Talk:James Fetzer

Contributors who may be connected to this article

question for Fetzer

This article seems like a hatchet job, but you are not supposed to edit your own article. Why not contact an administrator as advised? I know of someone esle who was receiving the same treatment and it worked wonders. Sceptic1954 (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What would anyone expect an Administrator to do? Block someone? Who? If there are WP:BLP problems, the thing to do is go to WP:BLPN. If you think it's a hatchet job you need to bring specific complaints here or to BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's what subjects are advised to do >If Wikipedia has published misleading or inappropriate material about you, you can get help by....placing {{adminhelp}} on your user talk page, which will attract an administrator;< and in the case I know of the administrator cleaned up the article and saw off the character assassins.Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've nowiki'd the template. That was probably obvious vandalism, do you see character assassination here and if so specifically what is it? I see WP:COI editing, obviously, and appropriately tagged it. At the moment I don't see anything I could use my mop for. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well how about the section which read 'Holocaust Denial and anti-semitism' until I changed it. It implied that he was an anti-semitic holocaust denier. In fact it was lumping together his poorly-sourced views on the Holocaust with his views on what constitued anti-semitism, rather than claiming, as the title suggested, that he was anti-semitic. I haven't been through the article in detail and in fact it is up to the subject to complain to an administrator rather than seek to amend his own article and if he doesn't follow the talk page and this suggestion then I don't mean to take up cudgels any more on his behalf. However slanting is a collection of many choices of words and individually they may be subtle so that even people like Jimmy Wales don't see them but collectively they add up. IMO Wikipedia lacks neutral tone and NPOV in many areas and I am sure that administrators are busy people so it's a basic flaw in the project as it stands.Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here, and I agree it's up to him but I'd still suggest he go to WP:BLPN. It really isn't an Admin job to make sure articles reach our NPOV standards, it is everyone's. Admins have a different role, see WP:Administrator. We are also called 'sysops' (that's what it shows when you hover over my name) because what makes us different from you is that we've been entrusted with some software tools that most editors don't have access to. Obviously any of us (Admins) should be able to improve an article. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking generally - and maybe this isn't the place - I've rather given up on certain areas of wikipedia reaching NPOV status because in contentious areas one side usually takes over. It's rather reduced my enthusiasm for the project as a whole. And yes, it's up to Fetzer to raise his concerns. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

reverted COI edits

I've reverted a whole slew of WP:COI edits from one editor using two different IPs. Frizzmaz (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "one editor using two different IPs"; I have exactly one IP address. Yet even if I were using two IP addresses, please, cite the violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Nor do I have a conflict of interest—a baseless and unsubstantiated and perhaps even paranoid allegation—but, even if I did, I would still be permitted to edit the article so long as I heeded Wikipedia guidelines. The "whole slew" of my edits does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. Yet there is violation of neutral point of view, undue weight, and tendentious editing in the article version that you have restored. If you cannot substantiate your allegations, which I presume made in good faith, I will accept their baseless status and restore my article version in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. If you find certain problems with my editing, heed WP:NPOV and, instead of deleting sourced material, use the editing process, since this is not your own vanity article. 173.56.188.ersion far superior to175 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the latest version far better that that to whch Frizzmazz had reverted. I only edit in ky own account.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Here, I address what I see as apparently a tenacious conflict of sympathy. More or less, I came along and balanced the article so that readers can see that Fetzer is not merely a kook, but can get a more neutral biography, including reliable sources exhibiting significant minority support. Yet I find that editor Sceptic1954, despite good intentions, now persistently edits to make critics of Fetzer appear on the fringe. I find this, too, a violation of neutral point of view. Below, explaining my reasoning, I aim to prevent incessant back-and-forth edit wars. Despite the length of this Talk post, I think it more efficient and fruitful than merely making accusations in edit notes.

Earlier, to depict a major point of view via reliable sourcing, I had written, "Although not as crude and racist, Fetzer's assertions have been likened to those made by David Duke in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks". In a citation after Duke's name, I clarified, as also clarified in the source, "David Duke, the onetime Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, has been a neo-Nazi activist". Yet Sceptic1954, putatively "trying to avoid presenting one person's depiction as 'objective' fact", changed it to say, "Although they have not been depicted as crude and starkly racist Fetzer's assertions have nonethless been likened to those made by David Duke [diff]. Yet that summary begs the question, the very issue whether—as some allege—Fetzer's assertions have been crude and racist, perhaps stark to some. I had indicated that Fetzer's were not as crude and starkly racist as those of Duke—a neoNazi and onetime KKK leader—and even cited that. Sceptic1954 converted this to say that Fetzer's "have not been depicted as crude and starkly racist"—that is, not at all—a summary contradicting the source stating that Fetzer's claims were likened to Duke's claims, which are crude and starkly racist. Simply, the source found Fetzer's not as "crude" and "overtly racist" as Duke's.

