Talk:1964 New York World's Fair/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 1964 New York World's Fair. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

1964 New York World's Fair

Stumbled upon this--seems quite comprehensive. jengod 23:59, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Support. 81.168.80.170 10:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Object. Image has no source information. Furthermore, the image is hardly informative: it shows buildings and highways, and these could be anywhere, really. Jeronimo 10:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Intro too long. Article could do with a bit of a polish. But it's feature material - David Gerard 11:07, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Object - the lead section is too long and needs to serve as a concise summary of the whole article. See Wikipedia:lead section. --mav 20:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Were there Three World Fair's in NYC or Two. I distinctly remember Two (1964/1965 Fair & the 1939/1940 Fair) & also the first footnote links to the Archdiocese website which links back to this wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.102.254 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Enlighten Me

Where are the objections archived so that we can work on them? Rlquall 22:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I posted the discussion above--Pharos 00:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are the "They Might Be Giants" song lyrics miniscule enough to consitute fair use, or is that a possible copyvio?

I believe the former. Elf | Talk 01:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1964 New York World's Fair

Self-nomination. I was the original author of this piece, created back in 2002. I was unaware that it had been nominated to be a Feature Article in July, 2004, and just stumbled across the nomination and discussion yesterday. Subsequently, I've corrected what I believe to be the major objections to the article and have removed portions that I did not feel were factually correct. I've also listed my sources to the material. I will follow this closely over the next few days and will monitor suggestions for changes as they arise. Thank you!

Seems a bit POV

A few of these sentences seem a bit POV, particularly the discussion of the press. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured vs. Good

So, it's no longer Great, but at least it's Fair. Wahkeenah 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

http://www.nywf64.com/fair_story.shtml comment by User:Mastercheif

The author of that site contributed the matching material to the Wikipedia article personally, so it is hardly plagiarism.--Pharos 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the clear up

Save this Paragraph!

The final paragraph, beginning, "Also, Universal Orlando Resort in Orlando, Florida..." is in need of some serious cleanup. In addition to some grammatical issues, it seems primarily speculative. Yes, the fountain at Universal is pretty obviously related to the Unisphere (albeit less than half the size), but the Men in Black ride, for example, was obviously not part of the park until after Men in Black debuted in 1997. Furthermore, is there anything else about Universal that resembles the 1964 World's Fair other than ride scenery derived from a movie scene shot in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and therefore not related to the fair itself, and the Unisphere-esque fountain that also happens to evoke Universal's globe logo? If not, the paragraph might not need to be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.29.225 (talk • contribs) .

Besides the Universal Studios globe, there is a area called "World Expo" which includes the Men in Black ride, but that is it. I don't think anything else has anything to do with the World's Fair. --blm07 04:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 12:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Chunky Candy playground

I'm looking for information on the Chunky Candy playground and the "sculpture continum" playground equiptment that was there. I'd like to know where it was moved to, if not the city dump. It was creared by sculp[tor Connor Barrett and i'd like to know about it to complete the article about him Carptrash 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Attractions

I think that the author of this site: [1], could either contribute or give permission for someone to use the info about the exhibits at the world's fair, because there is very great information on that site, and this site (Wikipedia) doesn't have that info. I know that the author has contributed info to this page before (as read in an earlier post in this discussion page). Sk5893 18:05 17 Dec 2006 (UTC)

The Freemasons had a pavillion - not mentioned in the article http://nywf64.com/mason01.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fords Magic Skyway

In separate locations the article likens Fords Magic Skyway first to the Omnimover and then to the Peoplemover. Omnimover and Peoplemover have significantly different designs. So which one did Magic Skyway more closely resemble and influence? 71.140.114.191 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Sandy

