Talk:James Fetzer/Archive 1

Nominated for Deletion
Articles for deletion/James H. Fetzer Morton devonshire 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't see any basis for wanting to delete this article. While it's not meticulously footnoted, Fetzer's most outrageous statements (wanting a military coup) are footnoted. Further, I'm fairly familiar with him and his work, and don't see any errors.

Maybe Fetzer is the sort of fellow who shouldn't be important enough to merit an entry, but his central role in the 9/11 U.S. government conspiracy movement means that he is in fact sufficiently important. -- John McAdams

"conspiracy theorist"
Going forward, we cannot label them in the lead with pejorative labels. You can after call them a conspiracy theorist, if such a statement/observation is sourced, but not in the lead at all. Also, you need to say "Is considered a conspiracy theorist by xyz", not doing that is a violation of original research policies as well, by playing a "Connect the dots" game to try to bypass the no original research rules, as some might say. See also WP:LIVING. rootology (T) 15:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, wikipedia, per Jimbo Wales, WILL AGRESIVLY remove ANY endorsment of negative lables on living persons, IGNORING 3rr. --Striver 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Negative terms which are properly sourced are allowed. -Will Beback 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Period. Wikipedia does not  endorse  any negative or pejorative terms. It will however report  on specific people doing so, if they are notable. --Striver 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sloane, STOP with your blatant violation of wikipedia policy! --Striver 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Striver, please cite the policy language on which you are basing your statement. -Will Beback 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Biographies of living persons: " The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."

in other words, wikipedia will not endorse the controversial and peojorative claim of labeling him a Conspiracy_ theorist.--Striver 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your conclusions do not follow from the text. That text means that the editors who add the information are the responsible parties should the subjects wish to file a lawsuit. That is the same for every word we write on Wikipedia. It does not mean that Wikipedia refuses to publish properly sourced informaiton, no matter how derogatory. -Will Beback 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. --Striver 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind be described as a "conspiracy theorist", even though "conspiracy realist" would fit better. What I mind is that my obvious improvements to my entry, all of which are properly sourced, are being deleted and reverted to the original inferior version on the basis that I made them. But they are all true and they are all verifiable. This is hack work by biased editors and should not be allowed to stand. Surely someone at Wikipedia has integrity and stands for truth and objectivity, which some of the editors here are denying me. This is ridiculous and even obscene.184.60.4.73 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

ONE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANY REPUTE WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THIS TALK HISTORY THAT WIKIPEDIA EDITORS HAVE EDITED THIS ARTICLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPRESSING INFORMATION AND CENSORSHIP NOT POLITICALLY PLEASING TO THEM. DR. FETZER HAS PUBLISHED NEARLY 30 BOOKS, 5 OF WHICH DEAL WITH CONSPIRACY THEORIES. WIKIPEDIA HAS CHANGED HIS ENTRY FROM AMERICAN PHILOSOPHER AND CONSPIRACY THEORIST TO PRIMARILY CONSPIRACY THEORIST AND RETIRED PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR. ACCURACY COUNTS: WHY USE WIKIPEDIA WHEN IT IS SUBJECT TO POLITICAL CENSORSHIP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.40.94 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not trivial
There is no "apparent endorsement" of an overthrow. Please choose words carefully. SkeenaR 06:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now wait a minute. Take a look at Professors of Paranoia -- are you saying he didn't say what they reported in that article?  Morton devonshire 06:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Let me tell you, for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military coup to depose these traitors" does not in anyway suggest an endorsement of such an action.(not that it's hard to understand how that could be misconstrued) I'm waiting for bills in the mail, that does not mean that I desire them. If it was clear that was what he meant, I would support inclusion of that in the proper context, but it's just not there. It may be debatable, but it shouldn't be stated in such a manner. SkeenaR 06:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh please, read the rest. He clearly states that he'd like to see an overthrow of the US government.--Sloane 10:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't "oh please" me. I'm not going to edit war with you about it. I agree he wishes someone else would form the government, and may be surprised that this government is still in ofice, but his statements do not indicate endorsement of a military coup. Have it your way, which in my view is libelous. SkeenaR 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Look, you're a pedant, and Fetzer is a Jew-hater. On Press TV in the UK today - September 2nd 2011 - he said that the Israelis were behind 9/11. The man is a complete fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.243 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than fight about it, let's cite some sources. Morton devonshire 05:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More ridiculous crap from editors here. I am not "a Jew hater" and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that I am. I am an anti-Zionist, but that does not even arise in my entry. Clearly some hack editor is going after me with a meat ax because of issues he has misunderstood. The same standards of verifiability should apply to editors. This guy should have nothing to do with my entry.184.60.4.73 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

There is ample evidence that Israel was involved in 9/11. See the book by Christopher Bollyn (on line), articles by Alan Sabrosky (on line), the web site, Rediscover911.com (on line), and the article, "Israel did 9/11: All the proof in the world!" That someone so ignorant or biased should have a role on Wikipedia is completely outrageous. He violates every principle for which Wike claims to stand.184.60.4.73 (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

I Withdraw the Nomination
At the request of my Wiki-friend SkeenaR, and in deference to Professor Fetzer, I withdraw the nomination. I bid you peace. Morton devonshire 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/James H. Fetzer
The result of this AfD discussion was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All the Fetzer edited boxes...
Is there a template we can use to get those all into one box? rootology ( T ) 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I just added another one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
The sentence

In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, he would have been found "floating face down in the river", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state

has unclear meaning.

CT
Where in this article is he called a CT? --Striver 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The title. --Sloane 19:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance
There has been some crude anti-Fetzer POV inserted on this page, and I have reverted some of it myself. However, that does not mean this page should be Fetzer's soapbox. Fetzer's work on "computer science" is controversial to say the least. Leslie Lamport's take on it is that "philosophers, not having any objective foundation to their work, can achieve success only by becoming masters of rhetoric." Leibniz 11:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. I was even invited to contribute to two encyclopedias of computers science and information processing. Taking the view of a partisan--who clearly does not understand the issues--and citing him here is preposterous. This is one more reason to question the judgment and competence of some of Wiki's editors. This post is a complete atrocity.184.60.4.73 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

cell phones
Removed this statement. He may not have explicitly referenced it in this interview, but studies regarding cell phone connectivity in the air have been well documented throughout the movement. He is far from the only person to have referenced these studies.

Removed unencyclopedic sentence
"Many of Fetzer's claims are spurious, unsubstantiated speculations. "

Whoh there! If this claim is to be made it needs to be put in some else's mouth, not Wikipedia's.

