Talk:World Trade Center

Time to split this article into multiple articles?

Given how far along construction of the new World Trade Center is, I think it might be time to split this article into two separate articles: "World Trade Center," and "World Trade Center (original)," each with links to the other article at the top of the page.

The article as it stands is a bit of a mess. It starts out by defining the World Trade Center as "a complex of buildings under construction," clearly referring to the new complex, but then uses a picture of the original complex and proceeds to talk primarily about the original complex for the bulk of the article. This strikes me as incoherent and inconsistent, and I think it could be easily solved by splitting the article in two.

The World Trade Center has existed as two distinct complexes of buildings, and eventually it's going to have to be split up anyway. Imagine how strange it would be if, after the new building complex is complete and is well known, this article still featured an image of the original complex. I think it's far enough along in construction at this point (7WTC has been open since 2006, 1WTC is slated to open early next year, 4WTC is supposed to open this November, and 3WTC is likely going to begin rising soon) that we can safely split this up into two distinct articles, one about each complex of buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dense-Electric (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is some confusion, as it could also be assumed that the new World Trade Center is covered under One World Trade Center, which of course it isn't, since that article only covers the main building, not the entire complex. I will have to look into this and get back at a later stage, but feel free to make some edits or suggestions in the meantime. -- Jodon | Talk 18:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps some sort of split should occur, but not under that title. I suggest creating an article titles Twin Towers (New York). If One World Trade Center is going to have its own article, why not the original Twin Towers?JOJ ^Hutton 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was going to tackle this but I just read the discussion further up about the WTC Intellectual Property Rights, this might conflict with any article splits (then again it might not). This is too ambiguous an area for me to get into right now. The article is connected to a highly controversial and sensitive subject. If more senior editors such as yourself don't have a problem with its current incarnation I'll leave it to you/them to iron out any major bumps like article restructuring. -- Jodon | Talk 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there ought to be a separate article about each building in both complexes? That's a total of twelve articles (thirteen if the new Five World Trade Center is included), but I guess it's doable (it's not like Wikipedia is terribly limited in space or anything). The problem with referring to the article about the original complex asTwin Towers (New York) is that the "Twin Towers" usually refers just to the original One and Two World Trade Center, not the entire complex. That could be a separate article, though it may be a bit redundant if there were separate articles about each building. That option also leaves the question of whether or not to have separate articles about each of the two complexes as wholes in addition to the individual buildings' articles. I'll have to leave the exact naming convention to someone else, at the end of the day I'm just a casual enthusiast on the subject, the legal stuff is a bit above my head. Dense-Electric (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's time for a split. I suggest World Trade Center (1970) for the original complex, and devoting World Trade Center to the current complex (with necessary background, of course). Precedents for this treatment include Yankee Stadium (1923) and Yankee Stadium, and several Madison Square Garden articles. Both the construction of the first complex and the rebuilding were/are long, complicated affairs, so I understand how editors have found the need for separate articles on each building. For a shorter article like 7 World Trade Center, discussing both buildings of that name may be acceptable. There are several examples of that approach in Wikipedia, too. Fitnr (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that the title World Trade Center should cover the current complex, perhaps World Trade Center (original) or World Trade Center (1973-2001) for the former? Zarcadia (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

Wikipedia articles are generally exceptional in their ability to highlight controversy over the validity of commonly accepted historical facts, and the organization strives to fairly document various sources. However, as the "destruction" section of this article is currently written, there is no mention of the vast (and perhaps growing) controversy of the actual cause of the WTC destruction. If controversy on this subject is to be suppressed on our wikipedia page (perhaps for reasons of simplicity), then all descriptions on the cause for destruction should be removed. If mentioning the controversy on this page is acceptable, then reference to the documents prepared by AE911 should also be included, as should references to recent polls taken that highlight perceived controversy amongst the public. I am not a "truther" as they call themselves, but I am a member of the wikipedia community, and as a "wikipether", like the rest of you, am committed to fair and accurate documentation. Besh (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe they're called "Wikipedians". And I think your concerns are covered on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article page. -- Jodon | Talk 21:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jodon, yes I believe you're correct - "wikipether" was a (poor) play on words... please see below for a general comment. Besh (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

