Talk:Federal Hill, Baltimore

Untitled

Hey, folks.

I made the last major edit here... for some reason it didn't have me as logged in when I posted it. I am a historian, a graduate of the University of Maryland--College Park, and have done extensive research on the early history of South Baltimore through the 1890s. Included have been research papers on Otterbein from 1840-1870 and the race/labor riots of the 1850s at Federal Hill shipyards. Much of my knowledge also comes from the book, "Federal Hill", published in the early 1980s most likely and written by Norman Rukert. I commend it to your purposes, along with Sherry Olson's "Baltimore" for more general information. Recent neighborhood history comes from being a resident of Otterbein since 1982, a member at Christ Lutheran Church, and a sometime employee of the City of Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Hospital, and the Downtown Sailing Center. Points made about the Civil War fortifying of the hill and gentrification as it relates to Federal Hill and South Baltimore in general are given to add some depth to this discussion of the neighborhood, so that it reads as a true valuable entry in an encyclopedia and not simply a boosters club version of the neighborhood. I love it as dearly as many others, and probably more, but that does not blind my historical or sociological perspective. I hope that my rough additions may be further smoothed out and added to.

Peace. Apostlemep12

Lot of great new material in this addition. However, there was so much that it made the article quite long and somewhat meandering. I rearranged the material so that things were better broken up into categories defined be headings, and did some copy editing (tightening language, fixing a few broken wikilinks and piping other links that went to the wrong place). Cheers! --Jfruh 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anybody willing to explain to me why the image that was on this page was removed awhile back? It seemed as if it was somehow a part of wiki policy and yet it just seems really counterproductive. Anyway, an explanation would be appreciated.--Apostlemep12 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed it, but according to the edit history, the picture was removed because it didn't have any source information. This means that it may have been copyrighted material that a user copied and uploaded to Wikipedia without the knowledge and/or consent of the copyright holder, which is the sort of thing that can get a very-high-profile site like Wikipedia into legal trouble.

Please note that it's not certain that the picture in question violated copyright, but without source information accompanying the graphic file, there's no way to know for sure, and Wikipedia policy is to take a better-safe-than-sorry stance.

You've indicated that you live in the area -- do you have access to a digital camera and/or a scanner? Why not upload some pics yourself? --Jfruh 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Jfruh. I'll be home over the summer and should be able to get something nice and representative.--Apostlemep12 17:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey does anyone know what the deal is whith this anon remove the same section, is their something we should be picking up on? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that either... I thought at first it was because it dealt with religious institutions, but there is also the library and schools in that section too. It doesn't make much sense to remove it.--Apostlemep12 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i was thinking along the same lines as well, i kinda wonder if it still might not be, thouh condiering that really yhrit is not to much notable about those surches, with the poss execption of St. Mary's then with the other churches in the city, but i dont know. I guess just rvert it if it happens again. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent history: A study in gentrification

Ok, so their is a def lack of sources in the section. If you gonna call a section a study at use quotes from a newspaper and such, you at least have to proved some references. Also especially in the last 2 para, the tone of the article comes of as taking a side towards being against gentrification, which is a pov issue in my opinion. I am not going to make any changes for now, to allow the author to revise and extend their remarks.--Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Boothy, the only sources at all in this entire article are demographic information from the census. So the problem, which is a significant one, is true for the entire article, not just this section.

The changes I made yesterday were an attempt to restore some important content while also addressing POV issues related to criticisms of the Baltimore municipal government and general negativity towards gentrification. The changes made portray the costs and benefits, the positive and negative consequences, for new & long-time residents as well as for the city government. So my attempt at POV neutrality has already been made. I would appreciate your pointing out a certain phrase or sentence, rather than the whole of two paragraphs which were already revised, about which you have particular concerns.

In terms of citations, you'll have to give me a chance to get home to Bmore next week on break and get page numbers etc. from the good resources I have there. Not much I can do until then.

Certainly your own efforts to find some sources for any part of this article would also be appreciated. You and others have access to resources I am sure I've never seen--so add them! We all share collective responsibility for this, ya?--Apostlemep12 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok let me put it like this, i am in favor of the removal of the section, as it is nothing less then a commentary, with some, more like very little, of the information presented being integrated into a better history section of the article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

,

Alright, then let me put it like this: gentrification is the defining historic reality of the past thirty years of the life of this neighborhood, which is the only part that most people in and outside the neighborhood know anything about. And it is the continued dominant present reality of the neighborhood. As a National Historic District, this history is extremely important.

Here's the deal. You have your priorities, and apparently your only contributions to make to this article, on issues of Wiki policy. I have my priority, and a lot of knowledge, study, and access to resources, on adding valuable content related to the lived experience of past and current residents of the neighborhood as befits an ecyclopaedia article on a National Historic District. Give me the chance to get home (starting Wednesday) and add or adjust content, properly sourced, to this article. At that point I look forward to having a good and important conversation with you about policy considerations or whatever else you find important. But until then, perhaps a little patience? We're trying to get toward the same goal here, and I've been very clear about my intentions and plans on this matter.--Apostlemep12 14:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal Hill, Baltimore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)