I'm pretty sure Magic Skyway was the precursor to the Peoplemover rather than the Omnimovers. Omnimovers are a continuously moving flow of vehicles along the entire track while Peoplemovers are a group of vehicles that move along the track independently from one another. Magic Skyway was more similar to the Peoplemover because all of its cars were seperate rather than one endless line of cars moving together. I don't have any actual support other than general knowledge about the Disney ride systems (Although I think many Disney-published Imagineering books compare Magic Skyway to the Peoplemover also). I'm not going to change the article because that's not something I do, but if someone else wants to go ahead. Sir gyre gimble 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Magic Skyway was definitely the prototype of the Peoplemover. Paul F. Anderson, in Persistence of Vision magazine, issue 6/7, describes the Magic Skyway in great detail, quoting an interview with John Hench who explained that a system of rollers carrying ingots of hot metal in a Ford factory provided the inspiration for the design of the Magic Skyway. Anderson also quotes an interview where Roger Broggie, Sr. (lead designer of both Peoplemover and Omnimover) stated that the Omnimover design couldn't be used because it "...had only one speed." Quotes from an interview with Bob Gurr, another of the system's designers, refer to the use of "...rolling tires...", similar to those used on the Matterhorn, to control the speed of ride vehicles independently. These descriptions all clearly match the design of the Peoplemover at Disneyland. In contrast, the Omnimover uses a continuous belt or linkage to make all ride vehicles move at the same speed. I too defer to others to make the changes. Bill321 (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the sentences below are poorly written and mix two different anecdotes, one of which is false:

"The Walt Disney Company had earlier been asked by General Motors to produce their exhibit, but they were declined. When Walt Disney heard that someone had told Ford no, he fired them and told Ford that they would definitely design their pavilion."

Disney offered to design the General Motors pavilion, but GM chose to develop their exhibit in-house (quote from Donn Tatum, Persistence of Vision magazine, issue 6/7). Walt himself initiated discussions with Ford in 1960 (ibid).

The story of Walt firing someone for refusing to agree to build a World's Fair exhibit is a distortion of fact and was unrelated to the Ford pavilion. According to several sources (including Neal Gabler's "Walt Disney: the Triumph of the American Imagination"), Pepsi approached Adm. Joe Fowler in 1963 regarding an exhibit for the Fair and Fowler turned them down because he felt that there was not enough time, nor sufficient available personnel, to complete the project. When Walt heard of Fowler's refusal, he overrode Fowler. In an interview (quoted in "Disneyland: Inside Story" by Randy Bright) Richard Irvine (another of the World's Fair designers) recalled that Walt was furious, "He was mad as hell at Joe." Irvine also said that Walt made it clear who was in charge, saying "I'll make those decisions. Tell Pepsi I'll do it." There is no evidence that Walt fired anyone over this issue and history very clearly shows that Fowler went on to oversee construction of several Disneyland attractions, including Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World.

The entire section titled "Disney Influence" should be revised to correct errors and include in-line citations. Again, I defer to others to make the changes. In addition to the references cited above, a very useful source is the "The E-Ticket Magazine". Bill321 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One downside of Ford's Magic Skyway was that it had to be fixed or repaired daily. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

TMBG

There's some mention of They Might Be Giants above here on the discussion page, but I don't see it anywhere in the article, so I assume it's something that's since been removed. Not only did They mention the '64 World's Fair in their song Ana Ng, but it's actually a recurring theme for Them. I think this warrants some mention in the article (and if it was there, I wonder if anyone could tell me why it was removed). - Ugliness Man 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Belgian waffles first served at 1962 Seattle World's Fair not NYC

This article makes the statement: "A recreation of a medieval Belgian village proved to be very popular also. There, Fairgoers were treated to a new taste sensation in the form of the "Bel-Gem Waffle" — a combination of waffle, strawberries and whipped cream. As "Belgian Waffles" they continue to be sold in America."

The Jeopardy Television program answers a question with this same information which is false. I wrote to them and they maintain that the "Belgian Waffles" were first served at the 1964 New York World's Fair. However they were first served at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. I attended both fairs and recall clearly and without doubt consuming Belgian Waffles at both venues. Keithf 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Keith

Other

I noticed that nothing was mentioned about the Lake Amusement Area, which, in my opinion, was the far's laughing stock. Something should be added about that Area, and also about Robert Moses not wanting to put in a midway, plus a mention of the big-budget spectacle fiascos that closed early, like Wonder World and To Broadway With Love.71.222.124.79 06:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't vouch for all of that, but I remember hearing a quote criticizing Moses, "A fair's not a fair without a Midway." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to improve this

The Power Broker has a chapter about the politics behind the fair and its failure. --NE2 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference

I believe there is a reference to this in the 12th episode of The Simpsons' fourth season on the side of the monorail when the Springfield banner is pulled off the the train by the wind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.12 (talk) 06:50, 7 May 009 (UTC)

Attended the Fair

The fair opened when I was two years old. However, I still remember going. My family and I spent many weekends there. When I go to the Disney theme parks the first attraction I have to see is It's a Small World, the Pepsi Pavilion at the fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleal923 (talk • contribs)

My dad & I attended the Fair in June, 1964. I remember the Ford Pavilion, with the ride thru time, & the audio-animitronic Lincoln, which stood up to recite, then sat down again. I still have the luminescent badge from the Ford Pavilion. I'll take a picture of it & try to post it. 76.106.42.5 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why I deleted the "Demonstrations" section...