AE911 is not a reliable source for anything but their own opinions: they've been ignored or disowned by the major professional design organizations, and the controversy they exist to promote has had no new ideas since 2006 - far from growing, it's generally discredited and declining. Most significantly, no reputable scientific journals have published peer-reviewed refutations of the major investigations into the destruction of the complex, so Wikipedia's policies apply: conspiracy theories may not obtain undue weight simply because they exist in an Internet echo chamber. The destruction of the WTC has been extensively documented and described, to the point that Truther organizations have shifted their focus to WTC 7 as more fruitful territory for theorizing than WTC 1 and 2, since WTC 7's destruction was less documented, making it a better field for speculation. Acroterion (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Do we lend any credence to the recent poll sponsored by ReThink911? (http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/#pagecontent) Or is the consensus here that the organization biased the poll's outcome with strategic structuring? Besh (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The poll's methodology, as you've noted, appears to have been designed to skew the results toward a controlled demolition opinion: much of the controlled demolition theorizing depends on convincing laymen that if it looks like a controlled demolition, then that's what it must be (given that the sample set of tall buildings failing in this manner for any other reason is limited to WTC 1, 2 and 7). It's akin to showing me a picture of a person covered in red spots and asking "does this person look like they have measles?". And they didn't ask people to read the NIST report or other scientific documentation of the collapse. Apart from that, Wikipedia doesn't use the results of opinion polls to adjust articles to suit what people believe, think they believe, or want to believe. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The general comment I am making is that there is significant CT on the destruction of the WTC, and perhaps this should be mentioned in the Destruction part of the WTC page, if we consider it relevant and important. I do not share the CT view, but the WTC seems to be a strong source of CT and this fact is certainly noteworthy. The Attack on Pearl Harbour page has a link to CT in its "See Also" section; perhaps another option for us here. Besh (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added 9/11 conspiracy theories & Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth links to the "see also". I agree that the omission of these could be viewed as possible bias against a neutral point of view . Now the decision remains on whether to include info from those articles in this article. -- Jodon | Talk 00:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that you might have misunderstood WP:NPOV. Only majority and significant minority POVs belong in this article. Including tiny minority and fringe viewpoint exaggerates their significance. See WP:UNDUE for more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

