Redking123
The statement that you are removing as "lacking a citation" is referenced to a FEMA report further down the page, and that section goes into the collapse into more detail. The article therefore conforms to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. There is no need to have the same statement sourced twice in two different places - that's just silly.
I should also remind you, while I'm here, that if you revert on this article again within 24 hours you are liable to be blocked under the three revert rule. Hut 8.5 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I'm new to Wikipedia. It seems to me, however, that a lead to an article about WTC7 should deal in facts and only facts. This is not an article about FEMA. So a statement by FEMA about WTC7 in an article about WTC7 cannot be taken as 'fact'. It is, however, an interesting and important authority on the subject of this article.
In the interests of fair play and full and honest reporting, the lead should reference the FEMA report. "According to the FEMA report" should be added in.
It would thus read: "According to the FEMA report, its structural integrity was further compromised by fires..."
Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you. Redking123 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not report "facts" as such. We merely report what has been published in reliable sources, such as a FEMA report. The information in the section on the building's collapse does go into detail about reports that have been carried out and the conclusions that have been drawn. I suggest you go and discuss this at Talk:7 World Trade Center.
- Below is the standard welcome template that is meant to be given to new users. I see you haven't got yours yet.
- Welcome!
Hello, Redking123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Thank you for your views on this. I have done some reading on Wikipedia policies concerning content and have come across this one germane to this discussion:
" Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"."
I suggest to you that the 'Lead' of this story does not contain a 'neutral point of view' as required by Wikipedia rules. The statement "...its structural integrity was further compromised by fires..." is presented as a statement of undisputed fact. This statement is indeed disputed by hundreds of reputable scientists and engineers and has not been proven to be true.
You state that Wikipedia is not concerned about 'facts' but only in presenting the views of 'reliable sources' such as FEMA. There are many other 'reliable sources' which disagree with this statement - yet that disputed statement appears in the Lead as if it were uncontested and a 'commonly accepted fact'. It is not. I suggest to you that the Lead should be changed to adopt a neutral position on this statement - the aforementioned statement is not 'widely accepted as true' and does not meet Wikipedia requirements of neutrality.
Thank you for your consideration of these ideas. Redking123 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Discussions about the lead should be taking place at Talk:7 World Trade Center rather than here as it has a wider audience, but the problem with what you are suggesting is that it gives undue weight to the claims of conspiracy theorists. If you scroll down Wikipedia's neutrality policy a bit more you will find a section on this. If you want to respond to this I recommend you do so on the article's talk page. Hut 8.5 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Please see Talk:7 World Trade Center to continue our discussion. Thank you. Redking123 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)