Talk:Kevin Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about Muslim scholars.
Note: The project includes non-Muslim scholars of Islam.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 17 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Bacteria Junta comment

The only reason Kevin Barrett is a notable personality is that he holds unconventional beliefs about the 9/11 attacks.

To remove those from the lede graf is ridiculous; what other garden-variety Phd deserves a Wikipedia article?

Also, the nature of the controversy surrounding Barrett is his choice to devote two weeks from a 16-week to his personal beliefs about 9/11.

In addition, Barrett has been very clear about his belief that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. I will cite his own words in my edit to suppor this statement.

For those reasons, I am reverting X4096's edit.

--Bacteria Junta 01:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to Delete

This is an unimportant and minor league academic crackpot, with no significant publications. His strange world views have been made known through letters to the editor at an exceedingly minor newspaper (The Capital Time of Madison, Wisconsin, circulation less that 30K). It doesn't appear that he has ever written an article that has been accepted for publication anywhere.

In addition, Kevin Barrett creates bizarre websites to promote his views, all of which appear to be real organizations until you look at them carefully. (They are designed the same, written and edited the same, etc.)

Barrett is in the news a lot right now, because his controversial hiring as a lecturer (by one of the University of Wisconsin, Madison's weakest academic departments) has ignited an "academic freedom" controversy. Academic freedom is a very sensitive issue in Wisconsin, the home state of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, has basically passed on the issue, stating that it is up to the University to make its own decisions. Howvever, Doyle and others have questioned whether Kevin Barrett is even competent to teach a class. Google "Kevin Barrett Wisconsin" and you will find that this story is in the news a lot right now. But is it really the purpose of wikipedia to create and maintain an exhaustive record of all current news stories, when such an undertaking cannot possibly be completed and maintained at a high level of quality? Let's leave journalism to newspapers and webloggers. --Metzenberg 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Keep: Barrett is a notable person for inclusion. Subjective name-calling like "crackpot" to describe controversial ideas is not a valid criteria for deletion. --Howrealisreal 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Barrett publicizes fringe assertions and conspiracy theories which have absolutely no basis or substantiation in fact. Since he attempts to make these ideas appear more valid, by creating personal websites that suggest the existence of a broad and organized group of supporters, I think the characterization of him as a crackpot is very appropriate. See this website of his: Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. Verify for yourself the ownership of his personal website mujca.com, and please tell me who all the Muslim and Christian and Jewish scholars and activists in his broad ecumenical organization are? He has never published a single article about his theories in a refereed journal or publication. Nor, for that matter, has anyone else. Nor does his institution, the University of Wisconsin, offer a working paper or report on research in progress with which we can understand or validate his claims. Thus, there is no way to answer or debate the claims he makes, since he has never substantiated any of them. It is a little like arguing with a Holocaust denier. Fringe material is already extremely well represented on the Internet, and does not need to be publicized through Wikipedia. --Metzenberg 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Subjective feelings about the contents of a person's beliefs are not a valid reason to delete from Wikipedia. For example, as you say with Holocaust deniers, see Ernst Zündel. It might be true that he is a crackpot, but that doesn't mean the article here to document him should be erased. Please see the NPOV policy for more about this. --Howrealisreal 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I've heard of Ernest Zundel and he is definitely a crackpot. Indeed, I really do have negative subjective feelings about Zundel. (He's a Nazi and I'm a Jew.) But Zundel actually is famous, and one of the things that means is that editors here on Wikipedia are able to fine verifiable information about him, to read what he has written.
Kevin Barrett, by contrast, is a mostly harmless smalltime crank. I really have nothing personal against him. Everything that is reported about him is his own invention about himself. This article and other biographies and articles placed by his crowd on their 9/11 conspiracy theories do not merit the efforts, the limited patience, and the finite editorial resources of the Wikipedia project. There is nothing notable about them.
Jeremy, You call this guy "notable" when he really has done nothing other than write strange letters to the editor at a small newspaper. Is Wikipedia supposed to create a forum for people who have nothing noteworthy about themselves other than the fact that they express bizarre ideas? Does anybody who brings attention to themselves this way, and therefore becomes famous for 15 minutes, merit a biography and the associated links to their website(s) in Wikipedia? Think about the implications of that, Jeremy. A person who does careful and supportable academic research in any field would never in most cases have an article about themselves. But anyone can achieve instant notoriety by making bizarre statements, and you would have them be covered by an article on Wikipedia. What would Wikipedia be like? What value would it be to anyone?
As yet, this is not a formal debate on deletion. If you (or someone else) is opposed to deletion, then remove my proposal to delete from the article before Friday (which is 5 days), and I will then formally submit the article for a debate on deletion. Otherwise, I will delete the article myself on Friday. --Metzenberg 04:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a free encylopedia and it seems consenus has ruled in favor of keeping the article. If you feel that the article doesn't cater to your POV about Mr. Barrett, then I suggest using the Wikipedia platform to say how you feel, of course following the guidelines set for original research and NPOV. Regards, --Howrealisreal 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Keep: Barrett, considered all by himself, may not be very important, but the fact that he was hired by the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is a matter of importance. It has been a serious political issue in Wisconsin, as the numberous articles, many in the state's most important daily newspapers (see the cites at the end of the article).
It's also the case that the 9/11 conspiracy movement has become politically important -- and it doesn't matter whether you consider it crazy or not (I do consider it crazy). Barrett is a highly visible representative, having been featured in a lot of national media. Perhaps it's somehow "unfair" or "unjust" that he is, and perhaps the world would be better if the movement went away, but neither of those things ought to matter here.
It frankly seems to me that some people want to delete the page because they disagree with Barrett. I disagree with Barrett, but I don't see how that justifies deleting the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.48.30.18 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 July 2006.
The University of Wisconsin has 32,000 employees. (At one time I was one of them.) The real question has to be, does Wikipedia have the editorial resources to have biographies of everybody in the world who achieves 15 minutes of fame. I would say the answer is no. --Metzenberg 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Barrett have made notable appearances in mass media due to his controversy. The choice of words used in the deletion proposal indicates that user strongly disagree with his views. As already stated, this is not a valid reason for deletion. −Ive-Ive 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The "notable appearances" Barrett has made have been appearances on radio talk shows. What is there that is really noteworthy about talk shows? They feed on this kind of thing. --Metzenberg 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
FOX News, CNN and NBC affiliate WTMJ-TV among others. Let's see how long his 15 minutes of fame will actually last before deleting the article. −Ive-Ive 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete: While I have nothing against his theories, and don't consider him a crackpot, the article itself is poorly written, and if your were to keep articles on every academic that disbelieves the US govt's Official 9-11 story (for valid reasons in most cases), then you would soon have biographies posted for thousands of other academics who also disbelieve the US govt's Official 9-11 story. 219.122.199.213 01:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) JohninJapan
Keep: Kevin is, in no way, the only one questioning 9/11. 45% of Americans want a new investigation according to a new Zogby poll. 42% of America believe the 9/11 Commission covered up 9/11. Many former high-level government insiders, scientists, and scholars are questioning 9/11 too. Also, physics professor Steven Jones found evidence of thermate on WTC steel samples. CB Brooklyn 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Barrett is by no means an important academic of even the lowest order of magnitude. However, he is the first college instructor to bring 9/11 denial theories into the classroom at an accredited institution of any size, and he did so through the back door -- being hired to teach an introductory class on Islamic religion and culture -- before bringing attention to his beliefs (and planned curriculum) through the public mechanism of a letter to the newspaper.
That achievement, by itself, is notable, although I admit I find it personally and academically objectionable. Furthermore, I find the lack of courage displayed by the University also to be even more important than his placement there.. It is probable that they will rid themselves of this minor entity directly at the close of the fall semester, at which point he will likely fall further into obscurity, but his curriculum -- which is on par with Holocaust revisionism -- makes a mockery of the University's responsibilities.
To draw a parallel, Northwestern University will not disipline tenured professor of engineering and Holocaust denier Arthur Butz for his views and published works on revisionism, but neither will they allow him to teach revisionist theories in the classroom. Barrett's "breakthrough" is the only notable thing about him, and it is the impact of Wisconsin's decision to allow him to teach 9/11 denial that makes him notable. --Bacteria Junta 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
According to NPR, Barrett has never used his classroom at the University to propagate his theories. He plans to teach a class about them this fall, but it will not be in association with the University of Wisconsin. Listen here. --Jeremyswitzer 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete: I was on Broadway and Pine street when the South Tower collapsed. There were no exposions. There was a massive deep rumbling, that shook the street like an earthquake, as the top of the tower fell inward. I worked at the American Stock Exchange and people were jumping out of both towers almost constantly. All northern exists to the AMEX were closed because there were so many bodies on the ground. Now, ask yourself, what would cause people to jump from 80-90 stories? How about Intense Heat. (Goodness, why doesn't someone just take some i-beams, pile on a ton of carpet, PCs, and Phones and light it on fire with Airplane fuel. Oh, yeah, do this test indoors where the heat is trapped.) --Urius 10:49, 9 August 2006
Keep: It seems one of commenters here is an inside-job loon (sorry pal but they don't have valid reasons and he is a crackpot), but I agree he shouldn't be removed. He's one of the "higher echelon" of the 9/11 Denial movement, like Steven Jones or Jim Fetzer. GreatGatsby 01:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find any reliable, scientific sources regarding this article. The majority of the references in the article links to unscientific articles. ChristianGL (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What hath B3X11 wrought and who is B3X11?