JOJ's argument below is a better one, although it still precludes the allowance of viewpoint or notability. Your comment mentioned a violation of policy (before you deleted it and changed it to "exaggerates their significance"), so I will respond to your original comment. The notability of article 9/11 conspiracy theories is being ignored by you. Perhaps you could elaborate on how that constitutes minority and fringe? NPOV by its definition includes ALL viewpoints. You're being selective, using WEIGHT to argue neutrality when in fact it is selective bias, which is forcing WEIGHT on the article. Note that I have only included it as a link, and not as information within the article. Regardless, I will concede to JOJ's argument below. -- Jodon | Talk 02:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This articles is for the actual factual events. Fiction is covered at 9/11 conspiracy theoriesJOJ ^Hutton 01:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your comment should be included in the article (I jest). Using that logic we should now remove the conspiracy "fiction" link from the "see also" section on the Attack on Pearl Harbour article. Agreed? -- Jodon | Talk 02:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No one disagrees that destruction of the WTC is a source of CT, and if this fact is noteworthy, then a sentence such as, "The destruction of the WTC has also been a source of conspiracy theory", might be appropriate for a section of the article dedicated to the WTC destruction, where "conspiracy theory" directs to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Besh (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree (I was being ironic). Unfortunately other editors don't seem to. See above comments. Articles need consistency above all else, either CT is included or not, and if not it must be abolished in all articles that claim to be 100% factual. See how difficult this is? Its easier to include them as per your suggestion. Personally I feel that an absolute exclusion is tantamount to cherrypicking. But unless there is a majority of consensus then the article will remain as is. If editors are in a minority on Wikipedia then their vote doesn't count (unless they have the loudest voice), which means their contribution stays invisible. This is one of the harsh realities of Wikipedia. -- Jodon | Talk 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to the many notable facts surrounding the destruction of the WTC, including the precise times the airplanes hit the towers and on what floors, when and how buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed, which other buildings in the area were later condemned, how many and how people were killed and some of their names, which firms lost the most people, exact numbers of each societal division killed, it is not also notable, from a variety of perspectives, that the destruction of the WTC initiated a new branch of conspiracy theory that still today constitutes organizations raising hundreds of thousands of dollars? Some 19,000 people who have signed AE911's petition to Congress, including family members of those killed in the 911 attacks. How is this information not significant, factual, and pertinent to the topic? Moreover, suppressing this information is not only potentially contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but may also flame conspiracy theorists by giving them evidence that the mainstream is ignoring their presence. Perhaps a better way to address conspiracy theory is not through condemnation or marginalization, but rather with rational explanation. Ignoring facts - on Wikipedia or elsewhere - does not make facts go away. Through a simple link to the well-written 911CT wikipage, we have an opportunity here to inform those interested in the facts, that clear evidence is at hand to argue against the blast hypothesis. At the same time, we include the (I will argue) significant information that the 911 attacks initiated a new conspiracy theory (that maybe should be dealt with, not ignored). Besh (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  I think all of that should be included in the conspiracy theories article. But I'm still unclear why a link to that article is not allowed here, since as you pointed out the conspiracy "fiction" link from the "see also" section on the Attack on Pearl Harbour article remains in tact. On the grounds of article consistency either it should be removed there also or have a conspiracy link included here, otherwise this could be viewed as POV pushing, since it is an attempt to ignore consistency. If I get no answer to this I will make an edit and see what happens, then perhaps people will talk. -- Jodon | Talk 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that it is right to link to the article about the conspiracy theories. They were widely reported (as conspiracy theories) in the press, as I recall. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, added the info. Besh (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it. It's poorly placed, unsourced, awkwardly phrased, and it gives fringe theories undue prominence. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To expand a little, apart from the lack of sourcing and the way it's phrased, it was inserted in the middle of the discussion of the death toll from the attacks. Placement of a digression into conspiracy theory in the middle of a carefully sourced discussion of several thousand deaths is insensitive at best. As for a "new" conspiracy theory, every major event in the world today results in a new conspiracy theory, so I don't understand the emphasis on "new." What was the old theory? As for the alleged requirement for consistency, this is an article about the building complex, not the event, so it's more comparable to Pearl Harbor than Pearl Harbor attack. Additionally, an article on another event that has spawned conspiracy theories, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, limits the CT mention to a "see also." At present, and given the fact that the article is about the WTC and not the 9/11 attacks, that is as much as might be warranted. Please remember that the WTC was not the sole focus of the attacks, as the inserted text implies. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the difficulty with a "See also" is that it does not make it clear that the conspiracy theories are fringe hypotheses. How about, at the end of "destruction", paragraph "A number of conspiracy theories rejecting the generally accepted version of events, often proposing alternative mechanisms by which the buildings were supposedly destroyed, emerged shortly after the destruction and continue to receive some attention.", referenced to http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-conspiracy-theories ? I agree that the article is about the WTC and not the September 2001 attacks, but many of the conspiracy theories pertain specifically to the destruction of the WTC also. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the conspiracy theories in this article exaggerates their prominence. Conspiracy theories are social/political/psychological phenomena associated with major events; these really have almost nothing to do with the World Trade Center itself, except in the imaginations of the conspiracy theorists. 9/11 conspiracy theories is already linked in the article via the September 11 attacks template, so a see-also link is not needed either. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely you jest. In an article with over 7,500 words, "mentioning" the theories certainly doesn't exaggerate their prominence, having a whole section on it does.

