Talk:Lower Manhattan Expressway

Neutral?
I realize that this was a controversial proposal but it needn't sound so negative. Jgcarter 05:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically all historians celebrate the fact that this proposal was not carried out.


 * But is still must be neutral...no matter what Jgcarter 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The wiki-phrase is "neutral" but a better term is "objective". "Objective" does not always mean "neutral", especially when logical reasoning based on objective facts militates against something or other. In such a case, would "neutral" be desirable? SWalkerTTU 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean, the article should favor both sides of the argument. I was just throwing that out to whoever wants to do it Jgcarter 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All the article needs to do is present referenced historical facts in an objective fashion. This article does that. It describes the planned expressway and the effects its construction would have had, details the opposition to it and the reasons for it, and explains what became of the project. It doesn't need to present a pro/con debate on the expressway - that debate took place in the 1960s in NYC. I don't see this as being POV. Can you provide some specific statements or parts of the article that you think are problematic? - Eron Talk 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)