Talk:Penobscot Narrows Bridge and Observatory

Accessing the PNB observatory and link war

I am not either of these folks adding and removing the same link, however quoted verbatim below is some text from the page which that link points to. This paragraph appears about 1/2 to 3/4 down the first page:

The newly constructed Penobscot Narrows Bridge boasts an observation tower, rising 420 (feet) above sea level, which may only be accessed through the Fort. Set to open this spring the observation tower will provide a breathtaking view of the Penobscot River Valley, and is the only observatory like it in the Western Hemisphere! (emphasis added)

So it would seem to me that placing a link to this external page IS appropriate if attached to the External Links section of this article about the PNB. JackME 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow up note: The page at the link in question is an official page for Fort Knox, which is owned and operated by the State of Maine Parks department. Though there is a park entrance fee to the public park, it is not a private commercial page, and if the quoted comment (above) is fully accurate, then there is no other way to access the PNB observatory except through this Fort Knox park, which is what the external page is about and why the link to it, is appropriate on the wiki PNB article, I would say. here quoted is more information which appears on that external page:

Penobscot Narrows Bridge Observatory $5.00 Adults $3.00 Children 5 - 11 $2.50 Seniors 65+ Free Children 4 & under Observatory fees include admission to Fort Knox

JackME 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link this morning, as it was a dead link. Previous revisions were from a combination of myself and other users including spambots. My previous removals were based on the fact that the link was to a site primarily about Fort Knox and not the Penobscot Bridge. References to the observatory are limited to the sentences you mentioned and a chance to win tickets to the observatory. The limited facts presented in those 2 sentences could be worked into the Penobscot Bridge article. An external link should be not used if only 2 sentences on the page have any reference to the subject.

In general, I see no problem with a link to information about the Observatory, as it is a unique feature of the bridge. However, if any link is going to exist, I think there should be two criteria to meet. First, there should be information about the observatory in the main body of the Penobscot Narrows Bridge article. Second, the external link should be more primarily focused on the bridge and/or observatory. A quick Google search turned up this website, which seems to be a better link: http://www.penobscotnarrowsbridgefest.com. Anyway, just my thoughts.

The official page for Fort Knox State Historic Site is actually [1], the link in question is to a site run by a non-profit organization, Friends of Fort Knox. Which brings up another point, the editor adding the link FOFK1 would appear to be affiliated with the non-profit as the user name is their acronym and their email address (FOFK1@aol.com). Per WP:COI you should not edit pages about yourself or organizations which you're closely affiliated. VerruckteDan 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I take your points, but still feel the link should be considered legitimate for these reasons: The wiki page is about the PNB, however a major component of the PNB is the Observatory Tower. That Observatory is only accessible via the Fort Knox Maine publicly owned historic site. That historic site is operated by an non-profit as evidenced by this quote from the FAQ of the site in question:

1. March 2001 - A formal partnership agreement between the Bureau of Parks and Lands and the Friends is signed.

1. November 2000 A long-term license agreement covering the Friends use of a new gift shop and office space is signed with the Bureau of Parks and Lands.

Therefore by extension, the state of Maine has also contracted with the non-profit to operate the access and admissions to the PNB observatory tower. Ergo, the web site in question is connected to both the PNB and the wiki article on the PNB.

If you look further into the site in question while that site is obviously more focused on the fort of Ft. Knox, you will never the less find that the PNB is referenced more than just the two times I had previously quoted.

As for your comment about wiki policy, IMO, that might certainly apply to commercial ventures, but just being affiliated with a non-profit shouldn't bar you from adding appropriate links to articles about, or connected with, your non-profit org.

Stepping back, if a user comes to this wiki article and reads about the observatory located on the bridge, it seems likely the user might want to know more about that part of the PNB, specifically how to access it, and so following a link to an external page which clearly answers that question seems logical and appropriate to me. JackME 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your points as well. I've gone ahead and added a section to the article regarding the Observaiton Tower. Additionally, I've added both the links. VerruckteDan 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

09/19/2010--Edits made to the "controversy" section were done to correct some horrible syntax and spelling errors. Also, I object to this section's one-sided handling of the controversy and the lack of detail/proof regarding the accident and the motivations of the Maine DOT. I am not a Mainer, nor do I have a stake in anything mentioned here except for a desire for accuracy. I would hope a local could research this section further and provide a better entry. Kraiggustafson (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My facts come from experience Having known the Dyers my whole life my family was very involved and it seems one sided because the state was in the wrong the whole time.Deragon10 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That and the state never gave out any real information except just slander. Deragon10 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

