Edit filter log

'{{talkheader}} {{ArticleHistory | action1 = GAN | action1date = March 21, 2007 | action1link = Talk:World_Trade_Center/Archive_2 | action1result = failed | action1oldid = 116627004 | action2 = GAR | action2date = December 1, 2008 | action2link = Talk:World Trade Center/GA1 | action2result = listed | action2oldid = 255173259 | currentstatus = GA | itndate = | dykdate = | maindate = | topic = Arts | small = }} {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProject September 11|class=GA|importance=top|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject Architecture|importance=high|class=GA|nested=yes}} {{WPNYC|importance=top|class=GA|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject New York|class=GA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} {{Skyscrapers|class=GA|importance=top|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject Terrorism|class=GA|importance=Unknown|nested=yes}} }} {{Archive box|---- # [[Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 1|2005–2006]]<br> # [[Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 2|2007]]}} == Freedom Tower is now referred to as One World Trade Center == As of March 26, 2009, "Freedom Tower" should now be referred to as "One World Trade Center". Please correct this. Reference: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/no.freedom.tower/index.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.246.68.202|67.246.68.202]] ([[User talk:67.246.68.202|talk]]) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == In reference to citation 6 == I would like to have the implicit connection between Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda removed, unless anyone can find a citation that Bin Laden stands for Al-Qaeda. This is quess-work and needs evidence. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.198.229.229|68.198.229.229]] ([[User talk:68.198.229.229|talk]]) 23:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ==pictures== Need bigger pictures, dude u need specs to see those --[[User:Darth checkmate|Darth checkmate]] ([[User talk:Darth checkmate|talk]]) 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC) == (Previously) untitled comment == Can someone please mention the movie "Man On Wire" which virtually stars the WTC towers in the story of Phillipe Petit's daring tightrope walk between them? I cannot figure out how to edit this article at this point. -Bruce K. 2008-08-10 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.125.54.166|68.125.54.166]] ([[User talk:68.125.54.166|talk]]) 21:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> .64.83.128]] ([[User talk:80.64.83.128|talk]]) 16:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Twin Towers Completion Dates == Your article mention that the twin tower (1 and 2) were completed in the year 1972 and 73. This is not valid. I took pictures while they were both under construction and the dates on the printed photos May 1974. These photos show the building still incomplete. Me email address is Actnice@Comcast.Net <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.18.194.161|76.18.194.161]] ([[User talk:76.18.194.161|talk]]) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I don't know when it started, but the WTC was not known as the Twin Towers. That name was incorrectly bestowed upon them by the media. [[User:MysticBlue|MysticBlue]] ([[User talk:MysticBlue|talk]]) 05:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC) == WTC7 == There's a mistake or at least no reference, in the collapse of WTC7. To my knowledge, it was "pulled down" by Silverstein. Source : http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html Paragraph 3 states, "All seven original buildings in the complex were destroyed by terrorists". this MUST BE EDITED to say, "The United States government claims that all seven buildings..." or, "Some people claim that all seven buildings..." or even possibly, "Many people claim that all seven buildings...". But the original statement is written as fact without supporting evidence. And since there is so much evidence (for example that it is scientifically impossible for the planes to be the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings)that there were other factors involved, and no claims from the 'terrorists' themselves, it can not be presented as FACT. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Heidimay|Heidimay]] ([[User talk:Heidimay|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Heidimay|contribs]]) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :: All ref to Building 7 must be deleted as a matter of National Security :-) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.110.172.134|88.110.172.134]] ([[User talk:88.110.172.134|talk]]) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> '''Proposal to add new content to WTC7''' Topic moved to [[Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Proposal_for_new_content_based_on_the_latest_NIST_report]] [[User:Johninwiki|Johninwiki]] ([[User talk:Johninwiki|talk]]) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC) == Why are coordinates available in this article? == Just wondering, because last time I checked the towers are blown up. [[User:TheBlazikenMaster|TheBlazikenMaster]] ([[User talk:TheBlazikenMaster|talk]]) 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) It shows the site where they were. [[User:Alaskan assassin|Alaskan assassin]] ([[User talk:Alaskan assassin|talk]]) 01:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC) == Lobby == The article states that the wtc lobby was 3 stories tall. This is incorrect according to blue prints (now available). The outer walls transition from one to three at the sixth floor giving for a cathedral look inside the lobby. The average floor height is 12.43 feet (1368' / 110 floors). The lobby was just less than 80'. Floor 1 = 22', 2 = 12', 3 = 11'6", 4 = 11'6", 5 = 11'6", 6 = 11'6", totaling 80'. Also looking at the blue prints, floors 3 to 6 only have a floor inside the core. [[User:Rkinci|Rkinci]] ([[User talk:Rkinci|talk]]) 06:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC) == Remove Low-Quality Photo == In my opinion, the photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ground_Zero_WTC.JPG) showing Ground Zero in 2008 (listed under subsection [[World_Trade_Center#September_11.2C_2001|September 11, 2001]]) is unnecessary and doesn't add enough to the article to warrant its continued inclusion. It needs to be straightened for one, in addition to the fact that at least 40% of its view is obscured by safety/construction fencing. Also, its location doesn't make sense. [[User:Wadester16|Wadester16]] ([[User talk:Wadester16|talk]]) 06:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) == Percentage of WTC Office space in Manhattan? == In the article in citation 4 it says:<br /> "The complex, located in the heart of New York City's downtown financial district, contained 13.4 million square feet (1.24 million m²) of office space, almost '''four percent''' of Manhattan's entire office inventory at that time.[4]" I was reading another article: http://birmingham.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2001/10/01/editorial3.html and it clearly states:<br /> "Nearly '''20 percent''' of Manhattan's office space was in the World Trade Center." There is a large discrepancy here. [[User:Frinkruds|Frinkruds]] ([[User talk:Frinkruds|talk]]) 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC) == 4 World Trade Center == 4 World Trade Center is redirecting to "September 11, 2001 attacks". Is this correct? Marriot, 5, 6, and 7 all have their own articles. If 4 doesn't, it should at least be redirecting here, rather than to the 9/11 page. [[Special:Contributions/84.203.55.52|84.203.55.52]] ([[User talk:84.203.55.52|talk]]) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC) :Since all the other buildings have their own articles, I have restored the article on [[4 World Trade Center]]. It was redirected for some reason unexplained.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC) ::Ta. [[Special:Contributions/84.203.55.52|84.203.55.52]] ([[User talk:84.203.55.52|talk]]) 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC) REBUILD Them! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.243.226.178|74.243.226.178]] ([[User talk:74.243.226.178|talk]]) 23:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Asbestos == Why no mention of the issues these buildings had with asbestos issues? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Leekiliev|Leekiliev]] ([[User talk:Leekiliev|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leekiliev|contribs]]) 09:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ::Because it would de-bunk the fires melting the steel and provide motive for demolition. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.110.172.134|88.110.172.134]] ([[User talk:88.110.172.134|talk]]) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Link correction needed == ''Dear editors of this article,''<br /> I think it is a good idea to ''redirect'' this article ('''World Trade Center''') to ''[[World Trade Center (disambiguation)]]'' or even to a page like ''[[World Trade Centers Association#List of prominent world trade centers|List of WTCs across the globe]]''. As it is inappropriate to ''direct'' the article '''''World Trade Center''''' to the '''''[[World Trade Center|World Trade Center (New York)]]'''''. See [[World Trade Centers Association#List of prominent world trade centers|this]] for ideas of appropriate ''article naming'' and ''redirects''. Please feel free to post your comments about this suggestion [[Talk:World_Trade_Centers_Association|here]]. Kind regards, --[[User:Rehman Abubakr|Rehman]] ([[User talk:Rehman Abubakr|talk]]) 03:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC) :I disagree, as the World Trade Center (New York), owing both to its size and part in 9/11, is likely much more prominent in the English speaking world than any of the other World Trade Centers. In addition, there is already a link to a disambig page at the top of the article to take readers elsewhere, if need be. [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC) == Inconsistency in the article == The section entitled "September 11, 2001" contains a sentence that is inconsistent with the introduction. According to the September 11, 2001 section: "The four remaining buildings in the WTC plaza sustained heavy damage from debris, and were ultimately demolished." According to the introduction, 3 World Trade Center was crushed by the collapse of 1 and 2 (this makes sense; it was literally right between them), and 4, 5 and 6 sustained damage resulting in later demolition (hence three remaining buildings, not four, were ultimately demolished). I'm reluctant to change this article myself, as I don't know the facts, but perhaps someone could figure out which description is more correct and then conform the two. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.94.189.211|64.94.189.211]] ([[User talk:64.94.189.211|talk]]) 13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Fixed. [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC) == ''The'' WTC? == There are many World Trade Centres around the world. Why should this article be about just one of them? It would make more sense to use this article to explain what ''a'' World Trade Centre is and then refer to a list of specific implementations of the concept. Because that is what it is, really. A WTC is not about the building but about what it stands for. For which reason, btw, it doesn't matter that this one doesn't exist any more. The fact that a new building is under construction makes that it is still there. Just not physically. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] ([[User talk:DirkvdM|talk]]) 07:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC) * {{Support vote}} Agree (i think it should be ''merged'' or ''associated'' with [[World Trade Centers Association|this]], as it has the details which [[World Trade Center|this]] article should be having. [[User:Rehman Abubakr|Rehman]] ([[User talk:Rehman Abubakr|talk]]) 12:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC) * Strongly disagree: the WTC of New York is by far the most prominent World Trade Center, appearing to have been much larger than most other World Trade Centers (though I did not exhaustively review each one), and more importantly associated with two major terrorist attacks, the latter of which became a major influence on the course of history. In contrast, the other [[World Trade Centers Association#List of prominent world trade centers|WTCs cited]] appear to be fairly run of the mill office high rises. Judging by the redlinks, many of them are not notable enough to merit their own articles. We should link to the most prominent WTC known in the English speaking world and link to a disambig page to access the other, less important items -- which we already do. (Similarly, [[Paris]] appropriately links to Paris, France, not the list of dozens of minor cities also named Paris.) In addition, I see no basis for having an article about the general concept of a world trade center, because it is just a name that has been popular with developers and public officials seeking to build large office complexes. I doubt there is much more to say, other than what is already described on the WTCA article. [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 04:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) *I also strongly disagree- the majority of people searching for WTC will want to know about what, in the west (and elsewhere) is known as ''the'' World Trade Centre. I agree that the concept of a World Trade Centre is an important article, but I feel that this one is the one that deserves the 'real' title. I think it is hard to think of a comparable subject where the specific is more notable than the general, but this one does appear to be one of those rare situations- Fletcher's example of [[Paris]] isn't quite the same. The closest I can come offhand to a comparable example is that [[evolution]] discusses the biological form of evolution, not the general form (how things other than living things can evolve- ideas, practices, weather patterns etc) as the biological form of evolution is far more notable than the idea of evolution generally. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Other WTC's not meriting a separate article isn't relevant to the issue, I'd say. Saem for the size of the building, and also, as I said, it's not about the building but about the function. The fact that other articles are smaller is no argument either and is anyway likely just a matter of most editors on the English Wikipedia being from the US because most English speakers who are active on the internet live there. And I don't see at all what terrorist attacks have to do with this. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, so it should strive to be timeless. Thank you Milburn for explaining what Fletcher meant with his Paris comparison. Indeed, the Paris article should be about the french city, not because it's the largest but because the others are named after it. Which of course raises the question which is the original - where was the term first used? <br> The comparison with evolution is interesting. When one talks about a non biological type of evolution then that is usually specified. And in my experience that is the same with the New York Trade Centre - in the Netherlands it is always called that, not just 'World trade Centre'. As for what it means in the English speaking world (which is pretty much the whole world), I searched for 'world trade centre', avoiding US sites for obvious reasons. At business site [http://www.zdnet.co.uk/tsearch/world+trade+centre.htm zdnet] that results in a list of articles about all sorts of WTC's, of which the New York one is just one. Googling the term of course shows more hits for the New York version because of the ongoing news about it. But like I said, this is an encyclopedia, so news value should be irrelevant.<br> But better, let me give you a counter-example: [[Wikipedia]]. Despite the English version being the first and by far biggest, the article is about Wikipedia in general. In the first sentence, it is specified as being multilingual. And shouldn't a ''World'' Trade Centre article also be more internationally oriented? And the English Wikipedia as a whole, for that matter? That is not just for the English speaking world. Being Dutch I resent that implication, unless by that you mean everyone who speaks English, which rather invalidates the argument because that is pretty much the whole world. 