Talk:Controversy surrounding the rebuilding of the World Trade Center

message: This article is very biased in the "rebuild the towers like they looked before" direction. --Apoc2400 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I gave it a whack just now. I leave it to my fellow Wikipedians to critique. --Brad Rousse 04:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
thread_title: Improper move

message: 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)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: 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)
thread_title: Title and Title coordinates

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

message: I have just removed the addition of Glenn Beck's criticism of the change of name of the Freedom Tower—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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This "article" was not created as a catch-all for critical comments