One added, but its horrible... Sorry its the best I can do.--Dk69 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking through the pictures, but I see no "ginormous trampoline"... 24.97.230.243 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

Now that the old bridge has been demolished, we should keep an eye out for an image of the bridge without the old one in it. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop suppressing information

An individual keeps trying to suppress the fact that there is a problem with this bridge becoming a "suicide destination" which is counter to the public interest and holding elected officials accountable 166.181.89.85 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I'm right here. Please address me directly. I am doing no such thing. This article has an extensive discussion about suicides from the bridge. It does not need to be, however, a running tally of every documented suicide from the bridge. Updating the total is fine. This is not the forum to hold public officials accountable for a lack of anti-suicide measures on the bridge. Please contact those public officials directly. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so thanks for your reply. I think that the public should be aware that the problem is worsening. I think it's very concerning that two young adults have driven long distances to end their lives at this bridge, and it is an important matter of transparency to point out that the problem continues to the present day. When I tried to add these details the first time, someone deleted it and said that it had nothing to do with the bridge. Newspaper accounts were conflicting. Trying to set the record straight on Wikipedia seems like a civic duty to me. "Doesn't need" does not explain why you feel the need to eliminate certain details while leaving others. What is your criteria for leaving some details and deleting others? Which details are important to you, and what good do you think that you are accomplishing by eliminating recent details? MaineMother (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

First, none of this is meant to diminish the terrible pain that families go through due to suicides- but this must be approached as dispassionately as we can manage. I completely believe that the total number of suicides should be documented and accurate as possible, when we can document a total number. But the text of the article should not be a running tally specifically documenting and calling out every event that is found to have occurred there. One reason is that specifically listing each and every suicide that is documented could encourage other suicides, just so they get called out in the article. People do think like that. Articles are meant to provide a historic overview of the topic, not necessarily a tally. I think the only detail that remains is the suicide of Rev. Carson, which shows that even well known citizens have chosen to end their lives at the bridge.

Furthermore, the mission of Wikipedia is not to aid the public interest or persuade public officials to take certain actions. That's what social media and other websites are for, or directly contacting public officials like the DOT commissioner or Governor Mills or a state legislator.

This article also contains (and should) extensive discussion about efforts regarding anti-suicide measures for the bridge. If there is anything about such efforts that is missing, it should be added. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I did earlier add the details about the phones being repaired, as well as the mention of the legislature's intent to form a study group. If, however, the phones and study group are the last thing listed chronologically in the article, someone reading it without context will be led to think that the problem is not still in existence, because earlier incidents are mentioned, but other editors are not permitting me to complete the record. Setting aside completely the issue of public officials, readers should not be left with the impression that there were no incidents in 2022 after the new phones were installed, because earlier incidents are mentioned. Speaking as a former journalist and trained writer, that is just misleading and inaccurate. MaineMother (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I believe the only earlier specific incident currently mentioned is Carson, as a well known figure. However, if it's seen as fairer I could support removing that even though I think it provides important context.

The total number could be reworded to say "as of X date, Y number of suicides have occurred" but we don't need to tally specific instances to do that. It's not Wikipedia's mission to keep things in the public eye to force action on any issue. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Currently the article says *The emergency phones on the Penobscot Narrows Bridge were reported out of order following another suicide in 2021. They were subsequently replaced. In May 2022, the Maine legislature was reportedly planning to "pull together a study group on suicides by bridge."* I added the study group details as part of the chronological order of events and newspaper references to the bridge that I was adding to. The next chronological details relevant to this article are the two suicides in 2022. Why, in your opinion, should those most recent relevant happenings, accurately documented by reliable news sources, be erased from Wikipedia? If one is creating a chronology, then the recent suicides are part of that chronology. Why, in your opinions, should people be left with the impression that the phones are preventing suicides when they are still taking place? MaineMother (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If a source specifically states that two suicides in 2022 prompted the Legislature to create a committee or study group, that can be said. The way the edit was written, it was presented as two disparate, unconnected events.

If a source specifically states "the phones are not preventing suicides", that may be said as well, but we cannot draw conclusions in Wikipedia's voice by listing suicides subsequent to the installation of the phones just to do so and send the message that they don't work. We need something to cite. A news story about a suicide hotline organization discussing how the phones don't work, or efforts to lobby the Legislature, would be very appropriate in that regard. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)