Talk:Baltimore

message: Hi folks, here are some thoughts about the present state of the article which I hope will prompt discussion.
# Lede: Pretty good but might overemphasize the dimension at the expense of other details. The last two sentences, about the National Register of Historic Places, seem especially odd; and they contradict the very next sentence in the article body, which states that 289, not 65,000, properties are listed on the National Register. (Maybe the higher number refers to places under any kind of historical designation.)
# History: Tried to trim this down and add some key details but there is still a lot to be done. Needed especially is good coverage of the drugs (and the war thereupon) and the real estate situation (e.g. ), which have had a major impact on the city in recent decades.
# Architecture: Could this section be more organized? Right now it's a wall of statements, with a description of standard housing buried 2/3 of the way down. Maybe there should be periodization by date of construction? Also the tallest buildings section reminds me that somewhere I want to see an inventory of the companies whose logos are prominently displayed on those buildings (R2i, Lupin, etc.) but these might not belong in the main article.
# Neighborhoods: This section takes up a lot of real estate in the article and in the table of contents. Furthermore, the statement that "Baltimore is officially divided into nine geographical regions: North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, Northwest, and Central, with each district patrolled by a respective Baltimore Police Department" is a bit misleading, since these divisions are used only by the police department and not by other city agencies, which have other divisions. Some of the geographic names are in common use but not necessarily conforming to the police layout (in which West and East are comparatively small). Also it's unclear what are the criteria for a place or group to be included in this section. "Local organizations, such as the Sandtown Habitat for Humanity and the Upton Planning Committee, have been steadily transforming parts of formerly blighted areas of West Baltimore into clean, safe communities." Hmm. Maybe all this is overly picky. User:Permstrump did some nice work cleaning up this section last year. However I can't help but wonder if it would make sense to move a lot of this section to the fork article.
# Climate: There was a whole big study on Baltimore's climate specifically; this can get integrated.
# Demographics: Should cover immigration in a little more detail. Some stats could be updated. The issue of homelessness is major and needs a lot of elaboration and updating. Also I'm quite sure there are Muslims in Baltimore. (Neither of the references for the religion section is stunningly good and its not so clear where their data come from.)
# Crime: Still a mess, reads like an essay, needs to get more concise on the issue of homicide and include information about other types of crime including the white collar variety. Drug use is buried at the end of the first paragraph but it's probably important enough for its own subsection. I don't mean to minimize the gravity of the murders and shootings, which are obviously an issue of top importance.
# Economy: Not bad but the two panoramas unnecessarily break up the first section. Should cover the Baltimore Development Corporation and Greater Baltimore Committee and their interactions with business and politics. Tax-increment financing is big and precedes the Port Covington arrangement, so it should probably get some play here as well. Tourism—OK—only the Inner Harbor? Maybe that's the reality.
# Culture: "By 1970, Baltimore's heyday as an immigration center was a distant memory." Not sure about this and it probably wouldn't be said in the present day. Not sure so much text on beer is called for (especially when a fork is available). Dialect: this is the white dialect, right? Performing arts: runs long, but who's counting.
# Sports: Also seems long to me but what do I know.
# Parks: Seems short. Individual parks currently covered in neighborhoods section. Are there park policies of note? Should we mention the existence of swimming pools and rec centers?
# Government: Should definitely discuss the hierarchy of agencies in the city government. The Office of the Mayor alone has offices and sub-offices (e.g. ) which perform significant functions. Baltimore's CitiStat system is apparently noteworthy to outsiders (e.g. ) and should be in there too. Also here or somewhere there should be some coverage of the admittedly confusing field of "governance", meaning the role taken by other organizations in urban affairs. The Annie E. Casey Foundation and Open Society Institute-Baltimore come to mind. Law enforcement section looks long but it does seem to have factual information which readers might want.
# Transportation: Long but useful; maybe the Port section could be trimmed or consolidated with the Port subsection of Economy.
# Environment: Trash interceptor subsection entirely too long, especially considering it (he) has a standalone article. Trash in the city at large could be discussed. Lead paint could be discussed. Lack of public transportation and dependence on cars compared to international cities of similar size should be noted. 
# Media: Should mention the ubiquitous City Paper even if it is now owned by the Sun.
OK that's it. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So much words and nothing on the matter of music? I suppose Bmore club is called that for a reason. Zloidooraque (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One note I have upon reading the page is that the Transportation section reads like a Baltimore tourism add and isn't very accurate. It's boosterism, not fact. For example, "Baltimore has a comprehensive system of bicycle routes in the city." Given that here "comprehensive" would mean "running throughout all parts of the city," this is just plain false. It could even be part of this section's text that Baltimore has comprehensive bike routes on paper, but they mostly don't exist on the ground. It may be a bit hard to find a source on that one (besides personal experience).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.6.107 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments, questions, and ideas for improvement 

message: I've made some changes at Portal:Baltimore to make it look and function more like a portal.  It would be good for others to jump in.  Articles, pictures, content, and for goodness sake find me some better colors to use!--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the outer background and border colors, influenced by Baltimore and Maryland flag colors.  They seemed peach and orange, previously. —ADavidB 03:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Another editor apparently won't allow other than a past version of the portal, perhaps to better increase the likelihood of its deletion (which is under discussion after its proposal by that editor).  All changes thus far mentioned in this talk section were reverted. —ADavidB 04:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltimore portal 

message: 32.000 Jews represent ca. 5% of the population. The cannot be included among Asians, to which they belong, as for those there are only 2.3% given. Are they subsumed as Whites? -Who is faking these data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:5c89:4b00:11e6:c308:c4f7:63ab (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Above just earlier today from 2001:16B8:5C89:4B00:11E6:C308:C4F7:63AB which is apparently NRW (dusseldorf). 98.4.103.219 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish population 

message: An actual magazine had an article about the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel and said when it was built Baltimore was the second-largest city in the United States. That should certainly be mentioned in the article, but I don't know exactly how. Maybe I could find sources that say when the city first achieved this status and when it lost that status.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  20:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And the magazine article was wrong. I need to double check but I think it was about the correct tunnel, which according to Wikipedia was built long after the population was not second-largest.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching for evidence of some of the statements I was adding showed text from Wikipedia, so it was already here.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  18:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm thinking this is important enough for the lead.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  16:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second largest city in U.S. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Um, what about the City and County of San Francisco? Ehol (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: San Francisco isn't an independent city. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most populous independent city 

message: The Census population numbers after 1960 are WILDLY OFF. Baltimore has never had a population of 1,000,000 let alone nearly 2,000,000. Who wrote that?? 47.7.240.106 (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the Baltimore metropolitan region with the city proper. There is nothing incorrect about the numbers. Acroterion (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there's nothing in the population table to show that it's for the metro region and not the city. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be clarified. It may be that someone else mixed up the metro vs the city. I was looking at the lead statement. Acroterion (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And to compound the situation, the Census website has rearranged things, so the data isn't at the same URL as when it was retrieved. —C.Fred (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

text: No, these numbers are completely incorrect even if it was the metro area population. This seems to be vandalism and should be reverted. Look at article history from anytime before this week. 173.54.212.241 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you for pointing that out! There was a change about four days ago by an IP; I've reverted that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The demographics section is a hot mess.