Contents

User:Woozle

Wikipedia[edit]

I just wanted to state my disagreement with the merging of the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article into the article named World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. This makes it sound like the demolition hypothesis (and, by implication, any explanation that isn't officially sanctioned) is totally wacko and has no substantial evidence; my understanding is that there are piles of evidence, and the case is slowly becoming overwhelming as more comes in.

Note that I have not contributed to either of those articles, to the best of my recollection; I've just done a lot of research on this topic, and the more I see people accepting (or even promoting) the official non-explanation for the events of 9/11 and casually dismissing all others, the angrier I get. (If I had time, I'd look up the grievance procedure and pursue this, but I don't.) --Woozle (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

09:03 update: Okay, I went and picked a nit -- the claim that the "mainstream engineering community" rejects controlled demolition was justified by one very dubious and uncheckable reference, so I made a note of this.

11:15 update: User:Jehochman removed both the "dubious" template and the reference, saying only "Remove cruft - the lede does not need references". Talk about casual dismissal. (Is this truly a policy?)

I responded by changing "and the mainstream engineering community" to "and some members of the mainstream engineering community"

questions[edit]

Are there other lists of officially reliable sources, such as List of scientific journals in physics? If so:

• What is the process by which it is decided which sources are officially listed as reliable and which are not?
• What is the policy when an item is published by a nominally reliable source, but no articles on that item can be found in any of the sources officially designated reliable on Wikipedia?
• What is the policy for dealing with "reliably" sourced information which is demonstrably inaccurate? (e.g. I'm sure there have been mainstream articles favorable to creationism, global warming denial, etc.)