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC) :1. You are reading [[WP:NOTNEWS]] far too expansively, in my opinion. That WP articles are not news does not mean they are "timeless" in the sense of being severed from any historical context. NOTNEWS simply means, for example, that if a water main breaks in your local town it doesn't need to be covered on Wikipedia, even though you may find reliable sources reporting on it. NOTNEWS doesn't mean we have to ignore history with the goal of making an article as general as possible. Thus NY WTC's status as a terrorist target and disaster site is a valid element to consider in terms of how prominent it is; indeed, likely many people who were unfamiliar with the NY WTC before 9/11/01 became much more familiar with it after that date. :2. While I respect the argument that WP should be international, that doesn't mean we have to elevate the less prominent over the more prominent. I maintain that the general concept of a "World Trade Center" is not well defined or widely used -- what it means depends more on the particular developer. :3. We already have a disambig link at the top so there should be no difficulty for readers looking for a different WTC. --[[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Dear [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]], besides the fact that the 'renaming' of this article is only strongly opposed by you due to the reasons mentioned above, i'd recommend you to take one last good-look at [[World Trade Centers Association#List of prominent world trade centers|this]] and [[List of tallest buildings in the world|this]] articles, and you will realize that this is the year ''2008'', and that there are hundreds of buildings more "prominent" than the ''NY-WTC''. Aside the "prominence", this article has to be renamed some day, because even if [[User:Fletcher|you]] plan to keep this article (which the ''subject'' no-longer exists), there is already a new ''WTC'' coming-up to replace the lost one, so are you going to add the ''new facts'' in this article? No harm done, i just want you to know that there is no valid reason for using an ''important'' article-title to an article which the ''subject'' dosen't exist. Have a good day. [[User:Rehman Abubakr|Rehman]] ([[User talk:Rehman Abubakr|talk]]) 01:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC) :Your first claim is false in that J Milburn also strongly disagreed with a move/merge. Your second claim is a strawman, as I am not attempting to argue the WTC is (was) more prominent than any other building in the world, so linking to the list of tallest buildings and saying it is not the most prominent are beside the point. Third, I don't know if the article will be moved or integrated with the new WTC article; that is an issue that will come up when the new complex is finished and can be more coherently described. Presently, the old WTC is more prominent than the new, so it's appropriate to give the bulk of the article to the old. The new WTC buildings are described in separate articles (e.g., [[Freedom Tower]]). This may change years down the road, but that's no argument for changing it now, and certainly no reason to give more prominence to a list of fairly ordinary office high rises that can be easily found via the disambig link. Lastly, I disagree that the subject must currently exist in order to be considered to have the most prominence for something of its name, as Wikipedia has countless articles on historical topics and persons. For example, by your logic, [[Muhammad (name)]] should replace [[Muhammad]], which in turn should be renamed [[Muhammed (prophet)]] or something similar. [[Muhammad (name)]], of course, describes the name generally, and links to many prominent Muhammads, many still living, whereas the famous prophet has been dead for centuries. But no, that is not what we do, because the subject's current existence is only one element in discerning how prominent something or someone is; we can take history into account as well. [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 11:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Dear [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]], i dont mean to start any strong arguements, and i apologize if i started any, or expressed any strong words. It seems like this conversation is heading a little too violent (as it sounds). I do not want to force a ''rename'' in [[World Trade Center|this]] article, i just wanted to share my thoughts following the suggestion of ''User [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]]''. In a way, you are right about the article. I am not living in the ''State of New York'', so i dont want to ''plug myself in'' acting like i know. Good luck with this topic. Once again sorry for any strong expressions. Have a good day. [[User:Rehman Abubakr|Rehman]] ([[User talk:Rehman Abubakr|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :I don't mean any offense, either. I'm just argumentative, I guess. :-) [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ::I love argumentativeness, so I'll have another say. :) ::Of course the attacks on the NYWTC (even the first one) are bigger than a water main breakage. I just meant that that doesn't affect the prominence of a WTC. In