Talk:Controversy surrounding the rebuilding of the World Trade Center

Bias
This article is very biased in the "rebuild the towers like they looked before" direction. --Apoc2400 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not only is this biased, it's completely uncited and is full of political weaselry and presumptions of what the role of architects and planners ought to be. I'll tag some things. Stakhanov 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And what's with that picture? That does not reflect the actual current plan for reconstruction. Dpaanlka 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this whole page is very biased towards the "rebuild the towers" movement, and I'm tagging it for neutrality dispute. I hope that someone better informed on this issue than I am can help us decide if this article needs a major overhaul. Vannav 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is extremely biased. Perhaps retitling it "Grassroots campaign to restore the twin towers" or "Efforts on rebuilding the Twin Towers" or something similar. That or merge it, or perhaps delete it all together. --Brad Rousse 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave it a whack just now. I leave it to my fellow Wikipedians to critique. --Brad Rousse 04:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The article isn’t neutral, nor was it meant to be. It was written by people who believe the present plans for the site are a disgrace, and oppose the present plans. I think the title of the article “Plans to rebuild the World Trade Center” is inappropriate and misleading, and it would be much better if the article had the original title “Controversy Surrounding Rebuilding The WTC”. As for the “presumptions of what the role of architects and planners ought to be”, should their roles be “yes-men” to an incompetent governor? History will be the judge. As I write this (July 2007) I am struck by how little enthusiasm or interest the public or critics have had in the past 6 months about what is going on at the site. It is an indication that something is wrong. Anyway, I think the article should be retitled.

"political weaselry" ??? I'm not a fan of the article, but I don't see political weaselry in it. If you want almost unbelievable political weaselry just look at Pataki, the LMDC, and Libeskind.

This is a new comment -- the two paragraphs above were not signed. I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia, although I have tried to gain some understanding of the protocols, but there is a lot to absorb, so if I am not complying in some way, it simply needs to be pointed out to me. I didn't write this article, but did make some edits at one time and haven't been back to it until now and was surprised at what I've read above. I know this is a very controversial subject, but I don't sense an unbiased viewpoint in most the comments above. Particularly insensitive was the suggestion that it be merged (with what?) or deleted all together. Now why would anyone suggest doing that? I thought that consensus was the aim, not derision.

As one who knows quite a bit about the details of the controversy, I will go over this page as soon as I possibly can. In the meantime, I don't know if any one the commenters above will be alerted to this further comment, but if you are, it would be very useful if you would be more specific about your objections. ML Donovan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mldonovan (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. There is no "dispute" here, just people biased against rebuilding the Twin Towers. Lack of citations, yes, but no POV. Pwnage8 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper move
Considering that Controversy surrounding the rebuilding of the World Trade Center and Plans to rebuild the World Trade Center are essentially identical articles, and the idea appears to have been to fix the title based on the page histories, I'm going to perform a history merge on the two, since it appears that the intention was to make one article on the right title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:  Why not eliminate the article "Plans to rebuild the World Trade Center"? The original article was "Controversy surrounding the rebuilding of the World Trade Center", and then someone inappropriately changed the name to "Plans to rebuild the World Trade Center", which then resulted in a lot of criticism.

What does this mean?
New office buildings with more than 70 floors would create short- to medium-term vacancies while rebuilding the towers. Vacancies where? In other buildings? In the buildings as they are being built? I don't get this. 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Title and Title coordinates
The title and title coordinates overlap in some locations. Can this be adjusted. I know that the coordinates are in a set position, but can the title be shortened? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ( Talk to Me  ) 00:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Twin Towers Alliance and WP:COI
Please see WP:COI. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This "article" was not created as a catch-all for critical comments
I have just removed the addition of Glenn Beck's criticism of the change of name of the Freedom Tower&mdash;because that has nothing to do with the stated scope of this article (see the intro).

The article, as it stands, is an unsourced PR support for rebuilding the Twin Towers as they were. Some "references" to any critical comments about the current plan that have appeared that generally complained about the progress of the plan that was selected have been added (and some deleted), but not references to support the existence of culturally significant controversy in favor or rebuilding the original Twin Towers.

Yes, Donald Trump's one-shot press conference in favor of rebuilding the original towers was covered in the press (but even that is not referenced here), but if this article is not to end up Afd'd someone will have to make it a real article. Making it a catch-all for complaints about progress of the current design is not the path to a legitimate article. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it can't be an article about the actual controversy surrounding the rebuilding efforts. You say that it's unsourced PR support for rebuilding the towers the way they were.  Well by your own admission that's not a good article for Wikipedia.  The efforts at rebuilding on ground zero are rocked by controversy which is whitewashed even in this article.  I think there should be a place where we talk about the corruption, nepotism, bickering, stolen plans, disgraced cornerstone, and other assorted scandal that has led to work still not even really being started.  There are plenty of sources for that.  Why not use good sources and make this a real article about the controversy surrounding the rebuilding instead of removing anything that doesn't have to do with the "unsourced PR effort" that is being used as an excuse to delete the article?  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should be deleted for many reasons, especially the adveritising it presents for opne man's project adview of how the WTC might be built in his vision. It is clearly not neutral, it holds no apparent notability and it lacks proper citations. Wikipedia IS NOT a discussion forum for ideas advocating issues that are current ideas - this article fails wiki standards on many levels. Skimlatte (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)