Talk:September 11 attacks/FAQ: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
Clarified that question 3 is about conspiracy theories. |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{FAQ row |
{{FAQ row |
||
|q=Q3<nowiki>:</nowiki>Should the article provide evidence supporting |
|q=Q3<nowiki>:</nowiki>Should the article provide evidence supporting conspiracy theories? |
||
|a='''A3''': This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out uncivil rhetoric and present your case calmly. |
|a='''A3''': This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out uncivil rhetoric and present your case calmly. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 12:28, 6 September 2010
 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page September 11 attacks. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Is this article biased?
A1: We consider all allegations of bias and slanted POV seriously. The editors of this article, however, need specific examples from reliable sources to be able to take measures to correct any problems. Placing templates such as {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} within the article without mentioning specific, reliable reasons for such will result in the swift reversion of these additions as unsubstantiated claims.
Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)?
A2: Wikipedia:Words to avoid states very clearly in the beginning that "there is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires special attention when used in Wikipedia. The major contributors have arrived at the consensus, after several lengthy debates, that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.[1]
Q3:Should the article provide evidence supporting conspiracy theories?
A3: This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and assume good faith. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out uncivil rhetoric and present your case calmly.