Talk:James H. Fetzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, James H. Fetzer, has edited Wikipedia as
Jfetzer (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, James H. Fetzer, has edited Wikipedia as
Jfetzer@d.umn.edu (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, James H. Fetzer, has edited Wikipedia as
71.98.0.27 (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, James H. Fetzer, has edited Wikipedia as
71.10.71.209 (talk · contribs)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Nominated for Deletion

Wikipedia: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

[edit] Occupation

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

[edit] "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:Peephole, 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: Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Fetzer

The result of this AfD discussion was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--Peephole 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)

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

[edit] CT

Where in this article is he called a CT? --Striver 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The title. --Peephole 19:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Removed unencyclopedic sentence

"Many of Fetzer's claims are spurious, unsubstantiated speculations. [1]"

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)

[edit] YouTube Links

Info icon

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)

[edit] 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)