" 

 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 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. 
 Some 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"". "