Talk:World Trade Center cross

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed for the following reason:
: The article is too new. It failed the 'Good Article' criteria by not being old enough to be judged as stable. - Davodd 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't know why such a brand new article was nominated.. Ah well, I guess I'll take it as flattering. Staxringold 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Good articles|GA]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nom]] has failed

message: I'm searching through a news archives database and found a transcript of the CBS Early Show, from October 2001, with Frank Silecchia and Father Brian Jordan.  They explain there that the cross beam came from WTC1 and landed in the midst of the WTC6 debris.  I have changed the text accordingly.  But, for now I left in the other sentence "The design of WTC 4, 5, and 6 used a column-tree system, where a 4-foot stub was welded on each side of a column, then a smaller floor beam was bolted to the end of the stub.[2]" which may be irrelevant here.  We should talk more broadly about the cross beams (various types) used in the WTC — not just WTC6. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the statement about the column-tree system used in WTC4, 5, and 6, as it's misleading since the cross beam actually came from WTC1. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I hope that you're right. --Dhartung | Talk 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you link to that transcript?  At the moment, there is no verifiable information to support the claim that it came from WTC1.  The two footnotes don't have links.  --Chancemichaels 17:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's online I agree it should be linked, but non-web sources are most definetly allowed on Wikipedia, Chance... Staxringold 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I managed to find a copy of the AP story online and added the link.  No luck in finding an the CBS transcript posted online, though. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, K.  I understand that non-web sources are "allowed," Stax.  Didn't mean to imply that they weren't.  But if links are possible (as at least one was in this case), then they should be provided.  --Chancemichaels 12:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of the cross beam

message: I'm afraid to say that despite many good points, parts of this article are not yet up to the broadness standards necessary to award Good Article status.  The major obstacle is the section==Cultural Response==, which needs elaboration and further references:
* What kind of national news coverage did the cross receive?
* "The cross had a profound effect on those with a personal connection to the disaster." This sentence needs rewording.  Not everyone with a personal connection was affected.  The effect was different for different people, based upon their beliefs.  The only nearby quotations are from Christian ministers.  
* "The potential use of the cross in the World Trade Center Memorial has been controversial".  This needs referencing.  For any public action, there are always supporters and opponents, so the sentence ("Many groups such as families of the victims want..."), which mentions the supporters and opponents, is not itself sufficient to support the "controversial" claim.  Quotes of supporters and opponents are also needed.  Of course, I do not doubt that it was controversial, but more elaboration is necessary.  What were the voiced reasons for opposition to the idea?
* In the section==Relocation==, it is stated that "Relocation is necessary", which needs rewording.  Other humanly possible options include the destruction or recycling of the cross.
* What are the formal views of different Christian denominations towards the cross?  Has the cross been awarded any status by any such denominations?
The use of references and images in the article is excellent, as is the overall structure.  I wish all concerned all the very best in the next renomination.  If you would like me to provide more comments once the above concerns have been addressed, I would certainly be willing. --Vinoir 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA nomination

message: I don't get it.  The caption of an accompanying picture states that such a shape is common in skyscraper construction and is to be expected in any structural failure such as this one.  Should the article be expanded to state that this is a likely by-product of a structural collapse instead? CoolGuy 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #Background sort of implies it, but it should probably be clearly stated somewhere. Circeus 08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning?

message:  hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It does seem that fewer & fewer people are [[ sign]]ing, damnit,...

message: now has various disabilities.
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank Silecchia

message: First line says opposition by atheist groups but only one, American Atheists, is cited. Line should either have citations of other groups or be re-worded. Funeralrob (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist Groups or Atheist Group? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on World Trade Center cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080928135533/http://www.biblenetworknews.com:80/northamerica/091102_usa2.html to http://www.biblenetworknews.com/northamerica/091102_usa2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031001133730/http://cny.org:80/archive/ld/ld090403.htm to http://cny.org/archive/ld/ld090403.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on World Trade Center cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biblenetworknews.com/northamerica/091102_usa2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414171211/http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries1.htm to http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126232643/http://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom.cfm?sp=newsreleases&id=717 to http://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom.cfm?sp=newsreleases&id=717
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005185226/http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/05/wtc.cross.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/05/wtc.cross.ap/index.html
*Added  tag to http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/news/news808.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed a line about it being unknown whether American Atheists still opposed the Ground Zero Cross in 2014 (a year when they were actively litigating to have the cross removed). I believe this language was misinterpreting the Snopes article, which had an "outdated" logo merely indicating the lawsuit was not an ongoing event. Snopes is a website used for fact-check posts you see on your Facebook and email feed, so distinguishing when something is a past event makes sense for Snopes. I don't see a corresponding need for Wikipedia to do this; the fact the lawsuit is not ongoing is already directly stated in the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed line