Talk:World Trade Center cross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Trade Center cross was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: April 5, 2006}

^{Reviewed version: June 7, 2006}

Christianity Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military memorials and cemeteries task force

A fact from World Trade Center cross appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 April 2006.

1 Blue stuff
2 Column and beams
3 Reverted text
4 Should it be used at the WTC Memorial?
5 GA nom has failed
6 POV tone
7 Source of the cross beam
8 Failed GA nomination
9 Meaning?
10 Coventry Cathedral
11 It does seem that fewer & fewer people are signing, damnit,...
12 Frank Silecchia

[edit] Blue stuff

What is the blue stuff wrapped on the left arm of the cross? Circeus 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

- It looks like a shred of aluminum, it's present in both of the images on the page. - Richardevan 18:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was added afterwards though, and early images did not include it. (Not sure about the 2nd image on this page, for that reason), which I feel should be mentioned Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

http://static.flickr.com/12/19161085_9d35c5e466_m.jpg

http://www.dmatfl2.org/images/WTC%20CROSS.JPG

According to BPNews, which is a Baptist new source, it's the remains of a firefighter's jacket that wasn't added later, but was always there..

"The most heart-wrenching discovery was that a silver object melted onto the cross' left side was the remains of a firefighter's jacket who died in the blast. Firefighters say the fire-resistant jacket turned silver and took on the look and consistency of metal when it encountered extreme heat and fire. Now, it is wrapped around the left arm of the cross." http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12104

An early picture with the "thing" on it can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wtc_cross_found.jpg

If I had to take a guess, I'd say we have pictures of more than one cross here.

J.H 18:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Column and beams

I can't be sure from the image, but the cross looks to me like it is made from sections of a column and two beams, not simply "two beams" in the opening sentence of the article. Perhaps it's a technicality -- but I like accurate details. If anyone can, please confirm. Thanks. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the picture of the wreckage in the WTC, it looks to me like it was found like that. - Richardevan 18:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But we dont know if it was found that way or it was contructed on the site by some Christian workers, there--who then claim to have found it just to push their relgious views, which would be typical. Unless there is a source that states it was found like that as a verified fact, we should leave the question open. 206.61.48.11 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering it was discovered less then 2 days after the attack, it would be almost impossible for anybody to "fabricate" this. During that time, there was a frantic search going on for possible survivors. In order to fabricate this, it would involve many people and heavy equipment. In addition they would have to have found beams of the exact dimension needed, and had the tools and space to construct it and place it in the upright position it was found in. If this had been done, it would have been impossible for the construction to have gone unnoticed.

Mushrom 2047, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that the WTC was built with thousands of preassembled parts, many of them in this cross shape. It wasn't surprising that one of them survived the collapse virtually intact. I will look around for verification. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My original point was lost. I don't doubt that it was found like that, and did not imply that it was made "after the fact." Rather, beams and columns although they look similar, are different structural elements and the steel is fabricated in different shapes. I don't have enough detail to go on from the picture, but it looks like a column/beam connection, rather than something else, like a girder/beam connection. — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted text

I reverted the following addition:

To be fair, it should be noted that the World Trade Center was made of cross beams, which means that almost every large beam at the site connected into that shape at some point. Upon its destruction, it is not particularly surprising that such a shape would be found standing amongst the debris.

While this may be true, Wikipedia is NOT a publisher of original thought (specifically 5. Opinions on current affairs). Find a reliable source that voices such an opinion (maybe a skeptics journal or something) and it's justifiable to include. Until then it's an opinion. Staxringold 21:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement is valid, so I have readded it with proper reference. (though, cut "To be fair"). -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That ref was just silly. All it referenced was that the building was built of crossbeams. The entire assertion that it "isn't surprising" is what hasn't been ref'ed either in your reversion of the statement or anywhere else in the article. I reverted as I think it's mildly surprising that two pieces of metal that large stayed together between the heat of a jet exploding, falling dozens of stories, and crashing through the roof of another building in just the right way to form a cross with roughly correct proportions; and more importantly the assertion that it surviving is "not surprising" needs a ref. Staxringold 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It didn't fall. It was part of WTC 6, not the tower. I suspect many people think it did fall, which increased their sense that it was miraculous. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "Background" section I added covers this in an NPOV, cited fashion. The CNN transcript only talks about the general aspects of WTC construction; it doesn't say anything specific about how the cross was formed. The FEMA report, on the other hand, gave specifics. Simply stating these facts is enough; we don't need to throw in weasel words like "it is not particularly surprising". --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure the wording of the statement could be better, with this topic covered under "Background". The CNN reference was the first I found, but I have also found many references about the building structure at NIST.

[edit] Should it be used at the WTC Memorial?

I believe that it should not be used at the WTC Memorial. I'm sure there were Americans from every religious background in those buildings - even some non-religious ones - and they all deserve to be remembered. The WTC Memorial is not a place for people to make some sort of religious stand. This is not meant as an anti-religious statement - if it got some of the workers through the rough times, that's wonderful. I just think that people are reading into this image a little too much, and that may lead people to lose sight of the real purpose of the Memorial. Solitary refinement 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the arguement for using it is the same reason there is an arguement for teaching the Bible in an English course, it was generally important irregardless of it's religious power. Many people saw it as a symbol of hope/strength, and I think withholding a relatively historically notable artifact from the event because it is religious is a bit silly. Staxringold 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do not mean this as some sort of "message board/opinion piece" thing - I just think that that section needs a little more than what it has - both pro and con - as it has the potential to distract people from the real purpose of the Memorial IMHO. I don't have any citations, so I don't want to do much to it. Solitary refinement 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommended a compromise: that the Cross be moved across Church St. To Saint Paul's Episcopal Chapel Cemetery. St. Paul's was an integral part of the Ground Zero site; many of the rescue workers were allowed to sleep there on pews during the initial weeks after the attack, and many of the wreaths, posters, and other mimentos from around the world hung on the fence there. Moving the Cross to the cemetery there, given its involvement in the ministry to so many people of various faiths during that time, would allow it to remain a part of the Lower Manhattan community, visible from the WTC, and would avoid the Church/state controversy. Chesty95 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom has failed

The Good article nomination for World Trade Center cross has failed for the following reason:

The article is too new. It failed the 'Good Article' criteria by not being old enough to be judged as stable. - Davodd 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why such a brand new article was nominated.. Ah well, I guess I'll take it as flattering. Staxringold 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tone

Hi all, just wanted to say that as a "neutral and unbiased" observer, I found the tone in this article somewhat too sympathetic. Clearly, great pains have been taken to make it NPOV, with excellent use of references etc. But, we are, after all, talking about two lumps of steel which coincidentally resemble a cross. Sentences like "Some saw the crossed metal as a Christian cross and felt its survival was symbolic." seem excessively sentimental for the cold-hearted encyclopaedia we're trying to be. Perhaps even replacing "some" with "Certain elements of the American Christian community" or something. Presumably there are also newspaper articles with people saying "it's just two lumps of steel, it's not a cross", but these are not referenced anywhere.

I would also suggest that the introductory sentence "which closely resembles a Christian cross" is mildly too sympathetic. Maybe there's a more objective way of putting it, like "whose arms cross in similar proportions to the Christian cross", or even, "which is claimed by certain groups to resemble a Christian cross".

I offer these remarks not as criticism, but to try and be helpful, it's really a good (if not yet very lengthy) article :) Stevage 22:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For your two statements:

1. The cross is held by some to resemble a Christian cross and be symbolic. If you wish to reword the "some" into a less weasel-y subject, wonderful, I couldn't think of anything else.

2. The lead seems all right to me. I tried to reword it slightly, but I think it's fine (and it simply does resemble a Christian cross. The proportions are the only thing that make a Christian cross a Christian cross).

That's what I think. Staxringold 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Take it from me, a borderline agnostic -- there's no way you can get around it. It looks like a cross. I don't think we need to get around it. Saying it looks like a cross, and that people have responded accordingly, is just being factual. There's nothing special about the crosses in churches either, after all -- "just some plaster or wood", you know. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think this has a bit of a POV tone. The fact is that the WTC complex (towers 1 & 2, as well as buildings 4, 5, 6) all made use of cross beam structures in both the flooring and exterior walls. It is important to include a diagram schematic of this. You didn't like the one I put in, so let's choose another one. You also didn't like the statement added by an anon. and readded by myself. CNN is as good a reference as the NY Post, and given some time, we can dig up some better, more official references for the statement. So, rather than simply reverting it, how about tweaking the wording and incorporating it into text? Finally, I'm somewhat put off by the tone of the comments here on the talk page "maybe a skeptics journal or something". I don't have much time to keep debating this here, as I'm busy dealing with conspiracy theorists on the Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks article. But, please instead of outright reverting edits, please work with people here and try to give this article a more balanced tone. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The CNN piece was not reverted because of personal POV, it was reverted because all it did was re-cite something already said and cited in the article, followed by a long piece of POV uncited that was actually the point of contention. Staxringold 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a referenced statement to the effect that the t-beams were used in all the buildings and were common. Some may interpret this as "not surprising" that one was found in the debris, but we can leave that out. I can only find a handful of newspaper articles that mention the cross, yet alone one that says it's "not surprising". -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you were trying to help, but a) these are not T-beams (a single beam with a T cross-section), b) the WTC 1 & 2 construction method used entirely different prefab parts in its curtain wall, and c) used trusses for the floor. The column-trees were thus only found in WTC 4, 5, & 6. --Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's *essential* that the article points out that cross-shaped beams (t-beams, or whatever) were used throughout the construction of all building. Sure, they varied somewhat from building to building, but such shaped beams were common. Also, where's the diagram of these beams? Please find one. -Aude (talk | contribs) 12:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit troubled by the tone of this article too. The Snopes website also explains the religious connotations of this event. IIRC, at one time the Mikkelsons (who maintain it) stated that due to the method of construction of the World Trade Center building, it was inevitable that a cross would be found in the rubble. (I admit my memory may be faulty about this.) Sometimes we look into an event & see what we expect to see; this article should admit that other interpretations of this artifact, just as plausible, exist. -- llywrch 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The other thing I realised that is missing from this article is any kind of scope of the public reaction. I had never heard of this cross before this article. Even after reading it I'm at a loss - was this a brief mention in a paper, was this a massive movement with thousands of people filing past each day to have a look, was this almost a joke on par with the piece of toast burnt in the shape of Jesus, etc etc. Cross-linking to similar events such as Mary's weeping would also be helpful to build up a real-world context for this particular event.

Also, from reading this article at the moment, it is totally clear that it was written primarily by believers. A good article would be much less clear - you would neither have reason to believe it was written by believers or non-believers. Stevage 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The cross is well-known. Evangelicals and Catholics especially spread it by e-mail and websites. It was also in wire service photographs and television imagery after the attacks, and was shown during e.g. the anniversary reading of the names (along with clouds and reflections on the buildings etc.). Particularly in New York I would find it astonishing if you had never heard of it, but I can accept that's the case elsewhere.

My point was, the article doesn't specify how widely known it is. Articles should establish the subject's notability. Stevage 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As to tone, I'm not sure what you mean by "believer". Certainly there are some religious persons who view it as a miracle, but recalling the shell-shock the country went through, many less overtly religious persons such as myself still viewed it as a profoundly moving coincidence. I think it was a noteworthy phenomenon even without the cultural response, and the latter makes it absolutely encyclopedic. Agreed, that needs to be in here, but one step at a time. ;-) The question of how it sounds -- well, obviously to you it sounds POV, but I strain to see how you could conclude that except by preponderance of religious references. At any rate, it isn't Wikipedia's job to debunk what people believe, only describe it. Compare the Black Stone of Islam -- maybe it's a meteorite, but its significance is that it's a religious object, regardless of its provenance. --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against inclusion of the article, if that's what you think. It's certainly appropriate to describe the cultural response. Let's see if I can be specific with some "problems":

"Those with access to the site used the cross as a shrine of sorts" - everyone who had access to the site did? Was it five people, or five hundred thousand? What kind of shrine? A religious one, or a memorial to the dead?

After a few weeks within the cleanup site the cross was an impediment to nearby work, so Silecchia and others working on the project received an expedited approval from the office of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to erect it on a pedestal on a portion of the former plaza on Church Street near Liberty - the tone is just wrong here. It's a narrative that takes the reader inside Silecchia's head, explaining his motivations. Better would be something like:

Several weeks after the attacks, the cross was moved to a pedestal in a plaza on nearby Church Street. Then Mayor Rudy (Rudolph?) Giuliani explained that the cross had become an impediment to recovery work. (Note that the fact Silecchia applied for approval to move it is probably not really relevant to anything)

Some saw the crossed metal as a Christian cross and felt its survival was symbolic. It was spoken over by a reverend who declared it to be a "symbol of hope... [a] symbol of faith... [a] symbol of healing". The cross had a profound effect on those with a personal connection to the disaster.

