This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National September 11 Memorial & Museum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the Reference desk.

United States: September 11 Start‑class Top‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance).

Architecture Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts: Public art Start‑class

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

New York City Unassessed

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Previous discussions without headers

Nice PD photo here of the tribute in light memorial

NPOV

It seems this article is biased against the memorial. Phrases like "not even a flag" as well as the list of things people do not like about the memorial seem to be presented in a skewed manner.

I'll take a look. SGGH ^speak! 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

title

the memorial is actually called the "World Trade Center Site Memorial" not the "World Trade Center Memorial". Change the title asap Savidan 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. There was an name change and it is now formally the "World Trade Center Memorial". The old web site with the old name used by the LMDC has been replaced with this World Trade Center Memorial Foundation. patsw 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) I added a redirect page for the old name. patsw 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bad Savidan 23:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion

This one is obvious: The wining design name is now being used as a synonym for the memorial. patsw 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging World Trade Center Memorial into Reflecting Absence, rather than the other way around? I think the first name was mainly used until the winner of the design competition was chosen. Now, we have a name for the memorial, which seems to be the official name now. [1] -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm aware that the foundation is the "World Trade Center Memorial Foundation". It wouldn't make sense for them to be the "Reflecting Absense Foundation". But, "Reflecting Absense" is the name for the memorial. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting Absence

The official spelling is absence.
My understanding is that the name Reflecting Absence is the name of the winning design entry and not intended to be a permanent name for the memorial replacing World Trade Center Memorial or it may refer to the twin pools alone which were formerly called twin voids. patsw 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for changing from British to American spelling. My mistake. I notice that the article has already been merged. If this article is to discuss both Reflecting Absence and the Memorial Museum, then I think the "World Trade Center Memorial" article name is okay. Otherwise, I'm not quite convinced, as the WTC Memorial Foundation refers to the The Memorial: Reflecting Absence. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criticisms is stated as "The endless downward thundering of the 200-foot-square waterfalls would precisely mimic the motion of the original buildings' collapse — as if the Twin Towers never stopped falling, and never will.". Why is the word precisely in there? Do all things not fall at the same rate? That word is unnecessary, seeing as how me dropping a cardboard box off the side of a building would 'precisely mimic the motion of the original buildings' collapse'. Do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.114.128 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no images?

The natural source of images, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc., has restricted the usage of their images [2] in a manner that conflicts with the requirements of the Wikipedia. If you want to add one of their images, you might want to discuss it here first. patsw 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the withdrawn proposals to the end of the article

Putting all the info about the withdrawn proposals at the start of the article is poor placement. It should be moved to the end of the article. patsw 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated costs

If the entire freedom tower is estimated to cost 1.5 to 2 billion dollars (US) to build, how in the world is the memorial and museum going to cost one billion. The numbers just do not add up. What will the square foot construction cost be to justify collecting one billion US dollars for the project. Is this going to be one more example of a non for profit organization preying on the emotions of the public to swindle their money?

This article has a very hostile POV towards the memorial. The estimated cost of the memorial is around $500 million, not $1 billion. (Even at $500 million, it would be the most expensive memorial ever built.)

A lot of the cost is for site preparation that is a necessary prerequisite to other construction at the site. This has the effect of making the memorial look more expensive than it is, and other structures less expensive. Marc Shepherd 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that the Taj Mahal or Great Pyramids must really be the most expensive memorial 'in world history'. Obviously not in American Dollars but they constitute a far greater use of resources. So, should we remove the reference "which would make it by far the most expensive memorial in world history" not just the citation needed? 23:15, 31 May 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.219.218 (talk)

Underground?

I saw on TV that they had gotten rid of the underground areas around the fountains to save money. If this is true, it should be updated on this page. The official page no longer shows those galleries, but doesn't say it's gotten rid of them either. The pictures they show do look like its just going to be an above ground fountain now, however.

The underground areas have not been entirely eliminated, but they've been scaled back. Marc Shepherd 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, shouldn't the wikipedia article reflect this, and specify what (if anything) will be underground? I see a picture on the right of the wikipedia page that shows people standing in the gallery beneith the falls. My understanding is that this gallery has been totally eliminated in the new plan (a terrible shame, imo). Yet the wikipedia article still shows the picture of the old design with the underground gallery.

This whole article is a mess and needs to be redone. I don't have the time to do it myself. Marc Shepherd 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial and Museum

Currently, the Memorial and Museum section of this article lists the International Freedom Center. Given that the IFC will not be part of the WTCM, it seems its inclusion is inappropriate.

