Talk:Suwannee River

message: I have removed from the section on Etymology the following: [Timucuan people], "who named it Suwani, meaning 'Echo River'." While I do not doubt that there is a source that says this, I would question the reliability of the source. Nothing resembling Suwani appears in A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language (3rd Ed.) by Julian Granberry (The University of Alabama Press, 1999). The Timucuan word for "river" is given on page 223 of Granberry as ibi. It also appears that the Timucuan word for "echo" is not attested in the material available to Granberry, which is all that is known to have survived. The Spanish during the mission period called the river Guacara. Initial 'gu' in Timucuan words normally is a Spanish spelling of 'b' (Granberry:131). There is a known Timucuan word, bacara, a verb meaning "ripen"(Granberry:118), however I do not know if this is the source of the name used by the Spanish. -- Donald Albury 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: There is at least one other.  The Hillsborough river has class 2 whitewater rapids. See the official South West Florida Water Management District web site for validation. http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/education/interactive/watershed/statepark.htm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.92.6 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Suwannee does not have the only rapids in Florida 

message: There should be more in the article about the hydrology, geomorphology and ecology of the river. The history and human use/associations are fun and interesting, but they are sort of secondary "trivia" type aspects that are associated with the river. The Suwannee is a pretty substantial waterbody and there is a lot that could be said about it here. USGS data would be a good place to start.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanesmo (talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should talk more about the river itself 

message: Maybe I should invoke Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding policy on John from Ideogon.JoeScarce (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You were not reverted because anyone questioned the sources. You were reverted because your additions to the article are not well written and your attempts to add citations were badly formed. Please read :Wikipedia:Citing sources and :Wikipedia:Citation templates for information on how to properly format citations. I think you also need to reread the policy on wikihounding before charging  with that offense. - Donald Albury 13:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , even if I were to review every single thing you've done here, I would not be harassing you. Your editing is not up to standards, and no-one has stated otherwise. Reviewing poorly performing editor's work is part of an experienced editor's job here. If you'd simply start taking the input you've been given, people wouldn't need to dog your edits. If you have problems accepting criticism, this is probably not a good fit for you. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe, you also seem to have the mistaken opinion that if something passes WP:V, that somehow guarantees inclusion. It doesn't. Content of an article is decided on Consensus. And, no, I really do not think a state government agency is a good source for information at all. If adding that Mr. Foster never visited Florida is that important to understanding the river in your view, than a much better source is required. Something like a biography of Foster published by a mainline publisher or a university. Taking the section above this in account, it's very possible none of this belongs here. He's right. This article is about the river. It isn't about a song written about the river. That has its own article. There is very little need to discuss Mr. Foster in this article. One brief sourced mention that he wrote a song named after the river is all that is needed. After all, there is no content in the article Africa about Toto (band). How is this different? John from Idegon (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And, even though this isn't even the first time I've mentioned it, much less others: WHAT IS IN OTHER ARTICLES HAS NO BEARING ON SOMETHING'S SUITABILITY FOR THIS ARTICLE. WP:OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits regarding Steven Foster 11/30/19