itself it might have been a big thing, but in relation to the WTCs it's a news event. Btw, you yourself make the point that the NYWTC was not all that prominent before the second attack. ::If, as you say, "a "World Trade Center" is not well defined or widely used -- what it means depends more on the particular developer" then that should be explained to anyone looking up 'World Trade Center'. (Actually, this is rather my main point, because that's what I was after when I looked up the term and that in turn prompted me to ask about this here.) And your argument that the others can be easily found through the disambiguation link works both ways. If this is to become the main article and the NYWTC is the most prominent (former) WTC, then it will appear at the top of the list and will also be easily found. (And if it isn't, then there is no more argument.) ::Rehman raises an interesting point. When the new NYWTC is ready, then what will this article be about? It can't be about both. Since we already know that a new one is under construction, there should also be an article about it. Why wait until it is ready? We already have an article on [[China World Trade Center Tower III]], which is still under construction. The article even started almost 2 years ago. ::Rehman's second link is indeed not relevant it seems, but the first one definitely is if it is size that matters, as you seem to argue. The Afghan WTC is almost twice as tall as the NY one was. And the [[World Trade Center (Beijing)]] "is widely reputed as "The Place Where China Meets The World"." How is that for prominence? Also note that that one has three tower (soon), so height isn't everything. ::Your comparison with Mohammed doesn't hold. The prophet's death didn't affect his prominence. But if a WTC is just a building, as you claim, then the fact that it doesn't exist anymore changes everything. All that is left then is the attack, but there already is an article about that. Actually, there are loads. Just look up 'wtc attack' and you'll see a staggering list of articles. Rather overwhelming even. Which one is the main article. Maybe [[WTC attack]] should become a disambiguation article for all those (plus maybe others). But that's a different matter. (Or is it?) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] ([[User talk:DirkvdM|talk]]) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) == past tense for WTC == I'm sure this has been covered before but I would like to know why the article speaks as though the world trade center is the thing of the past when 7 world trade center exists at the present time. surely the history of the world trade center should not end at the attacks but continue to include the reconstruction and the first line should be changed from was to is. --[[Special:Contributions/78.105.93.100|78.105.93.100]] ([[User talk:78.105.93.100|talk]]) 14:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) : ok it's become pretty clear that no one has any interest in answering my question. If no one explains why using past tense is accurate I will begin editing the article. --[[User:Hippoattack|Hippoattack]] ([[User talk:Hippoattack|talk]]) 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC) == FIX SPELLING: == {{tlx|editsemiprotected}} FIX SPELLING: spandel --> spandrel vicsoelastic --> viscoelastic {{unsignedIP|76.8.67.2|19:46, 26 September 2008}} ::{{done}} ~ <font color="#228b22">[[User:Mazca|'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a''']]</font> ^{[[User_talk:Mazca|'''t''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Mazca|'''c''']]} 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) ==Destroyed vs attacked== I changed the words "attacked by al-qaeda" to "destroyed" as there is some debate over the US government's role in the attack. I'm not implying one way or the other, I just think it's a more neutral statement. :Agreed. Because of this, I've put a {POV-section} (with double {}) at the beginning of that section. [[Special:Contributions/202.78.159.216|202.78.159.216]] ([[User talk:202.78.159.216|talk]]) 11:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC) ::Oh, no. The claim that the New York terrorist attack was perpetrated by the government is a conspiracy theory and it should only be mentioned in the article as such. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] ([[User talk:Mike Rosoft|talk]]) 11:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC) It is misleading, I would not recommend adding anything about this... There is no such evidence from the government, even if there is from random citizens, it is just misleading... It is also a rumour, not true anyhow... ~The CCTV <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CircuitCityTeleVision|CircuitCityTeleVision]] ([[User talk:CircuitCityTeleVision|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CircuitCityTeleVision|contribs]]) 06:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> There is a new scientific research that the Towers were demolished. http://www.inteldaily.com/news/172/ARTICLE/10300/2009-04-06.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.112.240.36|88.112.240.36]] ([[User talk:88.112.240.36|talk]]) 07:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Oh please. If the government did conspire to cause 9/11, and they were lucky enough to find a bunch of Muslim patsies to fly the planes into the building, why go any further and put thermite in the WT Centers, thus massively--AND UNNECESSARILY--increasing their risk of exposure. The buildings didn't have to collapse to tick off the American public and make them want blood. Just crashing the planes into them would have been enough. Do any of you conspiracy theorists actually think before spewing out your idiocy?