Note the contributions of B3X11, the wikipedian who created this Kevin Barrett page in the first place. B3X11 Contributions page. Note that the only other action B3X11 has ever undertaken on Wikipedia is to create a biography page about Kevin Ryan, who is another 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Please see Wikipedia's excellent article about conspiracy theories and their social and psychological basis. This article and several others that have recently been submitted to Wikipedia about 9/11 are simply attempts by a group of fringe individuals to exploit the power and popularity of Wikipedia to promote their conspiracy theory. My characterization of them as fringe individuals and their ideas as a conspiracy theory is obviously perjorative, but I do so with reference to a long tradition of conspiracy theories in the United States. The best original work about this tradition in America is by the late historian Richard Hofstadter, in his timeless essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, original published in Harper's Magazine in 1964. --Metzenberg 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how the Kevin Barrett promotes conspiracy theories. The article looks reasonably balanced to me, and even includes some of the most inflammatory things Barrett has said (American soldiers as "Christian terrorists"). I really think it is fundamentally wrong to delete articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories just because one disagrees with them. I disagree with JFK conspiracy theories, can I delete articles about that? Or is the responsibility on the reader to figure out which (if any) conspiracy theories make sense?
Much of what Kevin Barrett claims you can only find through blog reports of what he has said in public forums or on radio talk shows. I'll have to assume that those reports are accurate. Let's take one example. Barrett has claimed that the 19 hijackers of 9/11 couldn't possibly the ones who destroyed the world trade center because 6 of them are currently alive and living in Arab countries. This is simply a preposterous claim. How do we verify it? What is his source? One tactic of people in conspiracy theory movements is usually to cite each other as sources, and the Internet makes it easy to do so. This whole thing reminds me of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his technique of claiming to have a list of communists working in the U.S. State Department. He never produced the list, and he kept revising the numbers. This propaganda technique is known as the big lie, and it has been used by conspiracy theorists on the left and right for years. --Metzenberg 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submitting this page for deletion

I think this page should be submitted to the larger wikipedia community now to make a formal decision about deletion. What is here so far is just an informal record of debate, not a formal vote on deletion. I am adding it to the list. --Metzenberg 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Kevin Barret's Article

Kevin Barrett is the right person, at the right time, to speak for the 911 truth movement. He is knowledgeable, articulate and does not allow the corporate-sponsored talking heads to get the better of him. Because he is a highly capable spokesperson for the most critical issue facing America today, Kevin Barrett is a very important person, and well deserves an article at wikipedia. Those who claim Barrett is "fringe" and "tinhat", are displaying their ignorance of what actually occurred on 9/11. I challenge you to disprove any three claims he has made.

