Talk:WTC Towers Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I emailed Kenneth Gardner to ask his permission to use images from the site for Wikipedia purposes, he kindly agreed. But on May 19th, I saw something on here I can't find anymore that said the rules here changed to ban images used with permission, but which have not been explicitly released via the Wikipedia GDFL (I think that's what it's called) license. So I didn't put it up. I did think about using the poster instead, because there's a poster image tag and it seems that posters can be used under fair use. LeoO3 18:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 tagged NPOV 2 Rewrite 3 What was the purpose of the recent edits changing the links? 4 Article still speculates too much - hopefully resolved

[edit] tagged NPOV

This article is blatantly sympathetic to the position that this tower proposal should have been built, with phrases like "political machine" and "healing, not hubris." It needs a lot of work, or possibly that section should just be taken out. It doesn't seem to add much to the article. Night Gyr 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This article has been rewritten and the NPOV neutality issue should be satisfied. Feel free to Wikify. Note that anyone can use pictures and information from the web site MakeNYNYagain.com without permission.

[edit] What was the purpose of the recent edits changing the links?

Why the recent link changes from the actual articles describing the various authors opinions of the project, and adding links about the media outlets? The purpose of this article is to inform readers about the project, not the media outlets. The new links are useless to this article, I'm putting back the links the previous way. The text changes are fine.

First of all, sign in with your account or at least your IP address so your contributions and responses can be recognized and people can have conversations with you. Secondly, you didn't realize that my wikifying media outlet names in no way removed or jeopardized the links to the articles they wrote on the subject; the numbered citations with article links remained intact after the media outlet names/links. LeoO3 00:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Leo- I wrote those original links! If there is an article about a subject in the NY Times, a reader wants to see the article, not information about the NY Times. I know your additional links didn't take down the original links, but they BADLY distract from those links with no purpose. Get back to me soon please. What789646@aol.com I'm not making a big issue of this; if you really think its better I'm not going to push it. PS- You are a good writer.

I appreciate your kind words and understand your point (I'm assuming you're Kenneth Gardner). As you can see in an earlier version of this page, I added those links (or most of them) to the article based on the list on the official site. In that version, the first link you come across after the name is to the article, and the linked media affiliation only follows afterwards. So let's at least begin to address your concerns that way. LeoO3 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not Ken Gardner. (What789646)

[edit] Article still speculates too much - hopefully resolved

There is speculation about the motivations of the people backing the plan. Unless there is a public record of these people stating their motivations, which can be cited, that speculation needs to go. -Harmil 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• If there "is speculation about the motivations of the people backing the plan", this discusssion page is a good place, so if you have speculations bring them up, but please be specific. You or anyone can criticise the messages or the messangers. On a more positive note, I think the people who support this plan think its a better plan, and their reasons are cited in their articles, websites, and media. Plus I think the waterfalls are negative for the enviorment. Anyway, I added 2 links about polls indicating support for the plan. But I'm not thrilled with the honesty of the LMDC poll or these polls.

Unless there's an honest third party poll where the public is offered all the reasonable choices, polls don't mean much. I would have preferred using an independant third party poll with a number of choices that distinguishes between family and non-family signatures, and maybe optional information such as occupation. Could you support a poll like this? (Bernie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.58.4 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 April 2006

I think you misunderstood. I was saying that the speculation in the article is not currently sourced. It suggests that certain unnamed people have certain feelings and motivations with respect to backing the plan. We can't know that unless these people are a) named and b) we have some citation that indicates that they said that they feel that way. -Harmil 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I hope the two links I added satisfied your concerns. ..... if not just say so. Thousands of people have opinions ....... should they be named in the article? "It suggests that certain unnamed people have certain feelings and motivations with respect to backing the plan." What exact sentences are you referring to? I could have linked to an online petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/NYCWTC2/petition.html. That petition has statements from over a thousand supporters with their names ....... do you think it would be helpful if I added a link to that petition? (Bernie)