Straussian 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that when it comes to any controversial topics about the actions of the US Government, Wikipedia shows enormous bias in the same manner as the mainstream media propaganda machine that is controlled by the same big money that stages wars for profit. America is in serious trouble, but the sheep still haven't awakened. -- Signed, A Patriotic American who is unafraid to question the government. This, rather than getting into wars to make money, is the highest form of patriotism, but we have forgotten the principals of the founding fathers and have embraced the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sad times for the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.161.179 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have sourced every claim I have made. Surely Wiki's role is to determine whether or not I have made the claims I have made, not to arbitrate their truth. This has gone beyond completely ridiculous into pure absurdity.184.60.4.73 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

I Withdraw the Nomination
At the request of my Wiki-friend SkeenaR, and in deference to Professor Fetzer, I withdraw the nomination. I bid you peace. Morton devonshire 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/James H. Fetzer
The result of this AfD discussion was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All the Fetzer edited boxes...
Is there a template we can use to get those all into one box? rootology ( T ) 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I just added another one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
The sentence

In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, he would have been found "floating face down in the river", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state

has unclear meaning.

CT
Where in this article is he called a CT? --Striver 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The title. --Sloane 19:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

cell phones
Removed this statement. He may not have explicitly referenced it in this interview, but studies regarding cell phone connectivity in the air have been well documented throughout the movement. He is far from the only person to have referenced these studies.

YouTube Links
This article is one of [ thousands] on Wikipedia that contain a link to YouTube. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page to either request the regular editors check the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy, or to note my removal of it.

Most YouTube material is unsuitable for Wikipedia because:
 * 1) The source and legitimacy of the videos on YouTube are almost or totally impossible to determine, hence they are not  reliable sources and are not verifiable (A key requirement).
 * 2) Many videos on YouTube are of questionable copyright legitimacy, which should not be linked from Wikipedia.
 * 3) Since many videos are personally made, they represent original research, which Wikipedia is not in the buissiness of publishing. They may also be biased in their presentation of material (IE. Non-objective)

If the link(s) on this page are legitimate, feel free to re-add them, but be aware that you must be able to present proof that they do not violate the above policies (Verifyability, External links and Copyrights), or they will just be removed again.

For more information on this message, see User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, Crockspot 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Crockspot 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically concerned about the copyright status of the videos. I'm not removing them at this time. Are there archival clips available from Fox that can be linked instead? Crockspot 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged
I have redirected the following articles here: Per consensus on their AfDs to include them at this article instead of on individual ones. --W.marsh 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Murder in Dealey Plaza
 * The Great Zapruder Film Hoax
 * American Assassination