Alex Carson

Barrett is neither capable nor important, It is worth nothing that he has done no research of his own on the 9/11 tragedy, merely parroting the "findings" of others. His only importance is that the University of Wisconsin unknowingly put him in a position where he is able to teach his personal beliefs in a class about Islam, and then, when he announced his decision to do so, failed to take control of the situation. Where else does a lowly part-time lecturer have so much power that he can dictate academic standards?

--Bacteria Junta 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Barrett's Value Will Become Apparent As 911 Truth Comes Out

Kevin Barrett is the right person, at the right time, to speak for the 911 truth movement. He is knowledgeable, articulate and does not allow the corporate-sponsored talking heads to get the better of him. Because he is a highly capable spokesperson for the most critical issue facing America today, Kevin Barrett is a very important person, and well deserves an article at wikipedia. Those who claim Barrett is "fringe" and "tinhat", are displaying their ignorance of what actually occurred on 9/11. I challenge you to disprove any three claims he has made. - Alex Carson

I have no idea who you are since you have not signed your message here. That's exactly the problem with Kevin Barrett. I cannot "disprove" the three claims he makes because he and I have different standards of what is truth. Take for example his McCarthyite claim that 6 of the 19 hijackers are alive and well and living in Arab countries. That's simply preposterous. Kevin Barrett is willing to lie for what he believes to be true, and I am not. --Metzenberg 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

these guys Love to used the line "McCarthyite" they are trying to politicize an event which at it's base has facts and science to prove many of the frequent allegations if you want to know more go here www.ziopedia.org

Metzenberg: My name is Alex Carson, and I'm new here - I didn't intend to post anonymously. I'll make my challenge simple for you, and enumerate some claims made by Barrett so you can move forward to disprove them: 1. "There was no immediate military response on 9/11, even though procedures have existed for years for just such emergencies. Not one individual has been held accountable for this massive breach of procedure (in fact some have been promoted). 2. WTC 7 collapsed in a controlled demolition like manner, in it's own footprint, on 9/11. 3. No steel structured buildings have ever completely collapsed due to fire in history, and three buildings did just that on 9/11. During your debunking, please don't bother bringing up the impact of the planes causing the collapses. The towers were designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts (references available).

When you're through disproving the above, I have many more for you. - Alex Carson

Alex (and others), this is not a forum about 9/11. Many such forums exist. Please get yourself a wikipedia login if you are going to edit here and sign your contributions.

This is Alex... I do have a login - I'm still learning my way around here. I understand this is not a "911 forum".... but one must speak on the subject in order to support Kevin Barretts inclusion. The validity of his 9/11 argument is key. - Alex Carson

My objections to Kevin Barrett being on here is based on my belief that Wikipedia should be devoted to useful and verifiable knowledge. Information about Kevin is not verifiable. He invents himself. Kevin seems to appear on a new talk show every week, and each time he does so, he makes new unverifiable claims. It's kind of a feeding frenzy, of course, because the talk shows need Kevin as badly as he needs them. Just keeping up with what he says is too time consuming for our limited editorial resources on this project. --Metzenberg 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

-Metzenberg : I understand what you're saying. What I don't understand is why you don't back up your own claims. To simply call what someone says "preposterous" is not an argument. Saying that something is "unverifiable" without explaining why, is not an argument. I gave you three of many claims of his that are certainly verifiable. Until you refute those claims, I'm afraid your argument falls flat. - Alex Carson

Alex Carson said: "I'll make my challenge simple for you, and innumerate some claims made by Barrett..."

You meant to say enumerate, right? Because the Merriam-Webster definition of innumerate is: an ignorance of mathematics and the scientific approach. Or maybe you did mean to say innumerate after all.--Bacteria Junta 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria: Thank you for correcting my misuse of the word innumerate, your feeble insult notwithstanding. I suggest you look in the mirror when throwing around insinuations about ignorance of the scientific method. Your argument thus far ("Barrett is neither capable nor important" etc.) is insubstantial. You obviously know little or nothing about what he is referring to. Barrett is not simply parroting the research of others. He has spent over two years studying it and confirming it for himself. To educate you: the scientific method involves, among other things, actual research, not one's (your) baseless opinion. - Alex Carson

A Freudian slip speaks volumes, "Alex Carson." Innumerate away. --Bacteria Junta 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria: Why do you continue to sling insults at me, instead addressing the subject at hand? Could it be because you have nothing of substance to say? Your comments thus far indicate this. In case you've gotten too caught up in your own glibness (run for the dictionary) to remember the topic of this discussion, we are determining the value of having an article about Kevin Barrett on wikipedia. I maintain he is noteworthy in that he proficiently presents serious questions about the events of 9/11, which the mainstream media has all but buried. Now more than ever, America (and the rest of the world) need true patriots to stand up against an increasingly tyrannical government, one that has used and continues to use 9/11 as an excuse for everything from the Iraq war to the ongoing gutting of our Constitution. Results of a recent Zogby poll showed that over 70 million Americans want a new 9/11 investigation. Mr. Barrett does not represent a fringe group, ladies and germs. He represents a huge, and ever growing group of American (and world) citizens. - Alex Carson

