![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I edited the first paragraph to reflect the actual boundaries drawn for the inner harbor in the official neighborhood map. I've noticed some other inconsistencies with this map and other wikipedia pages on baltimore neighborhoods. Is this map authoritative? If not, why? If it is, I'll probably make the rounds correcting those other pages as time allows. -- Pbessman ( talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't inner harbor also a generic term which means a harbour not at the ocean but in the continent as German de:Binnenhafen? Thanks, -- Abdull 13:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be the most well-known "Inner Harbor", so if anyone wants to cover other places with this name they can create Inner Harbor (disambiguation). If this page must be moved, it should probably be moved to the standard format for neighborhoods: Inner Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland, with Inner Harbor redirecting to it. -Jeff (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, folks. Some content had been added over the months which left the article a little repetitive, historically-sloppy, and disorganized. At the same time, there was a new emphasis on the ongoing-development side of things which is an important aspect of the living reality of the Inner Harbor. So I tried to honor that contribution while making things a bit more presentable. I hope the resulting page is one that all of us can feel good about and continue to improve.
In terms of improvements, a few thoughts which I hope y'all will respond to. First, it would be good to have the 13-millionish visitors noted in the article, but it would be good to have a reference for that. Second, the "recent events" heading includes two things which are important but which seem awkward in their presentation and inclusion. Do we delete them or lengthen them (esp. the Isabel one; there was a good picture in The Sun over the weekend of the flooded Inner Harbor), do we add more events... what should we do? Finally, I'm wondering if we have any idea about what a "complete" article on this subject looks like. How long should it be? What other subjects need to be included? -- Apostlemep12 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a copy of one of the cited sources, Report to Honorable Theodore R. McKeldin on the proposed Cross harbor bridge. 1944. Baltimore, Md.: Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore. Can anyone help? Mnburri ( talk) 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)mnburri
Caption under the picture from Federal Hill dated 1849 says Washington Monument visible. Washington Monument not finished until after Civil War. That has got to be the Phoenix Shot Tower in view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.231.42 ( talk) 01:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This page needs to be rearranged/rewritten to give an accurate portrayal of the major waterway which empties into Inner Harbor. The Patapsco is mentioned on the page giving the impression that it's that river which empties into the harbor. The Patapsco actually empties into another part of the greater Baltimore harbor. Jones Falls is the waterway which empties into the Inner Harbor, and it's not mentioned once on the page. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 05:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If anyone watches this talkpage, FYI I'm going to start rewriting the section Inner Harbor#Free speech according to WP:NPOV. It seems to give undue weight to some guy, Jerry Rowan, who isn't a public figure, just a resident who received some local coverage in the early 00s for a free speech lawsuit against the city. The ACLU stuff with Women in Black received much more significant coverage as there were repeated arrests and lawsuits that went on for 12 years until 2013, [1] but the coverage about Rowan was just for one incident (and even then it was just an aside to the main story about the Women in Black). IMO Rowan shouldn't be mentioned by name in and there shouldn't be more than one sentence about him, if that. I also think the entire section needs to be moved lower down in the article for balance. Placing it as the 2nd section seems to give undue weight to this issue relative its prominence in coverage by reliable sources. —PermStrump (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I edited the first paragraph to reflect the actual boundaries drawn for the inner harbor in the official neighborhood map. I've noticed some other inconsistencies with this map and other wikipedia pages on baltimore neighborhoods. Is this map authoritative? If not, why? If it is, I'll probably make the rounds correcting those other pages as time allows. -- Pbessman ( talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't inner harbor also a generic term which means a harbour not at the ocean but in the continent as German de:Binnenhafen? Thanks, -- Abdull 13:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be the most well-known "Inner Harbor", so if anyone wants to cover other places with this name they can create Inner Harbor (disambiguation). If this page must be moved, it should probably be moved to the standard format for neighborhoods: Inner Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland, with Inner Harbor redirecting to it. -Jeff (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, folks. Some content had been added over the months which left the article a little repetitive, historically-sloppy, and disorganized. At the same time, there was a new emphasis on the ongoing-development side of things which is an important aspect of the living reality of the Inner Harbor. So I tried to honor that contribution while making things a bit more presentable. I hope the resulting page is one that all of us can feel good about and continue to improve.
In terms of improvements, a few thoughts which I hope y'all will respond to. First, it would be good to have the 13-millionish visitors noted in the article, but it would be good to have a reference for that. Second, the "recent events" heading includes two things which are important but which seem awkward in their presentation and inclusion. Do we delete them or lengthen them (esp. the Isabel one; there was a good picture in The Sun over the weekend of the flooded Inner Harbor), do we add more events... what should we do? Finally, I'm wondering if we have any idea about what a "complete" article on this subject looks like. How long should it be? What other subjects need to be included? -- Apostlemep12 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a copy of one of the cited sources, Report to Honorable Theodore R. McKeldin on the proposed Cross harbor bridge. 1944. Baltimore, Md.: Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore. Can anyone help? Mnburri ( talk) 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)mnburri
Caption under the picture from Federal Hill dated 1849 says Washington Monument visible. Washington Monument not finished until after Civil War. That has got to be the Phoenix Shot Tower in view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.231.42 ( talk) 01:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This page needs to be rearranged/rewritten to give an accurate portrayal of the major waterway which empties into Inner Harbor. The Patapsco is mentioned on the page giving the impression that it's that river which empties into the harbor. The Patapsco actually empties into another part of the greater Baltimore harbor. Jones Falls is the waterway which empties into the Inner Harbor, and it's not mentioned once on the page. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 05:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If anyone watches this talkpage, FYI I'm going to start rewriting the section Inner Harbor#Free speech according to WP:NPOV. It seems to give undue weight to some guy, Jerry Rowan, who isn't a public figure, just a resident who received some local coverage in the early 00s for a free speech lawsuit against the city. The ACLU stuff with Women in Black received much more significant coverage as there were repeated arrests and lawsuits that went on for 12 years until 2013, [1] but the coverage about Rowan was just for one incident (and even then it was just an aside to the main story about the Women in Black). IMO Rowan shouldn't be mentioned by name in and there shouldn't be more than one sentence about him, if that. I also think the entire section needs to be moved lower down in the article for balance. Placing it as the 2nd section seems to give undue weight to this issue relative its prominence in coverage by reliable sources. —PermStrump (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)