other sourcing issues
The source: is from a peer-reviewed source - although there is a disclaimer: "Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps" - so care must be exercised if it is to be treated as a third-party source - and could be used effectively to verify content illustrating Fetzer's views on the matter contained in that document. Nevertheless the document does not contain anything to support the claim of lecturing at Harvard or Yale. Perhaps another source might be able to verify that? --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To be helpful to James H. Fetzer: I removed the source http://twilightpines.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=47 which displays the page "Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Events" with the edit summary "remove first-party source used to verify statement about external event; request third-party source". I think this was a reasonable request as the cite was supporting the assertion that "He has ... made numerous talk show appearances on the topic" and first-party sources are really not sufficient to verify external events (see above). For example: I could write on my website that I appeared as Hamlet at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, but that wouldn't be a usable source to support such a claim in my biography on wikipedia. If I wrote on my website that my favourite colour is red, then anyone could use that to cite that claim in my wikipedia biography. I hope you can see the difference. Now, you have replaced the [citation needed] with a link to http://911scholars.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=53 which displays the page "Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Events" - the same source (with a different domain) that I objected to as first-party. I will assume good faith and accept that you either did not understand the concept of first-party vs third-party sourcing or forgot the objections to the original link. In either case, I would suggest you carefully review the provenance of citations that are used to support content in this article. In particular, I will politely request that you revert your re-insertion of the source in question and either find an independent source or allow someone else to. Supporting claims with self-published sources does nothing to improve the quality of the article. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am doing my best to comply with requirements that appear to me to be not well-founded. My lectures at Harvard and Yale did not make the front page of The Daily Crimson or Yale's student paper.  I was invited by Jesse Ventura to give a lecture to his class at Harvard while he was a fellow at the Kennedy School of Government.  The lecture at Yale was arranged by a student who was not well-versed in publicizing events.  I also gave a talk on 9/11.  For sponsoring me, the student, who is from the Dominican Republic, was placed on a "terrorist watch" list!  I changed the sentence about my talks--many of which are archived under "Events" at 911scholars.org--to say that I was CONTINUING to make presentations, because there is the list of the talks I have recently given or am scheduled to make.  I think you are employing an excessively demanding standard here that doesn't make a lot of sense.  How many talk show appearances are noted by The Library of Congress?  What kind of official record is supposed to exist?  There is no better source on my talk show appearances, but millions of Americans have heard them.  There is not a single false sentence in my bio sketch.  You have an "open encyclopedia" where anyone can make entries, yet when the subject of the entry--who knows vastly more about the subject than anyone else alive--seeks to update it and make it more accurate and complete, he is subjected to some kind of third degree!  Virtually all faculty are required to maintain a web site recording their academic histories and list of publications.  Can you imagine what would happen if an institution were to discover that a faculty member had made false entries?  You don't know enough about these things to impose such severe standards.  Egad!  I am a former Marine Corps officer.  No one with my background would be inclined to include false information about themselves.  This is an extreme form of disrespect.  Unless you want to go back to my birth certificate to decide whether I was actually born in Pasadena and check whether I actually graduated from South Pasadena High School or received its highest award, I think your policies require recalibration.  Especially with UNIVERSITY FACULTY, you just aren't going to have inaccuracies in their curriculum vita!  That would be a serious academic offense.  And asking for records of hundreds of appearances on talk shows, how can I do better than cite "Events" on 911scholars.org, which lists many of them going back for years and years, or send someone to YouTube or google video, where they can actually WATCH dozens and dozens of public presentations that were regarded as important enough to be filmed and, in a rather large number of cases, actually broadcast over television?  Please tell me what I am supposed to be doing wrong, because it seems to me I am doing everything right.  No one knows more about me than I do!  It's that simple.  You have enough "anchors" in so-called third party reports that it should be obvious I am who I claim to be.  If I give you a citation to my CV or "Events" on Scholars, that is not because I am making any of this up!!  What is supposed to be the purpose of such an entry than to be accurate and complete?  Incidentally, I posted a long response about these things previously.  I cannot see any justifiable basis for disputing any of the sentences that occur in my entry.  On the contrary, I am doing my best to maintain its standards, where practically nothing said about me is left without support.  And the sources I am citing, as I have explained, appear to be entirely appropriate.  When I mention that I co-edit an on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK or that I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and cite their URLs, what more could be required?  And when I tell you I have made a presentation at Cambridge and cite where it is announced, you or one of your associates want to verify what I am saying is true as opposed to that I made the presentation?  Surely that goes far beyond your competence. And I am stunned that someone would dispute the TITLE of a paper that I have published!  Something is not right here. Self-published sources are entirely appropriate when there is no reason to doubt them.  They are verifiable as sources and may provide information that is accessible from no other source.  Contrary to your position, they DO enhance the quality of the entry, as my curriclum vitae--and the extensive list of "Events" on 911scholars.org--both clearly display.  James H. Fetzer (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, as I was taking a shower just now, it occurred to me that an important exception to your notion that self-authored records should not be accepted as citations is contradicted by the admissibility of diaries in courts of law. These are periodically updated records of personal thoughts and activities and are widely accepted as legal evidence.  Curriculum vitae and lists of events from a source like Scholars are similar:  they are periodically updated records, not merely of personal thoughts, but of publications and other activities, where presentations on television and on radio are alternative forms of publication.  As a Landsdown Lecturer at the University of Victoria in 1992, which is listed in my Curriculum Vitae, I presented a series of four lectures on the nature of consciousness and cognition but, because my host was a faculty member in the School of Business Administration, I also presented a lecture on the philosophy of accounting, in which I distinguished between "accounting" as a process of verifying that numbers add up, "auditing: stage 1" as a process of verifying that those numbers are supported by documents and records, and "auditing: stage 2" as a process of undertaking the existence of the stock, products, and so forth that those records represent.  My impression is that editors at Wikipedia are confounding the process of auditing: stage 1 with auditing: stage 2.  Your requests for citations to support important claims in Wikiepedia entires are entirely appropriate, but the idea that Wiki editors should undertake the verification of those citations would seem to be a reach.  Take my records of talk show appeareances as an example. The "Events" page for Scholars is up-dated on a weekly basis, sometimes more often.  I typically provide links or identify locations where my presentations can be heard or observed.  Many of those entries are supplmented by URLs that take you to actual archives where those talks and presentations are preserved.  To reject my citations without attempting to verify the sources I cite is posing as if you had done an audit: stage 2 when in fact you have not done so at all.  Similarly with my presentations that are archived at YouTube and google video.  It is entirely appropriate for Wiki to insist on some form of documentation via records or archives for key claims, but beyond the pale for Wiki to insist on verification beyond documents and records ABSENT SOME SPECIAL REASON FOR DOING SO.  I have provided links to documents and records that verify my entries as auditing: stage 1.  I have also indicated how you could extend the verification process by auditing: stage 2, if you want to listen to some of the programs on which I have been a guest or to view some of the presentations I have made.  The evidence that i have done these things not only exists but is easily accessible.  And, if anyone wants to go deeper, they are welcome to follow the leads that I have provided.  To delete the listing of "Events" on 911scholars.org or to refuse citations to YouTube and google video appears to be self-defeating, if your interest is in having complete and accurate records.  So I would suggest--ever so politely!--that you just might want to recailbrate your policies to make it clear that Wikipedia is not responsible for carrying the process of verification to stage 2 but only for establishing the existence of documents and records that verify those claims at stage 1, no matter whether their source happens to be the subject of an entry, especially when, like diaries, they have the character of periodically updated records of publications and other activities.  I think that might provide the basis for more reasonable and consistent policy regarding entries in the encyclopedia that better defines the scope and limits of your responsibilities with respect to entries, especially in the case of public figures, where they know more about their publications and activities than any third-hand parties, provided, of course, that they are supported by documents and records.  It is, after all, a presumption that "thirid party" sources are going to be more accurate than first-party records.  I have read many stories about my positions on 9/11, for example, that are far off the mark.  So should they be preferred to my own when they conflict?  My essay on "Reasoning about Assassinations", which was not only presented during a conference at Cambridge but was published in the proceedings of that conference in The International Journal of the Humanities, obviously qualifies as an appropriate form of documentation.  The very idea of treating it gingerly "as a third party source" strikes me as a nice example of confounding auditing: stage 1 with auditing: stage 2, which, of course, would require that Wiki editors become as expert in the study of the death of JFK as the article's author, which is absurd.  You are using it to certify that I made such a presentation and the findings I presented, not as an endorsement of the research that I present there, which is appropriate to exactly that extent.  I appreciate having the opportunity to share my thoughts about all of this with you.  Let me know if there are more issues I need to address. James H. Fetzer (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, some simple requests: Please do not tell another editor what they do or do not know about academia; please do not accuse another editor of disrespect; please do not attempt to tell another editor's what is beyond their competence. You have no idea whom you are addressing. Now, I'll do my best to be helpful and try to answer the questions you raise, and the problems you seem to be having with Wikipedia's (not my) policies. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, the community have had to develop some rules and guidance for what may be included in the encyclopedia. The criterion for inclusion of any statement is that the statement can be verified from a reliable source. The truth of a statement is not the issue. Although that may seem strange at first, in fact it has been shown to work remarkably well. This is what Wikipedia says:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - Verifiability
 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Reliable sources
 * The problem with relying on what you have yourself written is not an attack on your honesty. It is simply that we hold all content in the encyclopedia to the same standards. Please don't take it personally. I am sorry that you can't see the sense in what Wikipedia requires for its content at present. If you perhaps were able to find the time to look at, for example, the history of the article Gary Weiss and the subsequent arbitration case, you might better understand some of the community's concerns about sourcing in biographies of living persons.
 * You raise a specific concern about my request for sources for the statement: "Fetzer has lectured on this subject at Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge Universities." The source given clearly verifies your presentation at Cambridge. Neither I nor anyone else will challenge that, but I am free to ask "Where is the verification for the claim about Harvard and Yale?" When I ask for sources for that, I am not casting doubts on its truth, merely its verifiability - and I'm not asking you personally for verification; I am asking the entire community. It may well be that no sources exist. If not, then anyone can remove that part of the statement. That's how Wikipedia works. At least by asking the question, I am giving the opportunity for a source to be found. This brings me to a general point: If a statement you have added to Wikipedia is sourced only by something else you have written elsewhere, there's no point in the citation; we might as well take your word in the first place. Nevertheless, by removing the [citation needed] and replacing it by citing yourself, you remove the invitation for someone else to find a third-party source which Wikipedia prefers. That's what I hoped you would understand when I wrote "Supporting claims with self-published sources does nothing to improve the quality of the article."
 * You ask "How many talk show appearances are noted by The Library of Congress? What kind of official record is supposed to exist?" The answer is, I hope, obvious. Wikipedia just asks that an appearance on a talk show is reported somewhere that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If it's not recorded thus, it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia.
 * The community is rightly suspicious of using YouTube to verify anything. I can go there and watch Hitler being banned from World of Warcraft] - it doesn't mean it happened.
 * You state: "I cannot see any justifiable basis for disputing any of the sentences that occur in my entry." Please try to understand nobody is disputing the truth of any statement. What is being disputed is whether a statement should be in this encyclopedia. If it can't be verified, it shouldn't be included. That's what Wikipedia requires.
 * You write that "[you are] stunned that someone would dispute the TITLE of a paper that I have published!" I know it's a subtle point, that may be difficult to comprehend immediately, but the the fact that you published an article with that title was not in dispute; what was disputed was the appropriateness of including that title as text within the article, because of its pejorative nature.
 * Rather than going through the rest of your comments above, I would strongly recommend you read Verifiability and Reliable sources. It's not all black-and-white but you may be able to grasp the extent to which your self-published sources may be appropriate and the extent to which other sources are required. Please try not to confuse truth with verifiability, as that seems to be the basis of much of your comments above. You have several editors wishing to help improve this article, all of whom are telling you that the article relies too much on self-published sources. Please reflect on the possibility that you may not be right in your assessment of the weight Wikipedia should place on first-party sources against third-party. Remember that you don't have to address any issues; anyone can edit this article and nobody owns it. I hope all of this will eventually help to improve the article - that is the only intention in this post. --RexxS (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Other sourcing issues 2
OK, I'll bite. Who am I addressing? What are your qualifications for editing Wikipedia? I ask this because taking third-party assertions over first-party assertions, especially when they are supported by periodically updated records, is not "verification". Verification would require conclusively confirming the truth of a matter based upon unimpeachable sources. So how does Wikipedia verify what third-party sources are reporting? Faculty records, including curriculum vitae, are public documents. False entries would bring retribution from the administration. Why would you think they were inaccurate or unreliable? Similarly, for "Events" in a public forum like the Scholars' web site. What benefit could possibly derive from false entries? Their purpose is to let people know where they can listen to or attend my presentations and those of others. Doesn't common sense matter to Wikipedia? Do you think that I would make up hundreds of entries about talk shows and television and other public appearances? You appear to be after the appearance of verification without knowing that your sources are accurate. I make this observation having been misrepresented by NBC, the BBC, and the History Channel, for example, in hit piece on students of 9/11. I know how thankless editing can be, having more than twenty years of extensive professional experience. So I would really like to know the answers to these questions. Many thanks. James H. Fetzer (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir, if you wish to change Wikipedia policy, you're doing it on the wrong page, and should go to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and argue there. Until you win that argument, the editors on this page are going to use the same standards used on the millions of other articles on Wikipedia, and you shouldn't take it out on the editors following the rules.  They're not going to give your article idiosyncratic treatment no matter how persuasive you are here that Wikipedia is wrong and you're right. Rexx's qualifications for editing Wikipedia are that he has read the rules, and you apparently haven't.  When you play chess, do you demand that kings be allowed to move more than one space because it makes no sense for queens and bishops to be more powerful?  THF (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Faculty vitae are reliable sources. The "Events" list on 911scholars is a reliable source. That is their purpose. They are public documents whose purposes would be defeated if they were not reliable. I don't have a problem with your policies in general, but when entries are verifiable, why should the source matter? The neutrality condition seems to conflict with the verifability criterion. As long as sources are verifiable, why should it matter if they are first, second, or third party? Most of the entries under "Events", for example include links to recordings of the original interviews. If you want to assess the "reliability" of that list, why not take the time and check them? They may not even be recorded anywhere else, like my talks at Harvard and Yale. Otherwise, significant events may be wrongly excluded for no good reason. James H. Fetzer (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your response shows no evidence that you read a single word I wrote. THF (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have read every word. The Wiki rules emphasize verifiability using reliable sources and third-party sources. That's fine as long as they are available:


