about the Naval Air Station located there. Has been the home of many Naval test pilots.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:49, 23 April 2005 (talkcontribs) Pcdolinger

Done as /*See also*/ Toddstreat1 00:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deepest River[edit]

Can anybody confirm that the Patuxent River is the deepest river in the world? Pauldarbyiii 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the deepest in the world. The Yangtze River may be over 450 feet deep. At the Patuxent's mouth, where the bridge crosses at Solomons Island, 126 feet is one of (the?) deepest spots in the Chesapeake Bay. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
And it wouldn't count as deepest river anyway. River depth records are for actual rivers by geomorphological definition, not tidal estuaries like the Solomons area.DLinth 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Environmental concern[edit]

By the way, Stbalbach, not that I really care much, but I noticed that twice you were motivated to make a single change of that one paragraph about the economic development brought by rec. boating and by the Naval Station out of history and into "environment", which seems out of place to me. How about we leave it under history?...it provides a much more relevant "modern history" details than just leaving the current history with the building of the reservoirs (half a century or so ago.) DLinth 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm the sentence seems intentionally ambiguous (I didn't write it) but it appears the "impact" that "boating and recreation" has on the "natural settings" is an "environmental concern" - no? Given the context of its placement under the environmental concern section, this seems to make the most sense - more than just history. -- Stbalbach 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I did write it, partly due to the suggestion at the top (above.) The economic impacts of Pax. R. NAS and of rec. boating are a large, increasing part (some would say most important part) of the river's recent history, and talking about their economic impact does not belong under "environment." Having said that, it could be noted that probably more has been written and discussed over the past 30 years about the Patuxent's environment than any other aspect of the river, so I think it would be fine if you wanted to research and add under "environment" more on that topic, including even perhaps the impact of rec. boating and certainly Pax. R. NAS (!) on the environment of the river. Might be a good addition. DLinth 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Overly quick 12-03-07 edits by Tedickey[edit]

This user, cited previously for "disruptive edits" has twice deleted, without comment other than "the references are not authoritative (!), references by:

1) Penn State University, documenting the Patuxent extent of John Smith's second 1608 voyage

2) An article on the National Park Service Bay Gateways site by the premier Chesapeake Kent Mountford (see his 100+ academic articles at the www.bayjournal.com site) who says that the Patuxent was first seen by westerner in 1588 by Spaniard Vicente Gonzalez

3) An historic chronology of Mid-Atlantic waterways posted by the US Army Corps of Engineers

and apparently does not agree with the status of Bernie Fowler as the premier Patuxent River environmentalist over the past four decades despite affirmations to that fact by several Md. governors of both parties and by his WP page.

I have replaced the references. Further deletions will be reported to an administrator. DLinth (user link above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.18 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

hmm: none of the deleted material had any possibility of being developed into NPOV reliable topic:
  • The John Smith map is discussed in more than one place, pointing out the limitations of that source for identifying precisely where he went. You may wish to cite one of the articles which uses it, but the map alone doesn't work.
  • "google Kent Mountford premier" won't find anything, etc. By his name alone, there are some hits noting that he writes books.
  • "google Bernie Fowler premier" won't find anything, nor is there a reliable source at hand to give that ranking.
cordially Tedickey 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Please take the time to do deeper research than the couple Google searches that you cite above
1- The map alone works quite well; otherwise Penn State University would not have published it as authoritative... it shows quite reliably the general area (Lyons Creek) of John Smith's furthest point up the Patuxent, as does the concurrence in both map and text form by the academic work published by Tidewater Publishers on the Patuxent, "Tidewater Time Capsule", by the top Patuxent historian and underwater archaeologist Donald Shomette who has published a dozen books. I recommend you pick that up at any Maryland Borders or Barnes and Noble. As a professional cartographer and geographer for a few decades, I can assure you that the maps in these sources are authoritative analyses of John Smith's original map.
2- You missed my suggestion to check Kent Mountford's 110 articles published under "Past as Prologue" on www.bayjournal.com in addition to his books.
3- You could talk to any government official and most residents of Calvert County and find out that Bernie Fowler is universally regarded as the Patuxent's premier environmentalist over the past four decades.....his WP article provides more than enough references and evidence for that.
Having met all three experts above personally (not John Smith!), I would urge you to contact them via their online contact info and/or publishers if, for some reason, you continue to feel that their publications and those of Penn State, Chesapeake Gateways, and the US Army Corps of Engineers are, as you said, for some reason, "not reliable." Until you produce some evidence of the unreliability of your sources, I would urge you to not continue to delete these sources from the article.
cordially, DLinth (not logged in at moment)...see above for user info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.18 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
None of those comments are a reliable source as per wikipedia guidelines. (self-publishing as in the 2nd case doesn't constitute notability). Tedickey 11:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? First you just wildly delete. Then a nonsensical, "NPOV" claim about published fact. Now, all you can muster is one sentence slandering as "unreliable sources" the three foremost authorities on history and the environment of this WP subject, published online and/or in print by two federal agencies and a well known university (plus, in the "2nd case", the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay had you bothered to go there.) And for the fourth time you've deleted the references then stuck your "need references" template at the top.
Suggestions, anyone, for how to deal with this??.....DLinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.147 (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I added more references, from the Smithsonian Institution, Maryland Historical Society, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Gateways Program, and a direct published quote from US Congressman Steny Hoyer. More "unreliable sources"??...DLinth (see user signature above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.147 (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Economy and commerce[edit]

I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to explain. (So there's nothing "obvious" about it.)

Including boating on the main river and the reservoirs, the impact that recreation in natural settings now has on the river's economy is obvious.

If no one rewrites and cites it, it should probably be deleted.

Actually, that entire last paragraph would benefit from a rewrite. Perhaps one sentence discussing the air station, another boating and tourism.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)