[[Special:Contributions/99.150.207.99|99.150.207.99]] ([[User talk:99.150.207.99|talk]]) 23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) == Good Article Nominee == Just a reminder to editors that this article is undergoing a Good Article Review, a process which I will be involved with for a few days at the very least. Other editors are welcome to make comments here or at the GAReview page: [[Talk:World Trade Center/GA1]]. I retain final decision about GA status but viewpoints from all editors are welcome. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) :GA Passed! Congratulations to all who've contributed. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) == Office space old vs new == How much office space does the new complex have on paper? Is it more than the destroyed complex? [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 03:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC) == Mumford quote == The Mumford quote was like this: ''For example, in his book The Pentagon of Power, Lewis Mumford denounced the center as an "example of the purposeless giantism and technological exhibitionism that are [sic] now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city."'' I see no reason why there should be a [sic] there. (''are'' agrees with ''the purposeless giantism and technological exhibitionism''.) Thus, I removed it. --[[User:Chrajohn|Chris Johnson]] ([[User talk:Chrajohn|talk]]) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) :I thought Mumford's quote could be reduced to "''a characteristic example... that are now eviscerating the living tissue...''" Trimmed even further, the quote could read "''A''[n] ''example that are eviscerating...''" The way I see it the subject is 'example', the subject is singular, and Mumford's editors muffed this one. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC) ::I wondered if that was the rationale, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Mumford meant. That would mean that the example of the WTC was somehow eviscerating the living tissue of Paris, London, etc. I think it's more likely that he meant that the broader trends of giantism and technological exhibitionism were doing the eviscerating of the word's cities and that the WTC was an example of those trends. --[[User:Chrajohn|Chris Johnson]] ([[User talk:Chrajohn|talk]]) 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC) :::Just so we're all on the same page, here's the complete Mumford sentence as it appeared in ''Pentagon of Power'': :::{{cquote|The Port of New York Authority's World Trade center, 100 stories high, is a characteristic example of the purposeless giantism and technological exhibitionism that are now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city.}} :::This makes WTC the subject, not 'example' like I thought. :P [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 09:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC) ::::That makes WTC the subject of 'is a characteristic example.' The subject for 'are now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city' is 'trends of giantism and technological exhibitionism', so the use of plural fits. --[[User:Koorogi|Koorogi]] ([[User talk:Koorogi|talk]]) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) == The lead paragraphs == Now that GA is established, the next hurdle in advancing the article involves tighter constraints on what makes for clear writing. I think the lead section is gummed up with years of piecemeal editing efforts by various participants; it needs a firm hand to cut some detail out. Material cut from the lead would, of course, be restored in the body of the article. The problem before you guys is this: What detail stays in the lead and what doesn't? I've just poked at it somewhat to try and get the ball rolling. I'm no fan of a string of alternate names right up in the first sentence as that arrangement tends to obscure rather than reveal. I moved the three alternate names down chronologically to where the building complex was first finished. Beyond that, you guys should decide if all the names, dates and organizations need to remain [[above the fold]]. I imagine a fair portion could be moved south. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :Thank you for helping with the article. I will definitely go through all the issues you raised, but might take a break from this article for a little while and come back refreshed in a couple weeks. Copyediting and prose is definitely a key thing to address. Anyway, for the lead, take a look at [[Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence_content]]. This mentions that alternative names should be given up front in the first sentence, often in parenthesis. Other FAs seem to follow this, though I suppose they are just guidelines and we can do differently. I'm not sure what is best. --[[User:Aude|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:Aude|talk]])</small> 04:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::Looking again at the link you provided... I see that alternate names ''may'' be included in the first sentence ("''...and it'' may ''include variations''") though these variations of the name should be bold upon their first appearance. At any rate, have