Talk:Webster Tarpley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Contents |
[edit] Title of page should be Webster Tarpley, not Webster G. Tarpley
It seems to me that the name of this page has been changed from Webster Tarpley to Webster G. Tarpley. Not a good change. Tarpley goes by the name Webster Griffin Tarpley or else simply by Webster Tarpley. I don't think he uses the form Webster G. Tarpley much. There are only 33,000 Google hits on "Webster G. Tarpley" and 238,000 on "Webster Tarpley."
How can we change the name back?
Also, is it possible to get an archive copy of the deleted page (and the deletion discussion) for his book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror? JPLeonard 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Thanks for making the name change. What about external links (Audio, video)? Why were those deleted?JPLeonard 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert David Steele
I found the Wiki page for our #1 non fiction reviewer on Amazon. I also spoke to him and asked how we can verify he is #1 non fiction reviewer. He said that last time he checked the list, everybody ahead of him reviewed fiction, movies, dvd's etc, so he was the top in non-fiction.
Robert has a fascinating suggestion about how to improve Wikipedia, which I think could be really useful, because I have found it can be so frustrating that it is not worth the time adding material to have it torn down in 24 hours. He wrote at his own Wiki entry discussion page:
"I continue to believe in Wikipedia, but it needs two things to really survive all these fools[a reference to destructive types in the CIA]: a "lock down" on documents facts that mature editors can block for frivolous change without a nomination process; and a graduated scale that limits newcomers to posting new stuff but not destroying old stuff."
A perceptive comment.
[edit] Summary Information
I just edited some of the summary a little bit ago, and the read the article more closely. It seems that the information in the summary is not in the article at all. It should either be cited in the summary, or expanded in the article, and cited there. I'll be happy to do this myself, if somebody else will respond with a couple of links to start me off in that direction. Umeboshi 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I just did a google search for tarpley emphasizing the 911tm as being vital to stopping a 30yr nuke war, but couldn't find anything like it. I specifically looked at these two articles:
It's starting to be bedtime for me, so my mind is running slow. I'm sorry if I'm being to pedantic about this, but I believe being that way helps with the overall credibility (and I'll take on some of the work required for it, else I wouldn't say anything at all). I guess I'm rambling a little. Umeboshi 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources and references tag
Am I alone in thinking that this tag is unwarranted? The citations (all 3 of them) are from 9/11 movement sources but document unremarkable statements, like his appearance at a conference, the organiser and the number of times a discussion was televised. Assuch I don't see why 3 rd party citations are necessary except as an ideal. I'll remove the tag shortly unless anyone has a serious objection.Felix-felix 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, after that spectacular response, I've removed it. Although I suspect nobody really cares anyway....Felix-felix 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First Para
I reverted the last edit made on the first para by user:Tom Harrison, as the edit seemed more restrictive and less accurate than the previous one, for example, 'conspiracist lecturer and author' is unnecessarily restrictive as he doesn't just lecture and write about false flags etc. Er, ..so there you go. But obviously remain open to sugesstions.Felix-felix 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I also reverted the inclusion of 'conspiracy theorist' to the intro-as although his subjects often include what people would commonly understand by conspiracy theory, it's also a perjorative, and therefore probably POV. I think that you get a good flavour of his subjects, and more specifically what they're actually about in the intro para, so I'm not sure what adding the generalisation 'conspiracy theorist' really adds except possible POV.FelixFelix talk 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bush administration engineering 9/11 ?
The second sentence of this article reads: "He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the Bush administration."
I'm not sure that this is correct. Tarpley seems to make many references to a "rogue network" which is pulling the strings to which Bush is simply giving in to. In his book, "9/11: Synthentic Terror" there is a chapter called "Angel is Next" which details the supposed threats made to Air Force One on 9/11/2001. This chapter paints a picture of Bush relenting to the demands of the mentioned network.
Of course what is meant by "Bush administration" is a little vague. Can the administration mean just certain members or appointees and not include Bush himself?
[edit] "Conspiracy Theorist"
I'm against this phrase being used in the intro para, as
- It doesn't tell you anything about him not already covered in the para, apart from the implied fact that you don't believe him.
- It's an empty perjorative that defies definition itself.
And thus, I reckon it's inclusion is POV.FelixFelix talk 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
