Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Frequently asked questions

I have something I would like to include

That's great. But there are some things you should consider.

Is it Original Research?

Wikipedia has a No original policy. Basically you should not include something that indicates a thought or idea unless you can cite a source that presented that idea.

It does not matter if you can cite evidence to support an argument, the thing that matters is whether or not you can find a source who makes the argument. However, once you have satisfied that requirement, feel free to cite items that are used by your source to support their argument.

According to Wikipedia:No original research you may not include something if:

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Don't use "weasel words"

When including an opinion or idea, make sure you specifically name the source of the argument instead of atributing it to a vague source like:

• Some people...
• Many theorists...
• Researchers...
• etc.

Statements like these are considered Weasel words and are discouraged because they make it hard for the reader to judge the value of the source of an argument.

They are also bad, because they create the impression that the supporters of these theories "all believe the same things" which the supporters of these theories don't.

Is the title biased?

In the article Conspiracy theory we can read this paragraph:

The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.

So there are negative implications in the term according to the "most widely accepted sense of the term". The question is over whether "Conspiracy Theory" is a term intended to be used as a perjorative or whether it is an official term for describing a certain kind of theory. The term "Conspiracy theories" is generally used by debunkers who contest the theories while the "researchers" who support the theories never use it, they use the term "skepitcism".

This topic has been fiercely debated since the page was created. There was a vote on this when this page was first created[1] and since the term does not show up on Words to avoid the consensus thus far has been that it is an acceptable term for use on this page.

Arguments against the title

• The term has objectively negative implications (there can be no discussion about this).
• When a topic is *controversial* (and this is the case) the title must be neutral: you can use title with negative implications when you speak about nazis or pedophilia because in those case there is an almost unanimous consensus (they are not controversial topic). If the topic is controversial you must use a title that is accepted by all the point of views.
• It's not correct to say that topic of the article are *theories* about *conspiracy*: the article is about the skeptic POV about the official account: alternative theories are part of the content of the article not *the* main topic.
• It wouldn't be neutral to dedicate the article to *theories* about *conspiracies* (even if the article wanted to do so): to put emphasis on the *theories* is a way to discredit the skeptic POV: it's more difficult to believe someone when he says "I have a theory" rather than when he just says "I'm skeptic".

Can we prove "pull" really is an industry term?

We can safely say that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment does not refer to controlled demolition. Why would FDNY demolish a building, and beyond that, commit multimillion dollar insurance fraud? Silverstein wouldn't admit this on national television and insurance companies aren't suing him. On 9/11 Silverstein, concerned about the firemen's safety, recommended that they exit the building. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)