Talk:Inner Harbor

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boundaries 

message: :Er, I know one doesn't usually edit or erase things that other people write on talk pages, but can we eliminate this obvious spam? --Jfruh 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, being that the comment has no relation what so ever to the subject of the artile or any related subject, and is pretty much spam. Matter of fact i'll reomve it. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the comment in question, please see here. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Umm not really, the term that would be used would be Inland port. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 00:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Still, Inner Harbor seems like a poor name for this article.  Would anybody object if I moved it to Baltimore Inner Harbor, or perhaps Inner Harbor (Baltimore)?  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find another instance of "Inner Harbor" being used as a typical descriptor of somewhere other than Baltimore's inner harbor?  If not, there's no room for confusion, so I don't see the point of the move ... --Jfruh (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. There really isn't another inner harbor out there. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A google search for  "inner harbor" -baltimore comes up with plenty of other inner harbors: Milwaukee WI, Wellfleet MA,  Elfin Cove AK, Gloucester MA, etc.  836,000 hits.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to have a differentiator I would suggest "Baltimore Inner Harbor". --Jfruh (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with RoySmith, the name "Inner Harbor" is just too generic.  This is a big planet and Wikipedia is a big encyclopedia.  There are certainly many other places in the English speaking world that refer to themselves as "Inner Harbor".  I think it should be moved to Baltimore Inner Harbor.--Hokeman (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic inner harbor 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can there be mention of the defeat of the Southwest Expressway development that would have effectively cut the Inner Harbor from the Ocean? More focus on urban redevelopment. MMetro (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be, with reliable sources. —ADavidB 05:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a documentary I saw on PBS. MMetro (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and Room for Improvement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: Baltimore's Washington Monument was completed by 1829.  You may be confusing it with the more broadly known Washington Monument in Washington, D.C. —ADavidB 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington Monument

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jones Falls 

message: 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, 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)
thread_title:  Freedom of speech