I deleted the "Demonstrations" section after first noticing that it wasn't really suited for earlier matter (while the article was still discussing basic background material). Later, I realized that it just didn't fit at all. It's not like the '64 WF was known for its demonstrations. The event cited seems trivial, especially after checking the reference (just one day over the span of two years, only seven guys, etc.). The referencing of the actual names of the guys arrested seems very unrelated to the subject at hand. It's like whoever put the stuff in was one of the guys or something, or somehow thinks that all demonstrations are always of enormous importance to everything. Now, talking about demonstrations in an article about the '68 Democratic convention, now that's important! (and material and notable). This just ain't.

If (IF!) there was material protest activity, the deleted text doesn't support that claim, and that claim isn't even made anyway. (It doesn't even say what was being protested. It just namedrops some people involved - like it's all about them.) If there was material protest activity, a "demonstrations" section would be appropriate, but it should be written differently. It should include 1) The fact that it was material/notable (well cited especially as it's not common knowledge), 2) what about the activity/activities made it material ("mass"?, significant news coverage?, significant disruption?, what?) and 3) relevance to the subject at hand not relevance to protests in general or relevance to particular protesters.

This is the kind of thing people fight about, I know. If someone really wants to put it back, please see if you can try to satisfy some of the criteria I've mentioned.

71.126.239.213 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (same guy as 72.93.198.116, looks like my IP address changed somehow)

points taken, however, it tends to show the activity of CORE in the north, and combination of Core and WRL. what is your criteria for a notable demonstration? are you going to argue crowd size or disruption of event? (it would make a good DYK). would you prefer it at the Opposition to the US involvement in the Vietnam War? i thought the criteria for inclusion was WP:V. a single sentence doesn't strike me as overly disruptive to the chamber of commerce tone of the article. Pohick2 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You call it a "chamber of commerce tone", but it's not. It's encyclopedic tone and that's the way it's supposed to be. That's the tone that enabled the article to be FA in the past. Materiality is also a criterion for inclusion. It's the the granddaddy of inclusion criteria!

It's not "just a sentence" either, it's a section. It does disrupt the article. It's not material. It's not notable. It a random, seemingly unrelated fact given it's own section. Bizarre. The text doesn't assert (or even imply!) that it is notable, let alone give supporting reasons for it. One reason your "single sentence" is disruptive is because it is only a sentence. It doesn't justify it's presence with even the slightest amount of explanation. The fact that it doesn't say what they were protesting shows real lack of concern for how the text contributes to the article.

People, "protest" stuff every day, and get arrested. So what? What were they protesting? Say it! What was the big deal anyway? The "big" deal seems to be that four future famous people got arrested and that they were all associated with Rutgers. What of it? How did that IMPACT the 64WF? How is it important? I don't believe it's important at all to 64WF, but if you think it's important, you need to say so. Fix the text! Don't just restore the same garbage.

You can do whatever you want. In the end, you are a watcher and I am am IP and not a watcher. Therefore, you will always have more power to influence the content. I have noticed that you've already summarily restored the text after two independent deletions. What you've done so far could be considered two thirds of an edit war. You can bet the first deletion by another IP was for the same reason. He/She didn't have the savvy to make edit comments or make discussion entries. He/She just recognized the problem and tried to fix it (I presume). I "did it smarter", and regardless, it was still summarily reverted by you.

I'm not going to restore the deletion. I'm through wrestling pigs. I don't care any more. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia can never be great. It's one of the reasons this article fell from grace. Lots of time on hand and an agenda, not ability, nor working with others, are the greater criteria for control over content. I've had enough.

71.126.239.213 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Googie/Populux architecture

For a long time this article mentioned that this was the predominate style of the majority of the pavillions and for those of us who attended it obviously was; isn't there a good 3rd party source somewhere that references this so that this important fact can be restored to the article? 75.216.153.25 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)