Ordinary Person 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rebuilt WTC?

It's unclear in this article whether a new WTC will be rebuilt, or whether the memorial will take the place of the two towers which fell. I thought there was always a plan to build new, tall buildings on the site to replace the original ones, so as not to lose the value of the real estate. Can a sentence thoroughly explaining this be added to the article, please? Badagnani 02:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the WTC article you will see where the new buildings are in relation to the footprints of the twins. SGGH ^speak! 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, why make the thing so depressing?

How's this going to help people heal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The goal of an encyclopedia is to collect information. We need not and should not aim to "help people heal." Wood Thrush (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Refabs.jpg

File:Refabs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

water in winter

The article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/nyregion/12memorial.html directly contradicts the claim that there was no way to prevent the water from freezing in winter. Although nozzles would freeze in winter, the solution they came up with does not. I was trying to source the statement and found out it was untrue! I guess providing citations does guard against untrue statements.... Wood Thrush (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

Shouldn't "The National September 11 Memorial & Museum" be the very first words in this article? Someone needs to reformat the lead. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 02:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Section for the Survivor Tree?

Since the '9/11 Survivor Tree' is a notable tree on the plaza and survived conditions similar to or worse than the 'Oklahoma City Memorial Survivor Tree', should a short section be made dedicated to the tree like in the Oklahoma City National Memorial article? Stormchaser89 (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2011 (US Central time)

I agree, if you can find sources about it then feel free to add it =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a subsection for "Memorial features" with a subsection of "Survivor Tree." Adding content with sources now. Please feel free to tweak. I think a few more subsections for features would also be useful - e.g., the pools, the plaza. Qwirty (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural plans

There must be official plans of the structure, but all I have been able to find online is "30 foot waterfall" into a "one acre pool." The article should state the depth of the "1 acre pool" as well as the length of the sides of the waterfall. Also, readers might be interested in the size of the central void, and the depth of the central hole. A cross sectional diagram would add to the encyclopedic quality of the article, and would help to explain the circulation of the water. Is this basic information a secret at this point? Edison (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

While working out articles in the September 11 scope, I have found several that seem to cover the same or similar subject matter, too similar for there to be more than one article. I have recently found National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center. It seems to cover the events before this museum and is out of date. I think that if these were merged with care, they could form a very decent article. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 17:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge The titles are almost the same here, have you checked for doubled content in the two articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in detail, but it's obvious these two articles go over the same subject matter. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 04:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. They're addressing the same topic. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge Merging the two articles would help reduce the confusion of two articles talking about the same topic. Having all of the information on one article is better than having some on one and the rest on another. I highly recommend merging the two. Wikih101 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged most of the information from the old article into this one. The old article is now just a redirect. Cadiomals (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text and/or other creative content from this version of National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center was copied or moved into National September 11 Memorial & Museum. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Design Team

174.116.248.170 (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the water feature designer for the memorial, Dan Euser, should be included in the box with the Architects/Landscape Architects/Designers.[reply]

Dan Euser ^[1]

DEW Inc ^[2]

File:Presidents-Obama-Bush-at-9-11-memorial.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Presidents-Obama-Bush-at-9-11-memorial.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up and reorganize some sections

As of March 2012, there are two "fundraising sections" which both describe general fundraising. It would probably be good to merge these and find a better section to put the merged content. Also, the "Gallery" near the bottom of the page is a subsection of the "Museum" section, but seems like it should be its own section since it does not seem to apply specifically to the museum construction. Any thoughts? Qwirty (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference links

I've seen several broken reference links - fixed a few of them. I don't want to just remove them since that seems "rude" but haven't had time yet to find updated links. For a few of the facts cited, though, I believe there may not be a current reference link. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of these links were to the original memorial website, which has moved around a few times over the years. Qwirty (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Other 9/11 memorials" section

There were a few edits around 3/31/2012 where this section was removed and put back in. I agree that it doesn't fit very well as current written with the rest of the article, but don't think the content should be lost altogether. How about moving it to Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks and/or formatting it better according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, either within an existing page or as a standalone list page? My vote would be to incorporate it into the text of Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks where we can work specific list items into that text, and to include any list items which don't fit well into that text as a standalone list section in that page, and then to include a link via a "See also" section from this page. Thoughts? Qwirty (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Euser

[2] ttp://www.dewinc.biz

[1]

[2]