Talk:Inman Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) / Atlanta (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


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'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)


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 (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)