Ok, lots of problems here. "Some" definitely needs clarification. What does "spoken over" mean? Is this act by a single reverend relevant? What is, objectively speaking, "a profound effect"? Did it affect Muslims, atheists and Jews the same way? Perhaps that sentence could read more like "Several visitors to the cross, who had lost relatives, said in local newspapers that they felt profoundly moved by its appearance.[cite]"

The cross even inspired laborers on "The Pile" to get tattoos.[16] - "even" and "inspired" lack neutrality. Why not something like "Several workers at "The Pile" (what's that?) got tatoos in the form of the WTC cross, citing the inspirational event" or something.

They feel that since the memorial is to be financed with public funds, - "feel" is inappropriate. "Argue" is usually better, with a citation. The past tense is usually more formal and appropriate for an encyclopaedia, as well.

Oh wait. That whole paragraph is a copyvio from snopes and needs to be deleted anyway. Hmm. Stevage 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of the cross beam

I'm searching through a news archives database and found a transcript of the CBS Early Show, from October 2001, with Frank Silecchia and Father Brian Jordan. They explain there that the cross beam came from WTC1 and landed in the midst of the WTC6 debris. I have changed the text accordingly. But, for now I left in the other sentence "The design of WTC 4, 5, and 6 used a column-tree system, where a 4-foot stub was welded on each side of a column, then a smaller floor beam was bolted to the end of the stub.[2]" which may be irrelevant here. We should talk more broadly about the cross beams (various types) used in the WTC — not just WTC6. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the statement about the column-tree system used in WTC4, 5, and 6, as it's misleading since the cross beam actually came from WTC1. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope that you're right. --Dhartung | Talk 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to that transcript? At the moment, there is no verifiable information to support the claim that it came from WTC1. The two footnotes don't have links. --Chancemichaels 17:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

If it's online I agree it should be linked, but non-web sources are most definetly allowed on Wikipedia, Chance... Staxringold 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I managed to find a copy of the AP story online and added the link. No luck in finding an the CBS transcript posted online, though. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, K. I understand that non-web sources are "allowed," Stax. Didn't mean to imply that they weren't. But if links are possible (as at least one was in this case), then they should be provided. --Chancemichaels 12:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I'm afraid to say that despite many good points, parts of this article are not yet up to the broadness standards necessary to award Good Article status. The major obstacle is the section ==Cultural Response==, which needs elaboration and further references:

What kind of national news coverage did the cross receive?
"The cross had a profound effect on those with a personal connection to the disaster." This sentence needs rewording. Not everyone with a personal connection was affected. The effect was different for different people, based upon their beliefs. The only nearby quotations are from Christian ministers.
"The potential use of the cross in the World Trade Center Memorial has been controversial". This needs referencing. For any public action, there are always supporters and opponents, so the sentence ("Many groups such as families of the victims want..."), which mentions the supporters and opponents, is not itself sufficient to support the "controversial" claim. Quotes of supporters and opponents are also needed. Of course, I do not doubt that it was controversial, but more elaboration is necessary. What were the voiced reasons for opposition to the idea?
In the section ==Relocation==, it is stated that "Relocation is necessary", which needs rewording. Other humanly possible options include the destruction or recycling of the cross.
What are the formal views of different Christian denominations towards the cross? Has the cross been awarded any status by any such denominations?

The use of references and images in the article is excellent, as is the overall structure. I wish all concerned all the very best in the next renomination. If you would like me to provide more comments once the above concerns have been addressed, I would certainly be willing. --Vinoir 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning?

I don't get it. The caption of an accompanying picture states that such a shape is common in skyscraper construction and is to be expected in any structural failure such as this one. Should the article be expanded to state that this is a likely by-product of a structural collapse instead? CoolGuy 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

#Background sort of implies it, but it should probably be clearly stated somewhere. Circeus 08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coventry Cathedral

Has this got anything to do with the cross of nails and the City of Coventry? After Coventry was badly bombed in the Blitz they used two beams from the destroyed Cathedral to build a cross. Any links here? http://www.crossofnails.org/news/item.php?id=57

[edit] It does seem that fewer & fewer people are signing, damnit,...

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Silecchia

now has various disabilities.