The problem is that there is a sizable section on the destruction of the WTC. Is that section itself exaggeratted or warranted? If its not exaggerated and is warranted then why exclude all references to it, regardless of whether they're considered fiction? I'm arguing for consistency of articles and NPOV rather than inclusion for its own sake, and just trying to understand the logic of doing otherwise. An absolute exclusion of it to me seem like POV pushing. Please explain how it isn't. -- Jodon | Talk 13:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain when reasonably-expressed concern about inclusion of fringe topics became POV pushing. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain when reasonably-expressed concern about absolute exclusion of fringe topics became NPOV. I've no problem minimizing its prominence in the article, as per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but disagree with disallowing any mention of it anywhere, including the "see also" section, as per Wikipedia:ONEWAY. Either an article is neutral (contains all viewpoints) or is biased. There's no middle ground. Otherwise WP's claims for a neutral point of view are as pretentious as its editors. -- Jodon | Talk 20:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that they have nothing to do with it. I think it is quite appropriate to mention them, just as (say) the article about Kennedy mentions, briefly, the conspiracy theories about his assassination (or Princess Diana, etc; I think it is hard to argue that it is not common practice to mention notable conspiracy theories of this kind). They are clearly notable (it is not hard to find reliable sources that discuss their existence) and the ones that specifically purport to show that the WTC was destroyed by a different means are clearly related to the WTC. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• If we completely ignore the conspiracy theories surrounding the WTC (and their existence is undeniably noteworthy and a significant outcome of the WTC destruction), we both betray the purpose of Wikipedia, and worse still, provide the conspiracy theorists with their central argument of "cover up". Let's please not give them that. Besh (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For conspiracy theorists, "There's a coverup!" isn't a conclusion, it's a premise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's one way of looking at it, though my experience with conspiracy theorists of all kinds is that determined conspiracy enthusiasts don't need any encouragement in believing that there's a coverup. In general, my view is that any acknowledgement of conspiracy theories or fringe view in articles on a given topic (and I mean throughout WP) should be de minimis, and should make clear that it is in fact a fringe theory. The main exception to that would be issues concerning, for instance, the Kennedy assassination, where the discussion is far more pervasive and where adherents aren't considered completely out of the norm (though care is needed there too, as there are constant attempts to swing those articles into CT territory). In the case of Truthers, the consensus of sources is that they're firmly in fringe territory. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that any mention of conspiracy theories on this page would give undue weight to a fringe theory. This isn't the article for the attacks on the World Trade Center – where they are mentioned, but only in one sentence that essentially states how fringe they are – it's the article for the World Trade Center. By comparison, the conspiracy theory about the moon landings being faked are mentioned at moon landing (where they're given a one-paragraph section explaining how wrong they are), but not at all on moon. As for the suggestion of conspiracy theorists viewing this as evidence of a "cover up", presumably anything short of presenting their theory as the correct version of events would be viewed as a cover up. Since we're certainly not going to do that, they'll think "cover up" no matter what we do. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I really appreciate everyone taking time to discuss this. All in, I think the arguments against reference to CT are predominately sufficient and fair. The WTC was made famous by the attacks on 911 (most people never knew of these buildings before this), much like Pearl Harbor, and these locations are thus analogous in this regard. The moon on the other hand, is pretty well known in its own right, and its primary notability does not come from the fact that human expeditions reached its surface, and thus less comparable from this perspective. On a different note, CT surrounding the WTC attacks will, like those surrounding the moon landing, continue to subside unless new evidence emerges, as is the case for advanced knowledge surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack, which although still considered a CT, is like the Kennedy assassination CT in having too high a prominence to be considered fridge. In regards to future structuring of the WTC page, we might try to trim the information provided on their destruction to bare essentials. Providing a link to the 911 attacks wikipage on the top of the article might be appropriate, since it is likely many readers investigate WTC to specifically learn about their destruction (and this is not the focus or purpose of the page here). Most other readers are probably interested in the new/current buildings. Therefore, if the focus of this article is purported to be on the WTC itself, then the picture of the twin towers should really be replaced by the new One World Trade Center; and its description, as well as the description of the newly planned buildings, should comprise the first sections of the article. This will make the page more dynamic and interesting, as it will describe the current buildings as they are erected (instead of focusing on buildings that are no longer standing). The suggestions here are those that I consider logical steps given the rationals provided for not including CT on the WTC page, which I think are well-made, and might better serve the Wikipedia community and the interests of most readers. There is of course no pressing need to implement these changes swiftly. Moreover, there is a talented group of editors on this page, and I understand that better plans may already be in the works, or emerge soon. Besh (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The WTC is famous - notorious - because of the destruction, far more so than when it was two tall buildings in a city full of tall buildings. It is overwhelmingly the most notable fact about the site and hence deserves prominence. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the quantity of reliable sources for the CT surrounding the destruction of the WTC considerably outweighed the other conspiracy examples given here. I'm not sure if that's the case. I also think there would be an article on the WTC on WP regardless of whether it was destroyed or not, only the destruction section would be omitted. As was discussed elsewhere, there are other buildings called WTC around the world which are also included on WP. Also the notoriety of this WTC in the public's mind and that of Wikipedia are 2 different things. Conspiracy theorists put a lot of "information" on propaganda sites, forums and Youtube, none of which are considered reliable sources on WP. I now have to agree with the other editors here, as I can see where the consistency issues are addressed re: Moon vs. Moon landings, Pearl Harbor versus Pearl Harbor attacks etc. If we were to change it here we would have to change it on the other articles. Somehow I don't see that happening, regardless of how we may wish it were otherwise. -- Jodon | Talk 14:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. You're responding to me, when I am disagreeing with the idea that anything but the destruction should come first - but talking about conspiracy theories, which I don't mention in that edit. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You were responding to Besh's comment on including conspiracy theories on the destruction of the WTC. Besh had ultimately decided against using conspiracy theories in the destruction section and it seemed like you were disagreeing with that. My apologies if you weren't. My reply also echoes a previous one of yours when you said you still think it should be linked to the conspiracy theories article. -- Jodon | Talk 16:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