Alex ... Welcome to the world of wikipedia. I am actually somewhat new here myself. I hope you are not here to become a troll! Since you are signing your name now, I will presume you are here to contribute too. These talk pages were not meant to be forums. If you are looking for a fight, please go look somewhere else. And if you want to talk about this more, or ask me about wikipedia, let's use your talk page. One of wikipedia's rules is, no personal attacks.
Wikipedia is our collective effort to create an encyclopedia of the world's knowledge. I am the one that proposed deleting Kevin Barrett from this encyclodia, and I now regret it. Not because I wouldn't want to delete him, but because I seem to have attracted the attention of a swarm of trolls and sock puppets. I believe wikipedia should contain useful knowledge. Kevin Barrett is useless knowledge. I regret that I started this whole thing.
I have no interest in debating you or Kevin Barrett. Deborah Lipstadt, author of a great book on Holocaust denial, was often asked if she would debate David Irving, the so-called historian and denier of the Holocaust. Lipstadt always replied that there was nothing for her to debate with Mr. Irving. David Irving simply invented truths when he wanted, so there was really nothing she could debate him about, since they didn't even agree on what truth is. Irving went on to sue her for libel, and he ended up suffering a crushing and humiliating defeat.
Where David Irving is a Holocaust denier, Kevin Barrett is Bin-Laden denier, or an Al Queda denier. Like David Irving, Barrett is a liar. There is no purpose in debating about the things he says. Since this page is here to stay, I'll focus on making it an accurate page, so that people who want to know more about Kevin Barrett can find out more about him. --Metzenberg 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"Barrett has claimed that the 19 hijackers of 9/11 couldn't possibly the ones who destroyed the world trade center because 6 of them are currently alive and living in Arab countries. This is simply a preposterous claim." If you think the claim is preposterous, then I take it you also think the BBC is not a credible news source, right ? --Ramon Zarate 06:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We've got one genius wanting us to go to Ziopedia (which is an antisemitic Holocaust denial site) and another who links to a story that is dated 23 September 2001 (you know, 12 days after the attacks). I wish you 9/11 deniers wouldn't be so selective in your evidence. Der Spiegel did a much more recent article that showed that all the hijackers are dead (and that the misreported "living" hijackers were people with the same name as the hijackers). I fear for Wikipedia when we have Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Deniers editing articles. GreatGatsby 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Barrett is neither an important or notable individual

Having seen the note attached to the article asking for further data about Kevin Barrett, the individual, I think adding more biographical information would be a mistake. It would be better to author an article about this academic controversy, and fold this data into the new article. --Bacteria Junta 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe searching for Kevin Barrett could forward to an article about his controversial conspiracy theory featuring his ideas and refutations. On the other hand perhaps some basics should be kept here like his conversion to Islam, since people like me who had never heard about him will come looking here first to look for information. -- Wikipedia-fan

[edit] Biographical Information

Capital Times did a pretty good article on Kevin Barrett, "What makes Kevin Barrett Tick": http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/index.php?ntid=92026&ntpid=0

I think it contains some useful information that could help improve the article.Urbie 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why all the double quotes?

This article is littered with double quotes, which rob it of any semblance of neutrality. Surely the controversial nature of Barrett's writings can be conveyed without resorting to such a clunky device.

  • I removed them. --Peephole 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr report

Filed for our anon editor. rootology (T) 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Living person

Per living person (see top of talk page), wikipedia CAN NOT label this man or his stance with pejorative labels as "conspiracy theorist" and such. per policy it must be aggresivly removed. A non-pejorative description would be "he belives that..." or "he views himself as a part of the 911TM" --Striver 00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Conspiracy theorist is far from a pejorative label. That matter aside, there's no point in reverting the article two weeks back. You can just as well change that one sentence. --Peephole 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove two weeks back, what maide you belive i did so? Conspiracy theorist is most definitly a pejorative label. You could prove me wrong by going to the CIA article and write that they are Conspiracy theorist. --Striver 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No but user Flex did. Let's just simply go back to my version which was fine and then you can remove conspiracy theorist if you want to and we can discuss whether it is appropriate or not. --Peephole 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange, Avast gave me a virus warning for editing this page, a "Uruguay 6/7/8" warning. --Striver 01:08, 21 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)

The reference given does note identify the subject as an CT. --Striver 11:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Uhm yes it does. "9/ 11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". --Peephole 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced

We had more fact tags here than the 9/11 scholars have academics. I removed everything unsourced, pro, con, or neutral. It can go back in when it's sourced as it was getting just silly. rootology (T) 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox interview on youtube

What's the right way to source/cite this for an inline reference? Levi said his addition just now is covered there, and I'm not sure how to attribute/word it since it's a 3rd party archive. rootology (T) 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Root. Here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9TrY5URAYA. I'm not sure that this has a negative connotation; it dovetails nicely with other sourced quotes of his. Levi P. 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just meant that in general, I wasn't sure if you about the policy (but I just wanted to torch everything unsourced to clear out the debris). I'm checking how to attribute that, but might be a while, heading out. rootology (T) 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett was teaching muslim perspective

