Talk:Lost Liberty Hotel/Archive 1

message: This page seems entirely factual. Whether one agrees with the hotel idea or not, the page discusses the details, and offers no particular endorsement or condemnation.
How can a page have a status of disputed neutrality with no statement justifying the dispute?
:How can anyone respond to a comment made by a person without a name? Sign your posts!. I listed this on WP:VFD because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this material belongs on the Logan Clements article anyway. Yah, you made the encyclopedia. Your silly proposal, however did not. -SV|t 3 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)
::32,000 google hits in 48 hours suggests otherwise.  Gentgeen 3 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)
:::Im not going to make it 32,001. Are you going by a ticker, or do you have some inside info? Cant you see that naming an article after a fictional hotel, adding it to Category:U.S. Hotels, and writing it in an advocacy POV is... POV! Its a no-brainer, and its a shame to see a good editor such as yourself, appear to make this a personal matter. Promoting the "Hotel" rather than the material event of Clemens' promotional campaign, appears to be promotion in its own right. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
::::Wikipedia has pages on far less consequential things like charmander, and on the features of things that don't yet exist like Windows Longhorn.  Your anger seems far out of proportion to the issue here.  If you'd like, I can add the quote from the state representative on the subject (something along the lines of "it's poetic justice, but I'm going to oppose it because it's crazy, dumb, and spiteful") and any arguments you find against it.  I've asked repeatedly on the Kelo talk page if anyone has found criticism, and looked for it myself.  It's tough to find.  Kelo was very unpopular.  What I expect will happen is in a few days, Souter will make a statement and we can include it to make the article more balanced.  But until someone starts publishing criticism of the hotel, there isn't much we can do that isn't original research. Update: I found some criticism and added it.  Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 13:24 (UTC)
:::::"Cant [sic] you see that naming an article after a fictional hotel..." -Gentgeen
:::::The Lost Liberty Hotel is not a fictional hotel, it merely has not yet been built. The hotel is at this point in the planning stage, and it is reasonable to believe that it will be constructed if the effort to acquire the land is successful. Nothing in the article suggests anything to the contrary. To thus argue that the hotel is fictional because it has not been built, one would, in order to remain consistant, have to argue that the Freedom Tower is also fictional. My vote: Speedy Keep.
::::Nonetheless there has to be some better way than saying "X is a proposed Y"--logically it exists but factually, the term "is" or "to be" is ambiguous. ~ Dpr 05:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This "hotel" has not yet been built?  That's like saying that my contract to become Oprah Winfrey's co-host has not yet been signed.  No one would say that my TV gig was anything but fictional.  It is highly POV for this article to accept, at face value, the self-promoting assertion by Clements that he's serious about getting into the hotel busines. JamesMLane 06:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Commentary