World Trade Center (New York City, 1973)

Above is the title I propose for this article. Now the piece has to be split into two parts, per suggestions on this page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already requested that this be reverted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple WTC's. So why is this article about only the New York Centre? If it is to remain an article about only the one centre, the title must be changed.101.98.175.68 (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You may find it enlightening to look at the Move discussion below. Or, briefly, if I say "World Trade Centre" to you, what do you think I mean? You think of the one in New York destroyed in 2001. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Today someone made this move without discussion, on the grounds that "The phrase "World Trade Center" is copyrighted and refers to more than one building or set of buildings. Also, the current WTC is nothing like the original". 22 minutes later I obeyed a request to revert that move to allow discussion. See List of world trade centers (well over 100 entries). Also, there seems to be a desire to move into World Trade Center (New York City) the part about the post-2001 rebuild. See discussion hereinabove. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question: In the edit summary for that previous move, as Anthony Appleyard mentioned, one of the reasons was that the "phrase 'World Trade Center' is copyrighted".[1] What does that have to do with anything? There is no provision in WP:AT that we cannot use a copyrighted common name for a topic as an article title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong but the only copyright issue I have seen was a lawsuit against Sarah Palin over the use of a photo of the trade center. If that is what the OP meant its a non-issue as far as the title goes since the only thing that could possibly be an issue for would be the article's images. I also may be wrong but I don't think terms can be copyrighted in the first place.--64.229.164.69 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Multiple things mean multiple things, just the term United States has multiple meanings. This is the World Trade Center, there are no other buildings that can have the same relevance as this WTC. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move. The supposed copyright issue or whatever it's supposed to be is irrelevant, and this building is the primary meaning of the term "World Trade Center". Moreover, the proposed new title is completely unnatural for reader searches. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Move back to World Trade Center (New York City, 1973) or similar title. This has yet to be established as the primary topic of World Trade Center. Red Slash 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't? Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose no one has provided any evidence that this isn't the primary topic. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe this discussion should include what the scope of the article concerning the NYC WTC should be going forward. Although I strongly agree that the NYC WTC is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for World Trade Center, is that the former WTC, or the new complex? The article World Trade Center is primarily about the former WTC with a small mention of the new site. Maybe the primary article should have information of both with sub-articles of the current and former WTC? Zarcadia (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification needed. Zarcadia, I think there's some confusion here - there are 2 issues currently under discussion (see above), the first is whether to split this article into the former complex and the new complex, and thus giving them their own name (but which name?), the second discussion (here) is whether or not the existing article should be renamed to NYC. I think one discussion should be resolved at a time. -- Jodon | Talk 15:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I missed the discussion further up the page. Zarcadia (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Tbhotch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We don't make people looking for Paris confirm they didn't mean the one in Maine first. While there are other buildings named World Trade Center, this one is the most well-known worldwide. Many of the others are red links, even in major cities like Shanghai, Paris (not Maine), and Buenos Aires. If the reader is truly looking for the San Marino World Trade Centre, the note at the top of the page will bring them to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as covered above. I would support a a split between World Trade Center (1973) and World Trade Center to better differentiate between the original and the replacement. Fitnr (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose insertion of (NYC), Weakly Oppose division into 1973 buildings and replacement - In ordinary speech, if people say "World Trade Centre", they mean the one in New York. They meant the one in New York even before September 2001. I also don't like the idea of a split. While the previous and replacement buildings are in a sense different topics, the replacement is primarily notable only because it replaces the buildings destroyed in 2001. Additionally, it is hard to see that it makes sense to call the new buildings World Trade Center and the old ones World Trade Center (1973) when the old ones are enormously more notable... but it would be odd to call the pages World Trade Center and World Trade Center (20xx replacement)). Pinkbeast (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose insertion of (NYC) and Oppose division into 1973 buildings and replacement mostly for reasons given above by Pinkbeast. The WTC in NYC is always referred to as The WTC (only for others is specification needed). The page is about the WTC; the actual buildings that comprise the WTC are, conceptually, a secondary point. Eventually, the "new buildings" section will just be the "buildings" section and will be described in detail before the descriptions of the "previous buildings" and their destruction. Greater detail on the attacks and the effects are already described on separate, specific pages. This WTC page at the moment is very comprehensive and, in my opinion, we should continue to focus on the refs, fine-tuning, and updates. No move or split needed. Besh (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per TBhotch. Unqualified references to "the World Trade Center" still refer to this. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WTC 4, 5 and 6 (old)

I have worked on German Wikipedia on a list of projects of Minoru Yamasaki, architect of the WTC. Astonishingly I could not find reliable sources concerning both the construction dates of WTC 4, 5 and 6 and the involved architects. The infobox at the beginning of this article mentions 1970 as the time of construction start for WTC 4, 5 and 6 – and 1975 as the time of completion. However, Five World Trade Center gives 1970–72 as construction time and in Six World Trade Center it is stated that construction ended in 1973 (other sources mention that U.S. Customs service moved into the building as early as 1973 oder 1974 but no source mentions 1975). Only Four World Trade Center is in alignment as concerning the construction time. However, Emporis mentions 1977(!) as construction end of 4 WTC, 1975 as construction end of 6 WTC – only the entry for WTC 5 fits the date given in Wikipedia. Of course it is not always easy to define the exact point when construction of a building has ended but the differences are in my opinion too large to be traced back to those difficulties. Does someone have reliable sources concerning these buildings (maybe groundbreaking or topping out dates)? Furthermore, List of works by Minoru Yamasaki states that he designed 4, 5 and 6 WTC in association with Emery Roth & Sons – but actually I could not find sources confirming this besides Emporis that makes a distinction between Yamasaki as the design architect and Emery Roth & Sons as the architect. The autobiography of Minoro Yamasaki doesn't mention these other buildings at all but only WTC 1 and 2 as well as the original "five-acre plaza". Could it be that some sources have only assumed Yamasakis authorship of these buildings because they have been part of the original plan (in opposition to WTC 7 where obviously only Emery Roth & Sons was involved)? Could it be that Yamasaki's firm was exclusively responsible for WTC 1+2 (including WTC Plaza) while Emery Roth & Sons were for the other buildings?--Leit (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

But what did people DO at the WTC?

The article covers well the construction and then various attacks on the WTC, but doesn't explain what the WTC was (is) used for. It says the government wanted a WTC. OK. Why? What kind of businesses were operating in it prior to 9/11? What kind of businesses are operating there now? Lot 49a^talk 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)