fun on your wikibreak! [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :::The way you have it is fine with me. --[[User:Aude|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:Aude|talk]])</small> 21:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC) == Internal links == Please [[Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context|only make links that are relevant to the context]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] ^{[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]} 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC) == Square Footage == The article claims the WTC "contained 13.4 million square feet (1.24 million m²) of office space" and cites as a reference this January 6, 2002 New York Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E4D81030F935A35752C0A9649C8B63). The article, however, says only that "The attacks on the World Trade Center removed 13.4 million square feet of office space for at least several years and temporarily rendered an additional 12.1 million square feet unusable." The 13.4 million square feet presumably includes the [[Deutsche Bank Building]], several buildings at the [[World Financial Center]], and/or other nearby properties that were severely damaged or destroyed. The WTC itself did not account for all of this space. Then again, this total includes only "office space"; the WTC complex also included retail, hotel, parking and other facilities which may not have been included in this figure. I remember hearing that it contained about 11 million square feet, but the infobox says 8.6 million. I don't know what figure is correct, but the 13.4 million figure contained in the article is almost certainly wrong. [[Special:Contributions/208.127.99.185|208.127.99.185]] ([[User talk:208.127.99.185|talk]]) 02:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :Thank you for raising this. I looked around some more and do think the 13.4 million square feet number is correct. Here is a Real Estate Weekly article that provides more detail [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_30_48/ai_83762552], and a quote: :{{cquote|13.4 million SF of class A office space in the World Trade Center was destroyed, 18.5 million SF of class A office space was damaged to varying degrees, and 2.6 million SF of class B and C space was damaged. To date, of the 18.5 million SF of damaged class A space, 10 million SF is now operational. The remaining damaged space will be operational in anywhere from two weeks to as long as five years.}} :So, I think the 13.4 million sq ft was just the WTC, and just office space there, and additional space beyond that was lost &mdash; some temporarily. --[[User:Aude|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:Aude|talk]])</small> 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) == Construction == I believe the article needs more on the construction of the Twin Towers. Only the foundation is dealt with in detail. [[User:Mydogtrouble|Mydogtrouble]] ([[User talk:Mydogtrouble|talk]]) 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) == You thermitic materials folks == a thermitic bomb on the plane could be a source of the material, just because there's money under the pillow, doesn't mean the tooth fairy put it there. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.102.30.217|71.102.30.217]] ([[User talk:71.102.30.217|talk]]) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == the purpose of the WTC == I just looked at a Wikipedia article about the world trade center and noticed that although there was a lot of information about the buildings from their construction to their destruction, I couldn't find any information about the purpose of the world trade center. What was its function? Or was it just a series of buildings, and there really was no organized or specialized work that its inhabitants did? If somebody could help me with this information I would be grateful. What was the role the World Trade Center played in the world? Also, if there was a role it played, where would I look on Wikipedia to learn about that role? I want to learn about the job of the world trade center: what the buildings stood for, not just what they stood on and how they were made and destroyed. (Howardtheducktown (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Howardtheducktown|Howardtheducktown]] ([[User talk:Howardtheducktown|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Howardtheducktown|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> : They were just big office buildings really. —&nbsp;<em>[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]</em>^{([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])}, 07:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :The [[Port Authority of New York and New Jersey]] had accumulated such a huge surplus in the 1950's and 1960's from the tolls of bridges and tunnels they operated that the states of New York and New Jersey were going to legislate a repatriation of their surplus. To prevent this from occurring without building a new bridge or tunnel, the PA decided they were also in the business of creating office buildings in an area which normal market forces were not converting to office buildings. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] ([[User talk:Patsw|talk]]) 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC) == Main image == {{discussion top}} [[Image:Wtcmay01.jpg|thumb|left|100px|Image 1]] [[Image:Wtc_arial_march2001.jpg|thumb|right|100px|Image 2]] Here we have two images that have spent time on as the main image representing the WTC. However, which one is better? I believe it is image 2, for these reasons: 1. Both buildings are easily seen; they are not blocked by other buildings.