Talk:Inman Park

Picture

There's a picture here of the cotton warehouse water tower which is actually in the Old Fourth Ward (ie west of the tracks). I'll remove it in a day or two. Also, this article doesn't sound very encyclopedic, I'll try to clean some of that up too. --Jolomo 17:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I almost want to tag it for a rewrite of tone the way it reads - however, the content is great. It's more of a story than an encyclopedia article. I didn't want to just blow in, slap on a tag, and leave though. Does anyone object? Thanks, CSZero 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a good portion of the history section (and the writing in question) appears to be a copyvio added by an anon from InmanPark.org's History page. Should those parts be removed entirely and an "original" sourced history written? Or can it be cleaned up from what's there now? AUTiger » talk 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Story...

Does this article read like a historical narrative or a story to anyone? Moreso than an informative article, that is. A bit of flair adds to the reading, but there should be more information that goes with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.238.6.18 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, can someone add more factual information to this page?Voice99 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Copy and Paste

The bulk of the article has been copied and pasted from the Inman Park Neighborhood Association's website. That is why it sounds like marketing and not an encyclopedia. The entire article needs to be re-written. A Softer Answer (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just removed another insertion that was completely lifted from another website which is a violation of copyright laws. Please find multiple sources, base your addition on those sources and then list the sources as references. A Softer Answer (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bungalows in photo are not historic

The photograph of "historic bungalows" is captioned incorrectly - the two homes at 923 and 925 Austin Avenue in the photo are new construction and not historic. They were built in 2001-2002 as verified in Fulton County Assessor data. This photo should be removed and replaced with a photo of actual historic homes, or at least recaptioned for accuracy.Ast 87 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the caption a bit, but I think the picture really needs to be replaced with some real historic Inman Park houses. Unfortunately I don't have any to put there. Mellophonius (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Offensive language, segregation, erasing the past

There is a long quote from a major Atlanta paper that described the neighborhood when it was first developed. The quote contains the sentence, "There are no negroes and not a single objectionable inhabitant." Should this be kept or removed. To keep it in offends the modern sensibilities. To remove it is to remove the fact that it was a segregated neighborhood and that at the time, white supremacy was a given. At the time, neighborhoods in ATL were being developed with covenants that decreed that they would be 'white only'. Which is more important: historical accuracy or modern sensibility? A Softer Answer (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for considering this sensitive issue. Part of the problem, I think, is that, as A Softer Answer states, the notion of white supremacy was a given--among most whites--at the end of the 19th century (and not just in the South). Including this quotation so prominently seems to single out Inman Park for special opprobrium. The biggest problem, though, is that the attitude expressed therein utterly contradicts the spirit of inclusive community that marks the neighborhood today, when the population today is 75% white, 25% non-white. Given that racial segregation was a given when the neighborhood was built, I'm not sure how much "historical accuracy" the offensive quotation contributes, but I do know how utterly it misrepresents the neighborhood as it exists today. This is less a matter of political correctness than of implying that last century's attitudes may still prevail. And here's yet a third problem: many people mistakenly assume that the Inman Park Neighborhood Association maintains this wikipedia entry, as do most corporations, so that it speaks for the neighborhood. How can we fix this? How about we delete the in-your-face language from the Constitution quotation and simply state that the development was segregated and advertised as such? And then add some language to reflect the current makeup of the neighborhood. (And, yes, I've lived in Inman Park since 1980.) FACurator3 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way: I'm not the one who removed the offensive language from the quote. Someone else (unknown to me) did that, whereupon I added the sentence after the quotation about it being promoted as a segregated community.FACurator3 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Remove a relevant, historic quote because it offends modern sensibilities? That is censorship and totally wrong. The quote needs to be there. If people are offended, as they hopefully are, it serves as a reminder about how the world was 100+ years ago. If we erase the past, we are doomed to repeat it. Keizers (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inman Park. 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/20120317013620/http://citycouncil.atlantaga.gov/2002/images/adopted/0410/02O0050.pdf to http://citycouncil.atlantaga.gov/2002/images/adopted/0410/02O0050.pdf

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) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inman Park. 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/20140821183806/http://inmanpark.org/park-social/ to http://inmanpark.org/park-social/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821132151/http://inmanpark.org/about-inman-park/npu/ to http://inmanpark.org/about-inman-park/npu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720095322/http://www.inmanpark.org/mead_1.php to http://www.inmanpark.org/mead_1.php

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) 15:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)