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - Wikipedia:Verifiability
 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Wikipedia:Reliable sources

My point, which is responsive to your remarks, is that (a) faculty vitae are "reliable sources" and (b) that announcements of "Events" on 911scholars.org are also "reliable". I have explained the circumstances of my talks at Harvard and Yale. What do you want? A note from Jesse Ventura? A letter from my student sponsor from the Dominican Republic? In fact, when it comes to my life, activities, and publications, I AM A HIGHLY RELIABLE SOURCE. No one is trying to "sneak something by" the editors of WIKI. Why should anyone "challenge" my presentations at Harvard (on JFK) and Yale (on JFK and 9/11)? Really! In the case no "third party" source happens to be available, why are you not willing to accept another "reliable source", especially when it comes from one who was there? That would appear to be consistent with WIKI's rules. James H. Fetzer (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Faculty vitae may well be reliable, that is, the faculty may have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but when you supply the information to the faculty, they are no longer a third-party source for that information. It may be that the announcements on 911schollars.org are accurate, but again they are not third-party. Does 911scholars.org have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It may have, but when it is used as extensively as it is in this article, somebody may ask "where is that reputation documented?" - that would be required to show reliability. We are asked to take your word alone that it is a reliable source. The difficulty is that an honest man and a liar would both claim their statements are true; a claim of truth in itself does nothing to establish truth. That is why wikipedia does not seek to establish truth, only verifiability. Please understand that I am not saying I don't accept your word. I am merely suggesting that it does not meet our criteria, as we would then be in the position of having to accept the word of many others, much less distinguished than you - where should we draw the line? Should we accept the word of every Marine Officer or Professor Emeritus? Would a Police Officer or Chief Executive Officer also acceptable? Wikipedia's community has chosen not to place itself in the position of having to make those kind of decisions. And as unfair as it is to honest men such as yourself, it is our only defence against the charlatans who could otherwise destroy our project.
 * I would ask again "If there is no reliable, independent source available for a statement, should it be in an encyclopedia?" That is an expression of the criterion for inclusion. Perhaps the Harvard and Yale lectures should not be included, if nobody reported on them? Not every event in an individual's life is worthy of inclusion. Please reflect on what wikipedia requires for material to remain in our encyclopedia. I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Occupation
So Fetzer, you a philosopher or not? --Sloane 20:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So Wiki editors are so incompetent they don't even know if I am a professional philosopher? No wonder this comes across as a disinfo op.  I add citations where they are noted as "missing" in the entry, but they are deleted by one of these biased editorial hacks.  I can't believe anyone retains any respect for Wikipedia at all in the case of controversial figures like me.184.60.4.73 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer


 * And when I add that I was appointed a Distinguished McKnight University Professor in 1996, which is my highest academic accomplishment, it is immediately deleted, even though I cited my curriculum vitae (which is a legal document) and it could be easily verified by going to the University of Minnesota web site, where I am listed (http://www.research.umn.edu/advance/distinguished.html). I get the impression that, when it comes to controversial issues or controversial subjects, Wiki is some kind of amateur hour.  I find this disgusting.184.60.4.73 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer


 * Drop the indignation. You have edited edited under multiple accounts and ISPs over six years and apparently have never attempted to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding sourcing that have been provided to you on multiple occasions. You appointment was included in a massive edit that included a dozen other citations referencing sources that are generally considered unreliable for Wikipedia purposes (e.g. Amazon, YouTube, self-published sources, etc.). When the bathwater is that dirty, sometimes the baby gets thrown out with it. On this point, Tgeairn has reinserted the information with a proper a secondary source.
 * In Wikipedia, you are the editorial hack. If you do not care to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, STOP editing the article (per Conflict of interest) and post on this talk page specifically what you would like added or removed from the article. I think you'll it to be more productive than complaining or asserting that we are part of a conspiracy to spread disinformation. Location (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, he's completely right "anonymous user" asking him to drop the righteous indignation. It is clear what segments were deleted from his biography and they lead any reasonably prudent person to the unequivocal conclusion that you are the one trying to discredit Jim Fetzer, not vice-versa. Wikipedia main staff better check into this article and the editors -- they are settlers wives in the West Bank, we all read that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.40.94 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is far too neutral
'''This WikiPedia article has been majorly attacked by Zionist hasbara shills hired specifically to damage the credibility and repute of Wikipedia. Please see http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Wikipedia%27s_Hasbara''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.40.94 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, editors, on providing such neutrality to the very controversial subject of this article. I actually got the impression that Fetzer had some sort of credibility from it (soon debunked by further readings from the Dr. Professor). 165.134.208.176 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This comment reveals incredible bias. How can this guy have any idea whether I am right or wrong by going to "debunking" sites or by reading what I have written, which is well documented, unless he has actually studied the evidence in each case? I get the impression that Wiki is edited by very immature and usually biased individuals who substitute their own ignorance for serious study of the evidence.184.60.4.73 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

COI, seriously
James Fetzer, the fact that you have repeatedly defended elements of your self-edited entry on this talk page means you should read (or re-read) WP:COI. I am sorry to be blunt, but it is not your place to decide what should or should not go in your Wikipedia entry. That's the way it is here, and it doesn't matter how many accolades and degrees you've racked up. I'm a little surprised by your audacity, frankly -- and trust me, it doesn't reflect well on you. Please resist the urge, thank you. Jordgette (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Jim does seem to blame the Israelis for a lot of things. I saw you on Press TV today - owned and operated by the Iranian Govt for goodness sake. If you read this Jimbo, could you give us some facts to back up your crazy theories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.238 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How ridiculous is this? Wiki editors using their own ignorance and bias to edit or suppress the work of entry subjects? How does that represent your avowed dedication to neutrality? I cite everything I add, which makes it verifiable. No one knows what I have done better than I. This is a bizarre editing practice to trivialize those whose efforts do not meet with editors' personal approval. ABSURD! 184.60.4.73 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

Sections based on primary and self published sources
I have started to remove sections that are based almost, and solely on primary and self-published sources. It's completely undue, see WP:UNDUE and read WP:NPOV in general. Wikipedia is not here to promote fringe theories, particularly when they have attracted zero comment outside primary and self-published sources, see WP:FRINGE. Also WP:PRIMARY, people are getting far too much milage out of using primary sources. Policy: ''Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. '' IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This was just about cleaned-up when the subject of the article inserted more primary and self-published sources, as well as Amazon and YouTube cites. I've reverted the entire lot. Location (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like some of the issues the article was tagged for have been resolved as of the current edit. I condensed the tags, hopefully we can get the rest resolved as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there are secondary sources available that can be used in place of some of the primary source material. I'll see what I can do. Location (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Having cut my entry by half, now my efforts to update it and providing missing references has been deleted. No one should doubt that Wikipedia is an op to suppress truth and promote falsehoods. My efforts to create a more fair and balanced entry have been obliterated. They were all sourced and are all verifiable. Kindly restore them.184.60.4.73 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Jim Fetzer


 * The sourcing of various parts of the article is being discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you have questions or grievances, you may want to discuss them there. Location (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some references to third-party transcripts.
 * Conversation with Bill O'Reilly, describing Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

FETZER: We've created an organization consisting of experts and scholars, pilots, aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, structural engineers, physicists. We've been examining what the government's been telling us. And, frankly, Bill it's a fantasy.


 * In a conversation with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, Fetzer named those his group finds primarily responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks:

FETZER: America today, given what we know about 9/11 and our import - - our exportation at home and use of terrorism at home and abroad. It actually appears to be a force that is promoting terrorism rather than combating it. Even the National Intelligence Estimate reflects, Sean. COLMES: Was Dick Cheney responsible for directing an attack on the United States, yes or no?

FETZER: Dick Cheney had a major role here, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice.

COLMES: ... this administration.

FETZER: Donald Fief (ph), Paul Wolfowitz, and Larry Silverstein.


 * 500 people meet for first convention on 9/11 conspiracy in Chicago.


 * Fetzer supports the idea of teaching classes on 9/11 conspiracy, also describes Scholars for 9/11 Truth.


 * Fetzer calls for congressional investigation into the death of Senator Paul Wellstone:

A professor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, James Fetzer is calling on Congress to investigate the death of Minnesota Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone two years ago, insisting Wellstone was the target of a White House plot. Wellstone, you may recall, died after his plane crashed into a Minnesota forest.

The new book by Fetzer and another college professor, known to many as Four Arrows, insist the official government probe into the crash white washed a broad Republican murder conspiracy and chose to blame the death on pilot error instead. Fetzer quoted by the "Minneapolis Star Tribune" says, quote, "Something very wrong has happened in this case."


 * These were from a quick search of transcripts, obviously there may be more. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With that, I don't think I'll need any pdfs. All good secondary sources. Location (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The transcripts are primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Article templates
Can we remove these templates from 2009? There are a few self published citations, that is quite common with writers/journalists etc and both sides seem covered to me - if not can we add the other side and the COI template - there doesn't seem much of the subjects additions remaining, are there? If we left/added COI templates on biographies forever we wouldn't have many without a template - Issues should be resolved rather than leaving templates sitting atop of an article for lengthy periods - they defeat the object of writing the article in the first place by putting visitors off reading them. You really  can  17:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I did not add the templates, I am OK with removing them. The subject has been editing the article since 2006 without regard to the policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources, so it would be helpful if experienced editors would help keep an eye on the article. Location (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see you addressed the self published issue by a removal of content - and as there are now more than a few users watching this article - the COI issue is well know without the template remaining - so if you agree please do remove the templates - thanks - You  really  can  17:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we now have the SPS flagged as such in the reflist, we can probably remove that one. The autobiographical nature has been copyedited and mitigated, so that one can go. I would leave either the "other views" one or replace it with . Since Primary is a cleanup template, I guess leaving  is the best course of action. Given the subject matter, while it is unlikely that we will ever get away from some sort of tag, that is the goal! I will do this now.--Tgeairn (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. As noted below, the primary source material has been significantly trimmed and preserved below in the hopes that this will be perceived as done in "good faith" by neutral editors. I think the subject's CV is an acceptable primary source of primary source material and it is likely something else can be found to replace the other. Location (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. - You  really  can  18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note, re, talkpage etiquette