I changed the wording of the end of the intro paragraph to reflect the fact that Barrett was teaching a course on Islam and Islamic perspectives, and so therefore included muslim people's perspectives on 9/11. The basis for teaching the idea that 9/11 was an inside job was not Barrett's own theories, but the theories of large percentages of people in the muslim world.Pihanki 08:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, the class was about Islam, not about conspiracy theory. The fact is that most people in Islamic countries think that the U.S. government is responsible for 9/11. That info belongs in a class about Islam and the Islamic perspective. I don't want to get into an edit war, but the sentence, "Controversy erupted when it became known he was planning to incorporate his conspiracy theories into the lectures" is simply inaccurate as well as a violation of WP:NPOV. Take a look at this http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/education/01madison.html?ex=1312084800&en=dbabebbbc8494d64&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss. Unless someone can find EVIDENCE not opinion that Barrett taught his own views about 9/11 instead of relating several theories about it, including the dominant muslim viewpoint, I will be removing the biased sentence in favor of something more neutral and accurate.Pihanki 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sentence. It does not say that he taught CT. It says that he met controversy when it came to light that he was planning on doing so. This is sourced. You're taking out sourced material and attempting to add un-sourced assertions ( re: dominant Muslim view). Levi P. 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, why lie? There's clearly a source that I added for my edit. I'm going to assume good faith and try to explain. What you're not understanding is that the source that I provided specified that the review done by the university chancellor found that Barrett was teaching many differing views of 9/11. There was never any official finding that he was planning to teach conspiracy theory. If you want that in the article YOU need to provide a source for it. There are many people in the world and many different views of what happened on 9/11. To call the views that you personally disagree with conspiracy theory is a violation of WP:NPOV. Even a source from a particular journalist who writes that Barrett was planning to teach CT is improper to include in the article because it runs counter to the official finding by the university.

I also have to add something else. You seem strangely eager to engage in a revert war. Your previous reverts came without any comment despite the fact that I made an attempt at discussion of the issue at hand prior to making any changes. Even with your last revert, you finally made a response to my comments at 16:57, but you reverted at 16:51. In other words, you again reverted without addressing the concerns of other editors of the article. I hope I need not remind you that you do not personally own the article. I am again stating my case here on the talk page prior to making a change in hopes that interested editors can come to a consensus as to how to make the article accurate. If there is no response, however I will change the POV statement to a more neutral one.

Try this in the future:

"Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk." - from Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset Pihanki 18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I do not appreciate being called a liar. Especially when it seems you do not understand how to source something. Your source does not in any way support the text you added. You are removing sourced material and adding material which your source does not back up (that most muslims believe CT). What am I suppopsed to comment on? This is pretty clear. It already is sourced that he was planning to discuss CT in his class. Numerous reputable sources comment on this. The terminology used is that used by the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, etc. You are attempting to synthesize an original argument (he was going to teach CT, but this is why...). That violates WP:OR. If you don't have a reputable source which specificaly says that, then it has no place in the article. Cheers Levi P. 19:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I appologize for the lie comment, but it just seemed so blatant to me, I didn't know what else to call it. The New York Times stated the exact opposite of what you said they stated. I'm amazed by how difficult it is to relate what I thought was a very simple concept. I am glad however you are now participating in the discussion of how to make this article better. At no time have I added anything that said, "(he was going to teach CT, but this is why...)." I have always maintained that is was untrue that he was teaching or planning to teach CT at all. That is sourced, according to the NY Times as per the findings of the university chancellor. (I did add that link when I made the edit) Again, there is no source that I know of that has DETERMINED not OPINED that Barrett included CT in the course. The only source that DETERMINED anything was the chancellor, who determined that Barrett was going to teach a wide variety of viewpoints, not CT. I am making a compromise change that is more accurate despite its being more wordy.Pihanki 21:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit answers the question left by the previous edit, "suspected by who?" which was somewhat weaselly. It also addresses the problem of leaving readers wondering what exactly was taught in the course since it wasn't conspiracy theory. Pihanki 21:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be annoyed or amused that I'm being insulted and lectured by someone with so poor an understanding of the issues. You keep adding material, insisting it is sourced, but on even the most cursoray perusal it becomes obvious that your source in no way supports the text you've added ( and I mean, they are not even tangentially related). Lets start at the beggining:
  • This is the sentence and source as they have stood for a while- Controversy erupted when it was suspected he was planning to incorporate conspiracy theories into the lectures.[1]. -
When you deleted this pertinent, sourced information, this exact sentence, you commented, "removed inaccurate, unsourced info."
  • You changed the original sentence to-Controversy erupted when it became known he was planning to incorporate into his lectures, the commonly held muslim perspective that the U.S. government was responsible for the September 11th attacks.[2].-
After reading the source, which in no way supports the text you added, I reverted, writing, "removed uncited info." You called me a liar. Then you gave a half-assed apology, and then called me a liar again.
  • Now, in your most recent edit, you have changed the text of the article to read-Controversy erupted when a Wisconsin politician after hearing his personal views on the attacks, claimed inaccurately that he was planning to teach conspiracy theory in his class, when in fact, the course included a wide variety of viewpoints on September 11th other than the official U.S. version.[3].-
Now this would be quite muddled and awkward anywhere in the article, but, as an added bonus, it is in the intro, and, even better still,the source provided is an article headlined: UW Instructor Defends Plan to Teach 9/11 Conspiracy Theory In Class.
Now, since you have yet to explain the problem with, Controversy erupted when it was suspected he was planning to incorporate conspiracy theories into the lectures, and it covers all bases much less awkwardly, I am re-adding it. It is an accurate, pithy summary, in no need of a tendentious, clumsy re-write. Note that nowhere in the article does it say that he taught CT in the classroom. Further, the only reason Barrett is in WP is because of the controversy that ensued when his views came to light. So your attempt at whitewashing this, or whatever the hell your trying to do, is most bizarre. Every single article on Barret mentions the controversy he was involved in. WP will be no different. Levi P. 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to resolve this and improve this page. I have no personal animus against you or Kevin Barrett. I wish that were the case with you. You seem to be hell bent on saying Barrett was teaching or planning to teach or trying to teach conspiracy theory despite the evidence to the contrary. Pay close attention to the Wikipedia rules on biographies of Living persons. Your POV pushing is potentially libelous. The following is from the source I added:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/education/01madison.html?ex=1312084800&en=dbabebbbc8494d64&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

“Mr. Barrett, a co-founder of a group called Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, argued that he had never presented his personal opinions in class and that he was free to offer those opinions on his own time outside the classroom.”