<br> 2. The color is closer to a natural tone one would see during a regular day.<br> 3. The vertical shot in image 1 somewhat distorts the actual shape and height of the two buildings, while image 2 clearly shows just how massive they were. Granted, image 1 is newer, but the buildings didn't change in a period of two months so I see that as a non issue. Any thoughts? –[[User:Turian|'''<span style="color:#000000;">túrian</span>''']][[User_talk:Turian|''<span style="color:green;">^patois</span>'']] 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) {{clear}} :Image number one is better it is brighter and its not as daul as number 2.--[[User:Beatlefan97|Beatlefan97]] ([[User talk:Beatlefan97|talk]]) 16:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Dave ::That is not reason enough, so you will have to do better than that. And the dullness of an image is subjective. –[[User:Turian|'''<span style="color:#000000;">túrian</span>''']][[User_talk:Turian|''<span style="color:green;">^patois</span>'']] 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC) :This image(number 1) should be deleted because it has no info or anything. Also the user's talk page has tons of warnings about images which are not his own. [[User:Brandy63|Brandy63]] ([[User talk:Brandy63|talk]]) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC) : Image number 2. I think that this image is more encyclopedic with its aerial view in plain daylight. Number 1 looks less encyclopedic and more artistic, what with the sunrise/sunset setting and the perspective from ground-level. Also, Number 2 has better resolution and overall quality (note that Number 1 has some sort of white staining along the top and upper-left of the frame). —&nbsp;<em>[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]</em>^{([[User_talk:NRen2k5|TALK]])}, 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC) ::Since it has been changed, I think it is enough to call it consensus. Also, the discussion has been open for a week. –[[User:Turian|'''<span style="color:#000000;">túrian</span>''']][[User_talk:Turian|''<span style="color:green;">^patois</span>'']] 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC) {{discussion bottom}} ==Main Image Pt. 2== [[File:Image-LOC_Brooklyn_Bridge_and_East_River_5_cropped.jpg|thumb|right|100px]] I have found a very nice picture of them better than photo one and two Can we use this one, it looks like it would fit the page great!!! --[[User:Beatlefan97|Beatlefan97]] ([[User talk:Beatlefan97|talk]]) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)beatlefan97 :It is a nice photo; however, since I will be pushing this for FA within the month we have to be more careful. The massive problem with that image is the bridge blocking the view. It can still go in the article I believe as it is a aesthetic image. –[[User:Turian|'''<span style="color:#000000;">túrian</span>''']][[User_talk:Turian|''<span style="color:green;">^patois</span>'']] 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ::I like the photo too, I just think the current photo is better suited for the article's infobox. As mentioned above in the previous discussion, the current photo shows how massive the towers were compared to the many others visable in the background, and the photo better displays its position next to the other buildings near it. <b><i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">[[User:SuperHamster|Hamster]]</font></b> <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/SuperHamster|Contribs]]</small> 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC) == Corrections!!! == The World Trade Center (WTC) was a complex in Lower Manhattan in New York City whose seven buildings were destroyed in 2001 in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Correction: 3 buildings where destroyed and the other 4 where damaged beyond repair and then demolished. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:8limes|8limes]] ([[User talk:8limes|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/8limes|contribs]]) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :"destroyed" means: "to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate" [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destroyed] "to ruin completely; spoil" [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroyed] "to damage beyond use or repair" [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroy] The damage to all 7 WTC buildings meets these definitions. '''''<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]</font>''''' 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC) :It's stylistically odd, however, to define a building by referring to its destruction, as we currently do in the first sentence. Also, some uninformed readers may actually think that the destruction of the seven buildings would have been due to (physically) unrelated actions. Making the lead unambiguous would be a good thing, although your observation on the meaning of the term "destroyed" is correct.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">[[User talk:Cs32en|<font style="color:#000085;">&nbsp;'''Cs32en'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) wiki wiki loco vo 31!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'