 * - WP:Talkpage guidelines
 * Just as a note - discussion on the talkpage should be kept civil and any attacking posts should be reported to an admin or to WP:AVI - all accounts are welcome to discuss content improvements for the article in relation to WP:Policy and guidelines but please stay polite and focus on content and WP:RS - reliable sources. Thanks  You  really  can  18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary source material
1) I have removed the following as undue inclusion of primary source material: "In his most recent work as a columnist for Veterans Today, 'Seven Questions about 9/11' and 'More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity', he has presented evidence that all four of the plane crashes on 9/11 were faked, where no planes crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon and one or another form of fakery was used in New York. In collaboration with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, he has challenged 'the myth of nanothermite' by explaining that it does not have the gas-expansion properties of explosives and, with a detonation rate of 895 m/s, cannot have destroyed the concrete or the steel in the Twin Towers, which would require rates in excess of 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel, which has contradicted perhaps the most widely held belief within the conspiracy community about how the towers were destroyed and accented his disagreements with Jones." He has co-authored a study of the documents on which the NTSB's report was based with John P. Costella, a PhD in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which was published in Michael Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" newsletter. He recently addressed this subject again in the context of an article inspired by the revelation of Seymour Hersh that Vice President Dick Cheney had been running an assassination operation from his office. According to Fetzer, "Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove are the principal suspects" in the death of Wellstone. and in another article in Veterans Today, "Sen. Paul Wellstone: More Proof of Assassination". I have no objection to the inclusion of the material if it is found in reliable secondary source material. Location (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

2) I am attempting to make sure that all material in this article complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines pertaining to reliable sources, therefore, I have removed the following as undue inclusion of unsourced material: "From the fall of 2006 to November 2008 he co-hosted an internet radio program 'The Dynamic Duo' on the Genesis Communications Network with Kevin Barrett." I have no objection to the inclusion of the material if it is found in reliable secondary source material. Location (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazism and the Holocaust and citations
I added the Nazism and the Holocaust section, unfortunately I find the system for adding citations confusing. I tried a few time and couldn't get it right, IIRC it was less complicated in the past. I kindly request that someone who knows how to do so formats my citations properly. Lenbrazil (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section as the sources do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources: #1 and #4 are dead links, #2 is a blog, #3, #4, #5, and #6 are forum postings, and #7 is a self-referential link to Wikipedia. Even if #1 were not a dead link, it would likely be primary source material which is not sufficient for this material to be added to the article. Your user name suggests that you are also involved in those forum postings, so it appears you have a COI for posting this. Location (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I undeleted the section.


 * Link 1 (Indymedia UK) is not dead, though greyed out it is still readable.


 * Link 2 is to Fetzer's podcast page where he praises and reads from the book I said he praised and read from.


 * Link 3 is to a forum posting which includes excepts of the book Fetzer read from. I'll remove it if necessary.


 * Link 4 is dead, I will find a working one.


 * Links 5 & 6 are to forum postings where made the comments ascribed to him, how are these not authoritative sources?


 * Link 7 is to Wikipedia, I did not know it was not considered a reliable source, this reminds me of a Groucho Marx joke. I will replace it.


 * My only "involvement" in this is that I post on the same forum as Fetzer and find many of his marks offensive, Despite that I wrote the section in an objective manner. Lenbrazil (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK - There was a slight problem with link 1, I fixed it. I deleted link 3. I replaced what was link 4 with a working one and replaced what was link 7 with a source considered authoritative in another article. . Lenbrazil (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources are unreliable per Wikipedia guidelines. I'm happy to draw in other editors for a second opinion. Location (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Location. And Lenbrazil, we don't use forums. Among other reasons, we cannot be positive that the person posting is the person they claim to be. I'm not sure what source you used to replace Link 7. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the removal. The material is contentious. I suggest anyone who disagrees with the removal go through WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. Further I should add that primary sources like podcasts don't show due weight; it's secondary sources that help with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree and appeal, there is no doubt the person posting as James H. Fetzer on the Education Forum is indeed James H. Fetzer. The forum is well known among CTs especially JFK assassination researchers, Fetzer has made over 3400 posts there since 2004 and never claimed an imitator was posting in his name. The person posting there takes positions identical to those adopted by Fetzer including on a thread dedicated to discussing his book about the Wellstone crash  and one bitching about his Wikipedia bio (links below). On the sidebar of every post there is a link to his UM-D page which in turn has e-mail address, either one of you can contact him and ask if he indeed is the person posting as himself on the EF. Also Location seems familiar with David Lifton who has known Fetzer for decades, there are numerous post by the Lifton responding to Fetzer (3rd link for example) or perhaps that guy is an imitator as well? According the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves....These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." Forum are " social networking sites" Fetzer is being cited for comments he made there.


 * As for the podcast page is there any doubt that page is from Fetzer or that he indeed was the person speaking?


 * As for the material being "contentious" it is posted in the "Controversial views" section of his bio and he as you well know one of the most "contentious" people on the face of the planet. He frequently checks on his bio here and can dispute the addition if he feels it is inaccurate. I also made a post about the new section on the thread he started on the EF about his bio here.


 * As for what was link 7 (now link 6) I have no idea why you are question a link to the Yad Vashem website, it is considered a reliable source in the Holocaust denial article.


 * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4542
 * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19366&st=0&p=257562&#entry257562
 * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17744&st=30&p=226739&hl=fetzer&#entry226739
 * Lenbrazil (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll have to ask at WP:RSN about the forum but I'd be very surprised if others there didn't tell you the same thing. Vad Vashem is clearly appropriate for the Holocaust Denial website, but does it discuss Fetzer? Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not every statement from a subject or factoid about a subject is worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. As IRWolfie has alluded to above, material of this sort needs to be referenced in appropriate secondary source material. Fetzer has said many things on many subjects, so to pick and choose certain comments from his blogs or forum postings likely runs afoul of WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. And as Dougweller has suggested, the Yad Vashem website may be a reliable source for the historically accepted figure for the number of Jews killed in Europe, however, it doesn't support the "notability" of Fetzer's position on the Holocaust.
 * If it's any consolation, we recently removed tons of other primary source material added by Fetzer for similar reasons. Location (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

From the Yad Vashem link:

"What is Holocaust Denial? -- HOLOCAUST, DENIAL OF THE: Claims that the mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis never happened; that the number of Jewish losses has been greatly exaggerated;..."

I could also add "Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project,"

Do any of the editors supporting deletion still doubt Fetzer made those comments? If so as noted his e-mail is on his official webpage. The argument he made them but they are not notable has some weight but the Toben letter was a public comment which currently appears on about 70 webpages, he read the book excerpts on his podcast, later interviewed the author, 'rebroadcast' both shows and endorsed the book on various forums. He twice made similar comments questiioning the death toll of the Holocaust.