The university’s chancellor, John D. Wiley, said that he was baffled by Mr. Barrett’s beliefs but that they were irrelevant in the classroom, where he must stick to a syllabus that has been approved by the department. That syllabus includes a week devoted to the war on terror. A 10-day university review had determined that Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints and that he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom, Mr. Wiley said. Patrick V. Farrell, the provost of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said the university was not focusing on Mr. Barrett’s political views but on the teaching and learning experience in the classroom.

Correction: Aug. 2, 2006 A picture caption with an article yesterday about Kevin Barrett, an instructor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has disputed official findings on the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, referred imprecisely to his teaching on the attacks. A university review determined that although Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints, he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom.

I pasted the info here so no one would have to actually be bothered to go to the source and read it there themselves. From this, a rational person would conclude one thing: Barrett was not planning to teach conspiracy theory! It can’t get any simpler than this. The sticking point here Levi, is your insistence on stating in the article that Barrett intended to teach CT. It is POV, it is a violation of WP:BLP and it has no place in this article. Of course the article is about the controversy, but stop trying to push your agenda which seems to be that the controversy arose because Barrett was teaching “loony” or “wacky” conspiracy theories in the classroom. The truth is the controversy arose because of a grandstanding politician, Stephen L. Nass, wanted to use the fact that Barrett was teaching something other than the official view of 9/11 to gain a re-election push in his campaign. The university knew Barrett wasn’t teaching CT before that event, and after the investigation sparked by the event they confirmed that Barrett was not teaching CT. Notice Nass continuing his calls for Barrett’s head even after his being cleared by the university. Please stop reverting my good faith attempt at coming up with a way to introduce this article without violating the policy. At this point, I’m wondering if there are administrators reviewing this that can get involved and help sort this out.70.39.159.197 11:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Pihanki 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you really trying to improve this article or just edit it? If you think the sentence-Controversy erupted when it was suspected he was planning to incorporate conspiracy theories into the lectures- is libelous then you have no idea what the hell your talking about. I can not for the life of me see how that wording, which has stood for quite a while, is POV pushing; it does nothing but summerize the points presented in every single article written on Barrett. As it currently stands the sentence you added is still not sourced correctly. Oh well, I don't have the time right now...Levi P. 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry Levi, but I can not in good conscience let the phrase “planning to teach conspiracy theory” remain in any form since it is untrue. I have sourced the info, there’s nothing in the article about “Muslim perspective.” I even went as far as to point out the specific sentences in the source I provided that support my edit. The NY Times article says specifically that Barrett’s radio interview outraged some Wisconsin legislators generating the controversy. In the next sentence, it names the politician responsible. It also says specifically the university’s findings were that Barrett was not planning to teach his own views. There is nothing more I can do. You are for some unfathomable reason, determined to say that Barrett was trying to teach conspiracy theory. It does not belong in the article. I am reverting.Pihanki 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The original sentence say it was suspected that he was going to teach CT. You don't seem to grasp the fact that is exactly the same as what the NYT article says. The NYT goes on to say that a probe found that he hasn't taught CT- it says nothing about whether he "planned" on doing so or not. Yet you continue to insist, in you edit, in commenting on what he did or did not "plan" to do. You also keep screwing up the sourcing. I keep editing it so the article reflects what has actually happened: he was suspected of planning to teach Ct in class; a probe has found he hasn't done so. We can not say what he may or may not have been planning to do. Only what has been done. Levi P. 19:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have brought this issue to the attention of the biographies on living persons noticeboard.

One Wisconsin politician "suspected" him of teaching conspiracy theory. You're trying to make it appear that everyone did. The source makes it clear that the university had no problem with Barrett's course until Nass started the controversy.

You can't say "he was planning to teach his conpiracy theories," any more than you can say, "Paris Hilton is slutty." It doesn't matter if millions of people think it; it doesn't matter if journalists have written it, it's still POV.

You can't say the phrase, "teach conpiracy theory" unless it is to say that that conclusion, suspicicion or what have you is false. You can't say, "OJ Simpson killed his wife," unless you say, "according to a jury, it is false that OJ Simpson killed his wife." It doesn't matter how many people believe it to be true. It doesn't matter how many articles are written on it. The authority and the only opinion that matters is that of the jury. In the Barrett case, the only opinion that matters, is the opinion of the chancellor and provost of the university.

I began the effort to communicate with you in good faith, thinking that we could find some resolution, but your insistance on saying Barrett wanted to teach conspiracy theory seems to be some kind of personal obsession. A reading of the source I provided makes my edits clear. I hope that other editors, particularly administrators will lend assistance in fixing this article.Pihanki 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear determined to mis-state my position. You are either doing this intentionally or you are becoming increasingly confused . Where are you getting, your insistance on saying Barrett wanted to teach conspiracy theory seems to be some kind of personal obsession? Where is this coming from? This the phrase, complete with sources, that I think should be in the article:
  • Controversy erupted when it was suspected he was planning to incorporate conspiracy theories into the lectures.[4] It has since been determined by an internal university probe that "although Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints, he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom."[5]
Notice how it doesn't theorize about Barrett's intents or motivations? Do you notice how it says almost exactly the same thing as your latest offering, except it is sourced correctly and doesn't overstate the sources offered by theorizing about intent? Your wrote that, It doesn't matter how many articles are written on it. The authority and the only opinion that matters is that of the jury. In the Barrett case, the only opinion that matters, is the opinion of the chancellor and provost of the university. This belief shows how confused you are about how Wp works. I'm not going to clean up your sourcing, again, and I welcome some admin's opinion. Levi P. 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The bulleted paragraph above is sourced, and accurately reflects the sources. Is there an objection to it? Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"when it was suspected" - can we say who came to suspect? or would it be accurate to say, 'controversy erupted after a news report[linked] suggested he planned to teach...'? Tom Harrison Talk 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How about, 'controvery erupted when Barrett's belief's were reported in the news, and the general public and politicians suspected...' Or something along those lines...Levi P. 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
That sounds okay to me. Tom Harrison Talk 21:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, where is a source that overrides the university’s findings that Barrett was not teaching or planning to teach his personal views? The source I included says that the plan was to teach a variety of different viewpoints. We shouldn't call what was taught in the class conspiracy theory. Also, the source I added indicates that Nass was the initiator of the controversy. The "general public" had no idea and no way to know of the course on Islam or what Barrett was to be teaching. Here is my recommendation:

