Jump to content

Talk:Flight 93 National Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grammar

[edit]

This article needs a lot of grammatical help. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a first run at cleanup when I expanded the content from just the Crescent of Embrace to the larger National Memorial. I won't claim I caught everything. — Eoghanacht talk 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an error at paragraph 2, line 10? There, it says there were 39 killed. Everywhere else in the article, the number is 40. 99.54.42.39 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)J H[reply]

temporary memorial

[edit]

I just added the temporary memorial section. I went there earlier this year so I described it

controversy section seems POV

[edit]

It would be nice if the controversy section at least acknowledged the fact that a non-trivial number of people thought that the criticisms leveled against the original design were misguided, if not nuts. --Cmdroverbite 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it can be difficult to document a "silent majority" for the purposes of WP:V. If you have a credible source for such an opinion -- or maybe a quote from someone involved -- you are welcome to try to work it into the article. — Eoghanacht talk 18:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed statements from this section that did not meet the Wikipedia definition of originating from a reliable source, but that came from a self-published web page/blog.76.218.69.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A depressing subject, sure...

[edit]

..but if you need a laugh, follow the footnote number 8. One of the best conspiracy theory-nut spoofs I've ever seen. Wait, it is a spoof, right...?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.110 (talk • contribs) 11:04, May 30, 2006

Land owners

[edit]

I was wondering who owned this land and what it was used for before the crash. I always hear it described as a "field." Does that mean it was being used for farming? Are there any more details available about this "approximately 2200 acres, of which about 1200 will be privately held"? Does that sentence in the article need to be marked "citation needed"? Thanks. --Lkseitz 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be updated - wasn't the design changed from a crescant to a full circle, and the name was changed too? As this memorial has not been built and there are questions, maybe it could be looked at again or delayed as per the public's wishes. Are there better ideas? There could be a link to "Alternate proposals", it might be a condensed section... many submissions are probably nonsense. What about a "Finances" Section?

Does anybody have a recent reckoning about money, government and private money? There must be information, estimates, guesses on government and private figures up to and after NPS figures. About private money raised... was this organised? Totals raised... totals spent on consultants, employees? How many areas was money spent on: property and other expenses? One website had a $30 million private goal + $28 Million government goal! I think the private money raised was much less, does anybody have any figures? 496 (?) paid people doesn't seem real... maybe it would be OK but if true it would be nice to know what they were doing. Land needed was bought for much less than expected, $2 - $5 million?

What about this website: http://www.honorflight93.org/site/c.8dJCKQNuFoG/b.1555703/k.BD7E/Home.htm  ???

Bernie

Fair use rationale for Image:Cresent direction.jpg

[edit]

Image:Cresent direction.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 08:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Crescent direction.jpg

[edit]

Image:Crescent direction.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 13:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent direction

[edit]

I think it should be pointed out that the critics state that the crescent is pointing Southeast towards Mecca. The source given in the page says it's aimed at ~125° angle, towards Mecca. In actuality, North American Muslims pray Northeast, as that is the shortest distance to Mecca. Using Philadelphia as the closest city, the qibla is clearly northeast. I'm actually surprised this isn't covered. Can someone add this and correct the NPOV? BrotherSulayman (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The orientation of the crescent is 53 degrees, i.e. two degrees north of Mecca.[1] I don't where you got 125. The wingspan of the plane was 125 feet and this is also the opening of the circle. Kauffner (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of Mosques considered to be pointed at Mecca are accurate within 2 degrees? I suspect that level of accuracy was only possible in this past century or less. The odds of this crescent being oriented within 2 degrees of the direction of Mecca by purely random chance is 1 in 90. So I'm not so sure a 2 degree error in itself is any kind of refutation.

Construction schedule and dedication

[edit]

I removed some statements in the lead and final sections about Sept. 2011 as the date of completion (and dedication). Clearly this is a big undertaking that has loped way behind schedule, and it's not likely to be finished even within the next year it seems. If anyone has seen any recent statements from the people in charge about the timeline, with good sources, it would be nice to have it updated.Strausszek (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flight93 Memorial.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Flight93 Memorial.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "robots.txt" entity?

[edit]

One of the links, to the Rocky Mountain News, when accessed, just displays the message "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt. See (link) www.rockymountainnews.com robots.txt page. Learn more about (link) robots.txt." The first link just goes to a page with a few squiggles, and the second to the wikipediar article Robots exclusion standard. Which is a long article, but the bottom line seems to be that I can't access the link target. I have a fairly standard setup I guess, so I've marked this as a dead link, hope that's correct. Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading quotation? POV?

[edit]

The article states:

Svonavec’s treasurer, Michael Svonavec, had told the family group he thought the land was "worth $50 million, but you can have it for $10 million".[5]

referencing the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/washington/28memorial.html . However, the New York Times article actually says:

Mr. White said, Svonavec’s treasurer, Michael Svonavec, Patrick’s brother, told the families group that he thought the land was “worth $50 million, but you can have it for $10 million.” Michael Svonavec said he never made the comment.

So, the reference quoted made it clear that this was hearsay, and that the person alleged to be quoted had denied it, but the Wikipedia article omits both of these points. This seems rather POV. I don't feel qualified to edit this article, but this part seems like it needs attention. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow liquid

[edit]

In this image one can see an oddly-shaped yellow pond and a short yellow creek on the grounds of the Flight 93 Memorial. Can anyone explain this? Thanks 174.24.62.59 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The area was extensively strip-mined and partly reclaimed. It's leachate from the mine, characteristically acidic and red/yellow/brown, held in ponds to be treated. Acroterion (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial complete. To open 9/10/15

[edit]

Seems like this page isn't being updated as much as it should. The memorial has been completed and will open tomorrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/a-long-road-to-a-place-of-peace-for-flight-93-families.html?smid=fb-nytimes). Let's get this article up to date, please. --2001:18E8:2:12E5:F000:0:0:E20 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On line 8 of the first paragraph, there is a reference to 39 people killed. On line 10 of the next paragraph and many other points in the article, the number killed is 40. Is the number 39 a mistake, or did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.42.39 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight 93 National Memorial. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flight 93 National Memorial. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_93_National_Memorial&oldid=1207248966"