Let's compare these comments to the one he made about a coup against Bush. One could say the latter should not be in his bio because "has said many things on many subjects..." AFAIK there is no record of him making similar comments before or since. One could argue they were more notable because they were reported by a journalist but by the same token they are less reliable. Fetzer has claimed he was misquoted or quoted out of context. Since the Q & A session was not recorded we can't be sure, by contrast there is no doubt about the comments I quoted, we have his exact words in context. His coup comment seems to have been spur of the moment, it was in response to a question; the comments I quoted were either written or were part of a podcast he obviously planned ahead of time. But the coup comments have been there over 6 years while the comments I quoted were taken down in less than 6 hours. Lenbrazil (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fetzer's own talkshow, podcast, blog and so on are primary sources. Wikipedia, in general, depends on secondary sources which report about primary sources. There are at least two reasons. First, a person like Fetzer says many things. We can't possibly include everything he talks about. How do we decide what is notable? What's notable for you and me may differ, based on prior experience, beliefs, focus of study and work, and so on. Relying on secondary sources solves this problem. We define notability simply as that which reliable secondary sources (not run by/owned by Fetzer in this case) report. If such sources—think standard newspapers, magazines—haven't reported his rhetoric cited here, then it simply isn't notable. It isn't a question of whether the statement is true. The second reason is secondary sources have better context about his remarks; they know (or are supposed to know) in what context he said these things and what the implications are. If we directly pick stuff from his show or blog, we may present things out of context. I don't know whether that applies in this case, and I am not particularly interested in finding out (the guy doesn't seem interesting to me). Nevertheless, true or not, the statements you say he made should not be included here unless you can find reliable secondary sources mentioning them. Churn and change (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK I propose a compromise, instead of a new subsection on his comments I (or another editor) could place a sentence or two in the introduction to the "Controversial views" section. Since he obviously closely monitors his bio he can dispute accuracy / notability of his comments. I also mentioned this on a forum thread he started about his bio and promise to e-mail him (if my compromise is accepted) thus he will not be able complain he was not made aware of this.Lenbrazil (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't depend on the people it covers monitoring content for accuracy. WP:COI discourages people from editing articles about themselves. We are not a discussion forum for people to post things either. If you can find a reliable secondary source noting those remarks of his (try searching the net harder) the material can go in. If not, they shouldn't be included. Churn and change (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As per my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines depending on secondary sources is a preference not an absolute rule. One of them is that:


 * "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves....These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."


 * Since the forums are "social networking sites" Fetzer's postings should be allowed "as sources of information about" him(self). He made two similar comments which he never deleted, edited, retracted or clarified. Would anyone besides Churn and change object to my adding a sentence or two to the intro?               Lenbrazil (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The "exceptional claim" clause may apply here, but the issue is also one of weight. The inclusion of contentious material needs more than primary source material, particularly for individuals like Fetzer who have asserted many "controversial" things over the years that have not been reported on outside of forums and blogs. Relying on secondary sources for this type of material prevents Wikipedia from being used as a soapbox for Fetzer, his supporters, and his opponents. Location (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Forums are not considered social networking sites, at least here. There may be forums that are social networking sites (I don't know of any myself), but if you want to use a forum you are going to have to ask at WP:RSN and I'm pretty sure you won't convince people that it's an exception to our policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the "conspiracy theorist" labeling from lead
Fetzer is a certified Philosophy professor. Just because 3 journalists (and 2 from Bangor daily?? and city pages???) decide to use the well known derogatory phrase "conspiracy theorist" :

"Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events.[4] The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theorist#Usage

That certifies Fetzer as a conspiracy theorist? Complete nonesense. Those are just opinion pieces and 2 marginal and 1 (from BBC) that is attacking the 9/11 research community. journalists opinions do not conform to WP:RS guidelines

The only reason why to add this, as if this is some official certificate equal to PhD, is to subject a negative POV on Fetzer.

Might I add that it is allowed to add in the "Controversial views" section that some journalists call Fetzer a conspiracy theorist. This would conform to Wikipedia guidelines79.182.21.160 (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not consistent, at times, but is there anyone (reliable) who does not call him a conspiracy theorist? If not, and if one of this is a BLP-reliable source, then it should be included.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything controversial about the conspiracy theorist label in this context. Requiring a "conspiracy theorist certificate" sounds a lot like special pleading. (Calling it the "9/11 research community" is amusing) IRWolfie- (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article from the Bangor Daily News is an AP article. As such, it was probably published nationally in many papers; and publication by the AP is generally considered reliable for Wikipedia standards. The City Pages source by Mike Mosedale also likely saves this article from deletion as there are few reliable sources that are actually concerned about Fetzer's views. In this context, Mosedale gives Fetzer a huge platform to put his views across, so I would think it would be a welcomed source. Fetzer is certainly not notable as a philosophy professor. Location (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I may be a bit late to this conversation, but Mr Fetzer did edit and contribute to The 9/11 Conspiracy (ISBN 0-8126-9612-3). I imagine we could use that as a WP:PRIMARY source (statement by the subject about himself). WP:BLPPRIMARY certainly allows it, as well as WP:BLPSPS (which would likely apply here). So... We have the subject of the article directly publishing books that provide theories about conspiracies. We than have any number of secondary sources supporting the interpretation that he is a conspiracy theorist. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here he is called an "Auther" http://www.sfgate.com/music/thewatch/article/Here-s-your-Thanksgiving-escape-route-4057966.php
 * and here is used "philosophical research" http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
 * and here he is called "An American university professor and political analyst" http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/01/275616/speech-freedom-essential-for-our-future/
 * and here "McKnight Professor Emeritus in the philosophy of science" http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur124756.html?lang=en
 * and here "Scholar and author" http://www.skeptiko.com/james-fetzer-jfk-assassination-science/
 * and here they just describe his resume http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfetzer.htm
 * In both interviews on Foxnews (Orielly + Hannity) they present him formally as a Philosophy professor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGWYyKNTPEc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXEPhuq2tI8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.8.57 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The best unloaded and NPOV wording for this WP article should be "Conspiracy researcher"79.176.8.57 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsourced. "Conspiracy theorist" is sourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not support the IP in demanding not to call him a conspiracy theorist, but after some more reading I do actually support Fetzer in that he is not to be called like this in the first place. As he wrote himself in his blog in August:
 * "The first change to the text is that I am no longer identified first as an "American philosopher" who is also a conspiracy theorist, but now as an "American conspiracy theorist" who is also a philosopher, even though of the 29 books that I have published 24 are in philosophy and only 5 deal with conspiracies. But they wanted to tarnish me with the label of being a "conspiracy theorist", because it is so useful politically as an ad hominem attack regardless of the quality of one's research."