  • Controversy erupted when a Wisconsin politician, after hearing his personal views on the attacks, claimed inaccurately that he was planning to teach conspiracy theory in his class.

This avoids the speculation on the part of any editor as to what constitutes conspiracy theory. How can we say what he was planning to teach? Nass, had a problem with what he was planning to teach but the University of Wisconsin never did. The university at no time stated Barrett’s course included conspiracy theory so how can Wikipedia?Pihanki 22:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"We shouldn't call what was taught in the class conspiracy theory." We don't, that I can see. We say that some people thought he was going to, but he didn't. Can we include your citation as well, rather than either/or? Tom Harrison Talk 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's good...let's make it better. We shouldn't say he was planning to teach CT because no one knows his inner thoughts. We shouldn't say it was suspected that he was planning to teach CT because it wasn't by anyone except Nass and possibly the governor, although the governor got involved after Nass raised the issue. "Some people" didn't raise an issue with the course; that is unsubstantiated and unsourced opinion. That the course wasn't a problem until Nass raised the issue is sourced. But saying that the course included CT or that the "public" suspected that the course included CT is just a weasel way of including a particular POV that Barrett's views are CT.Pihanki 22:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For convenience

Links (some of these we already have):

Tom Harrison Talk 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation to the Times supports mentioning Nass and legislators, but not that Nass was behind it all. Tom Harrison Talk 23:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • von Sternberg, Bob. "Some look back to 9/11 and see a U.S. conspiracy", News, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 2006-09-06, p. 1A. Retrieved on 2006-09-30.  - The UW instructor, self-described Arabist Kevin Barrett, said his antagonists, mostly Republican officeholders, "are a bunch of witch-hunting politicians who are obviously terrified that their hold on power will be utterly annihilated."
  • Curiel, Jonathan. "The Conspiracy to Rewrite 9/11", Insight, The San Francisco Chronicle, 2006-09-03, p. E1. Retrieved on 2006-09-30.  - "Debunking 9/11 Myths" makes the case that mistakes, miscommunication and bureaucratic bungling contributed to the U.S. government's lack of immediate response to the Sept. 11 hijackings. Barrett and other conspiracy theorists will have none of it.
  • Williams, Scott. "Survey says some are suspicious about 9-11", B News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Inc., 2006-08-07, p. 1. Retrieved on 2006-09-30.  - Critics of the conspiracy theory have lashed out, trying to pressure the University of Wisconsin-Madison to fire faculty member Kevin Barrett because of his involvement with Scholars for Truth and his plans to include conspiracy theories in a class he is teaching on Islam.
  • Twohey, Megan. "UW lecturer's 9-11 media blitz is rapped", B News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Inc., 2006-08-04, p. 1. Retrieved on 2006-09-30.  - Farrell, who led a review of Barrett last month, determined that the part-time lecturer was fit to teach a fall course on Islam and that the 9-11 conspiracy theory had a place in the classroom. He said academic freedom demanded the decision.

How's that? The neutrality is there and the info is sourced.Pihanki 03:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Terrorist attacks

Tom, the quote that ended with "citation needed" that you just removed is pertinent I think. Rootology and I discussed it and agreed it should be in, we just couldn't figure out how to source it. It is from the fox news interview he did; it is presented as an external link at the bottom of the article (the youtube thing). Do you know how to cite it? Levi P. 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I figured it out...I thought I had to do something differently, but it appears to be correct. Levi P. 21:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's probably fine for now. I know we don't like to link directly to video, but I don't know the prefered way to cite youtube videos. Tom Harrison Talk 21:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The npov tag

What is the basis for it? Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I added it because of the persistence of user Levi P in saying, “Barrett planned to teach conspiracy theory” or the more weasel-like, “was suspected of planning to teach conspiracy theory.” Pihanki 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

When you added the tag the article said, "Controversy erupted when politicians and the general public suspected that Barrett was planning to incorporate conspiracy theories into his lectures." This is supported by citation to a news article, UW Instructor Defends Plan to Teach 9/11 Conspiracy Theory in Class. We follow that statement with, "It has since been determined by an internal university probe that "although Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints, he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom."", again cited. So there was a controversy for this reason, but this reason was later found to be mistaken. I do not see how much more neutral it could be. We never say he planned to teach conspiracy theories. We say people thought he planned to, but that turned out not to be the case. Remember that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons, not just the subject of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It can be more neutral by stating the issue in such a way that will not prejudice every single person who visits the page. What I see is an effort to accomplish two things: 1) make readers think that there was a huge controversy because certainly "lots of people" "the general public" had a problem with Barrett's course. I'd like a source for that. 2) To make readers think that the problem "the general public" had with Barrett's course was justified because there is some suspicion that he was teaching conspiracy theory. You would definitely need a source to say that. As far as sources go, mine keeps getting removed. It says that Nass was the one who initially raised the issue, although it mentions Governor Doyle as well. It also says repeatedly that Barrett did not interject his personal views into the course. That would mean that Nass, Doyle and any reporter who says he was teaching conspiracy theory is incorrect. So then what's wrong with saying "A Wisconsin politician (no name mentioned) incorrectly claimed that he was planning to teach conspiracy theory? It's succinct, it doesn't improperly label Barrett's course and it certainly doesn't try to attribute the controversy to a "general public." Isn't that very much like the weasel words we're supposed to avoid here? I never have and never will subscribe to the idea that because a lot of people believe a thing, that it must be correct. At the beginning, nobody even raised an issue about the course but Nass. At the end, it doesn't matter how many people believe it's conspiracy theory, the university officials say it isn't. Please go through the history and read the source I cited. it's all there.Pihanki 02:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) I didn't revert before. I added an entire new sentence and new sources to try to address the problems that were raised. At no time did I get the impression that Tom's intention was that no one could change the words you are so in love with. This is ridiculous; Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. STOP REVERTING GOOD FAITH EDITS!!!!Pihanki 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your version would have the effect of removing all mention of 9/11 conspiracy theory, which is the only thing that makes the Barrett (barely) notable enough for an article in the first place. Basically, some people became upset when they thought he was going to teach the conspiracy theory. There was a big stink for a while, it turned out to be much ado about nothing, and life went on. When Barrett writes a book about his experience, we can link to it. If not, maybe it will (or does now) make sense to merge this into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, or 9/11 Truth Movement. Tom Harrison Talk 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the first thing the article says is that Barrett is a conspiracy theorist? We know that's true, so there's no problem with that. The only problem I have is with saying conspiracy theory was involved with the course. It wasn't according to the authoritative sources. That a politician (or maybe two) thought it did can be included in the body of the article, right? Pihanki 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I read the 3RRR policy. (I had read it before but...) so I guess I'm dense. I don't see anything that says I should cease my efforts. Are YOU saying that? It wasn't personal when this whole thing started, but now I'm definitely feeling that something is wrong. You're saying that it's NOT ok to say that Wisconsin politicians called for an investigation, when that's sourced. but it IS ok to say that the "general public" who ever that is, suspected that Barrett was planning to teach conspiracy theory? Did you even look at my edit and the sources as I requested you do on your user page? What's the next step to getting this article the way it should be?Pihanki 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I included several potential sources above. Look through them and see if any are useful. You can say whatever is supported by the sources, subject to due weight, neutral presentation, and no original research, just like everyone else can. It is easier to add countervailing information (if there is any) than to remove information that is well-sourced to major newspapers. If you undo another editor's work, that is a revert for these purposes. If you undo another's work three times in one day, that indicates there is a problem. If there is a content dispute, asking for a third opinion is a good first step. If you don't like the third opinon when you hear it, you can try mediation, or maybe request page protection. Tom Harrison Talk 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have found yet another source that explicitly supports the current wording. It says, "that Barrett prompted a public outcry in Wisconsin," and that there was "a burst of critics calling" for his dismissal. It clearly lays out the development of the controversy, saying that he did not really come to note until he discussed his beliefs on a local radio station and said he sharred them in the classroom. The evidence supporting the current wording is overwhelming... Levi P. 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Barrett shares the same view as David Ray Griffin professor of Theology at Claremont School of Theology

in California for the last 30 years, author of The New Pearl Harbor.

Why not fire him or any of the other academics who have asked this question, who are listed on http://www.mujca.com/ http://st911.org/ http://st911.org/


I think the real danger is that people will look at the AIPAC spy scandal, the neo cons in http://www.jinsa.org/about/about.html and the administration that wrote a plan for Israel and the US that concerns itself with the welfare of Israel. A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm will appear to be part of the "Government conspiracy to conduct a false flag operation to get us to attack the middle east.

Walt & Mearsheimer are the ones to fire. http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2006/05/walt_mearsheime.html

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

People who don't understand the difference between political action and conspiracy will again be yelling Jewish Conspiracy. The difference of course is that no one(except the media) is concealing this political action.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

[edit] Barrett is newsworthy, but is he worth mention as part of history?

The whole article reads like a newspaper story, and it doesn't read neutral, in my opinion. I have no doubt that Mr. Barrett is an interesting man, but so are lots of other people, millions of them, who don't have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. I believe this article should be merged into a 9/11 topic or something related. I'm sorry, but having an article devoted to this guy is just shy of pointless. He may deserve a mention in another article, but I truly doubt his subject worth under its own heading. He is only one of many more, several without mention in Wikipedia, who have put forth the same theories and done so better.

I agree. The course at University of Wisconsin is nearly over, and having no article at all would be better than an article that contains ridiculous non-neutral b.s in its intro.Pihanki 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What might be a good place to merge it to? Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, or 9/11 Truth Movement, or somehwere else? Tom Harrison Talk 16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As continued sources/media keep piling up over the months and years, the answer is yes. · XP · 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoom disambig

The reason very few results show up for the ZOOM cast member is because the last names were not made public until the show was cancelled. -- Zanimum 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead to article

I left this article alone a long time ago due to a biased and illogical editor's determination to include their personal POV about Barrett, and due to support for that POV by an admin. I did keep it on my watchlist though. It is good to see that another editor took up the cause and changed the lead sentence to something more neutral, factual and verifiable. There is still a major problem that I thought I would bring to someone's attention. The second paragraph states, "Controversy erupted when it became known Barrett was planning to incorporate conspiracy theories into his lectures" This is the sentence that the above mentioned editor and admin were willing to fight tooth and nail to keep. The sentence immediately after that one completely contradicts it. How can something that is later proven to be untrue ever have become known? In addition to that problem, when you click on the link for the citation for the ridiculous sentence you get a news page that no longer contains the story about Barrett. So again, as I maintained months ago, it unsourced POV. I would fix it myself, but...Pihanki 09:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)