And at least to some degree, he's right. Being a retired philosophy professor is a hard fact, making him relevant per se, and this has certainly contributed a lot to his reception as a conspiracy theorist. He might be primarily known for his work on conspiracies, but still this does not justify to highlight this as the primary fact. I definitely suggest to swap orders again, in the first sentence as well as in the following paragraphs listing his papers. --KnightMove (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think contributes more to his notability; being a conspiracy theorist, or a philosopher? What do we give most weight to in the article? If most of the weight was for his work, you would have a point, but it's not the case. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hum. I think this leads to a debate on principles and will reflect a little more. --KnightMove (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, he is most wellknown for his work on conspiracy theories. He'd be barely notable without it. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although Fetzer would likely pass WP:PROF #5 (i.e. he has held a "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research), there is no doubt that he is primarily known for his views regarding various conspiracy theories and that is where the weight should be. I do think an argument could be made either way regarding the order in which the lede presents this information since he received the "Distinguished Professor" appointment in 1996 before the majority of his conspiracy work occurred. I have no strong objections to rewording the lede to something like this: James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940 in Pasadena, California) is a retired American philosophy professor and conspiracy theorist. - Location (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between Fetzer and Iranian government
Gordon Duff of Veterans Today has stated that he has been accused unjustly of "working for Iran". Is there any formal or informal relationship between Fetzer and Iran, since it is evident which side he takes between the military policies of the United States, and its allies in NATO and Israel, and Iran and its allies? Could it be possible that a man who is self professed patriot for American values is a spokesman for America's antagonists? Redhanker (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fetzer has conspiratorial views on everything and Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for spreading every view that he has put into some editorial (i.e. primary source material). If you have reliable secondary sources discussing his views on the Sandy Hook shooting, then it is possible that that could be included. Location (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fetzer vs. Thompson
The subject inserted the following into the article:
 * Fetzer, in turn, has been severely critical of Thompson in multiple articles, including "JFK, the CIA and The New York Times". 
 * [1] =http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/]

with the following edit summary:
 * Promoting all points of view: You have Thompson attacking me, when my criticisms of him are far more devastating. You ask for improvements with regard to viewpoints, where this is a major addition

I have reverted the addition given that there is a plethora of primary source material indicating that Fetzer is critical of many different people and organization. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or platform for the entirety of his views and opinions, particularly those that have not received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Location (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is grossly unfair. Josiah Thompson has been attacking me relentlessly since I organized and moderated the Zapruder Film Symposium at the JFK Lancer Conference in 1996.  We have had intense, bitter exchanged hundreds and hundreds of times. To cite him specifically as though he were representative of a wide-spread opinion is completely disgraceful.  If you want to cite him, then at least allow me to cite a study of my own in which I critique his role in the JFK research community.  This one-sided approach makes a mockery of your professed dedication to "all points of view", especially when my views (about the fabrication of the film, for example) are more scientific and better founded.24.177.119.16 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)James H. Fetzer
 * The section is not about your views of your critics. It is about your views on the Kennedy assassination and assessment of those views by others, and it must be built upon information that appears in reliable secondary sources. Primary and self-published sources bring bias to the article. If you believe this to be unfair, there are various noticeboards in which you could seek further input (see Noticeboards.) Location (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a statement from the same objective source you use for Thompson, which explains my point of view. It is verifiable, objective and from an equally reliable source, which is in fact the same source.  It deserves to be retained.24.177.119.16 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Jim Fetzer
 * The article is designed to give people more information about you, not Thompson. Per Mosedale's description that there is "acrimony" between you and Thompson, the wording in the article was reflected to show that. Please read Plain and simple conflict of interest guide or consider posting in Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Location (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But citing Thompson without acknowledging the acrimonious relationship between us is fundamentally biased and unfair. This sentence from the same source balances it out.  It ought to be retained.24.177.119.16 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Jim Fetzer
 * I have also added a sentence about my participation in the Jesse Ventura "Conspiracy Theory" 2010 segment on the JFK assassination. What could be more consistent with the theme of this entry than that?24.177.119.16 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Jim Fetzer
 * We need a reliable source in order to insert this. Please read Plain and simple conflict of interest guide or consider posting in Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Location (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What could be a more reliable source than the program itself? It can be found on YouTube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1pinIxI71I  I did not see how to enter it as the reference, but I am featured in the first ten minutes or so.  That deserves to be added.24.177.119.16 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Jim Fetzer
 * Do you have a video or transcript from the official TruTV website? That particular link cannot be used per WP:YOUTUBE (i.e. copyright violation). Location (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Press TV hands over the megaphone to Fetzer
Here is a blog entry which may or may not be RS, but brings up the point that by accepting the "megaphone" from Press TV, the government of Iran is sanctioning his viewpoint, and Fetzer does not mind being a spokesman for the government of Iran. Sandy Hook is certainly of the magnitude of tragedy as the Kennedy Assasination, but it is not helpful to keep deleting mention in this article merely because it has been covered mainly by the Iranian press and allied conspiracy websites. Fetzer has many critics and supporters, what he contributes to Press TV is extremely notable whether or not his views are valid. In fact it is the claim that his views are invalid that makes him notable to his critics. There is much controvery as to whether Fetzer is the patriot he claims to be, or merely an American branded spokesman for the enemies of Israel and the United States for a nation-state which is waging psychological warefare through a disinformation campaign. It makes no more sense to dismiss Press TV because simply because it advocates for Iran than to classify the New York Times as biased towards American interests or al Jazeera because it takes a viewpoint favoring the gulf states. Redhanker (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has the title "Iran Propaganda 101: Mass Killing of Children in Connecticut --- The Jews Did It" http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html

Press TV succeeded in gaining attention for its story, which was the "Most Viewed" on its site throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. The response was far from one of applause, however. Max Fisher of The Washington Post, in a summary which rapidly spread across social media, wrote: "The PressTV story is sad and upsetting, mostly for its incredible insensitivity but also, to a lesser degree, for the obvious bankruptcy of Iranian propaganda."

Would this deter the Iranian outlet, pointing out the excess of its conspiracy fantasies --- "outrageous, offensive, and clearly counterproductive, for all the world to see", as Fisher concluded?

No.

Today Press TV hands the megaphone to "Dr James H. Fetzer, an academic who has gained notoriety for his elaborate speculations about the Kennedy assassination and 9-11. Under the headline, "Israeli Death Squads Involved in Sandy Hook Bloodbath", he writes:

The Sandy Hook massacre appears to have been a psy op intended to strike fear in the hearts of Americans by the sheer brutality of the massacre, where the killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel.

Somehow linking the Israelis to a sinister plot to ban assault rifles, Fetzer offers his proof in Sandy Hook School as the site of the mass killing:

The choice appears to be covertly revealing, where “Sandy” means guardian of men (as an allusion to guns) and “Hook” as a euphemism for hooking, gathering or confiscating the only weapons that DHS fears. And who better to slaughter American children than Israelis, who deliberately murder Palestinian children?


 * It is possible that that one may be acceptable. I'll bring it to WP:RSN for further input. Location (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Location (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the problem would not be unreliable sources, but synthesis. If Fetzer writes a column or an op ed, that's a reliable source for Fetzer's opinion. But we cannot pick and choose which writings of his to ignore and which to present as characteristic of his views. We need secondary sources for that. What am I missing? Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)