Also, supposedly "modifying bad English", Sceptic1954 switched my version that said, "The Anti Defamation League has suggested that Fetzer has indeed waged anti-Semitism, focusing on 'American government officials of Jewish background' ", to Sceptic1954's version saying, "The Anti Defamation League has suggested that Fetzer is indeed anti-Semitic in focusing on 'American government officials of Jewish background'" [diff]. Sceptic1954 then supposedly "removed redundant word" indeed and thus limply says, as if out the blue, "The Anti Defamation League has suggested that Fetzer is anti-Semitic in focusing on 'American government officials of Jewish background'" [diff]. By this putative good English, however, the word indeed is all but universally redundant—except perhaps just to answer "yes" to a question—since indeed is a term of reinforcement. In an edit note, I stated that the would-be edits for neutrality and "to fix 'bad English' suggest mere taste (some hypersensitivity & worse English)" [diff]. I thus returned the word indeed, which in the Wikiarticle's context suggests ADL's stance despite Fetzer's assertion, included in the same ADL source, that I summarized, "Fetzer has complained that alleging anti-Semitism is a ploy to neutralize 9/11 dissent". In the very following sentence, the word indeed helps clarify that ADL has recognized Fetzer's allegation but maintained ADL's own allegation, anyway, and thus alleges, as I summarize, that Fetzer "has indeed waged anti-Semitism". Yet I renounce the word waged—a matter of taste, though not "bad English".

A third and final related move, with Sceptic1954's edit note of "improved English", paradoxically worsened the English arguably, switching where Wikiarticle said that "he endorsed military coup of the Bush administration" to instead say that "he called for a military coup against the Bush administration" [diff]. Yet coup is synonym not merely to attack (against) but to overthrow (of). I did not place the word endorsed—in the article as I found it—but it was hardly "bad English". Why impose mere taste while incidentally insulting prior editors, including me, arguably the article's principal author by now? I find the campaign over English concealing perhaps unwitting tendentious editing overriding the balance of views in reliable sources and, despite guidelines on Wiki guidelines on neutral point of view, casting excess doubt on major points of view, perhaps relatively strengthening significant minority points of view that Sceptic1954 favors.

In my same edit note, I rhetorically posed, "Was Fetzer's talk as racist as Duke's?". If not, then my summary was all right—and far more accurate than Sceptic1954's alteration of it. Thus, I switched the article to say, "Although not as crude and racist, Fetzer's assertions have been likened to those made by David Duke in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks". Sceptic1954, with an edit note asserting, "'not crude and racist' is part of a comparison and should be seen as such", then added two words—considered to the first clause, and nonetheless to the second clause—and thereby rendered, "Although not considered as crude and racist, Fetzer's assertions have nonetheless been likened to those made by David Duke in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks" [diff]. I find the edit note's claimed justification for the edit to be absurd, ironically arguing against Sceptic1954's own two latest edits of this one sentence.

Sceptic1954's prior edit of had removed the comparison by converting my single statement of two clauses conjoined for relativity between Fetzer's claims and Duke's claims into two absolute statements about Fetzer's claims—"[1] Although they [Fetzer's assertions] have not been depicted as crude and starkly racist [2] Fetzer's assertions have nonethless been likened to those made by David Duke"—a sentence that, additionally, is selfcontradictory. The second clause stating that Fetzer's claims were likened to Duke's claims is itself the depiction of Fetzer's claims as crude and racist—arguably starkly, just not as starkly as Duke's. And this time, Sceptic1954's addition of the word considered immediately before the word as renders the ambiguous term considered as, which can reasonably be read with the same meaning as the term considered. Thus, even this present edit by Sceptic1954 can reasonably be interpreted as not a comparison, after all, but instead as meaning, "Although not considered crude and racist, Fetzer's assertions have nonetheless been likened to those made by David Duke in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks".

And conflicting with Sceptic1954's earlier goal to remove the "redundant word" indeed and to fix "bad English", Sceptic1954's present addition of nonetheless is truly redundant—and teeters on formally bad English—since Sceptic1954's version of the sentence retains the word Although to open the sentence. This particular redundancy, however, seems to double the doubt that Fetzer's claims could even reasonably be considered as—perhaps meaning "considered"—crude and racist. Further, I had earlier toned down the tendentious editing and undue weight by collecting all Jewish controversies into a subsection titled "Alleged anti-Semitism". Sceptic1954 in the recent editing changed it to "Allegations of anti-Semitism". I switched it back to "Alleged anti-Semitism", lest Sceptic1954's change suggest existence only of allegations of anti-Semitism, not even perhaps some alleged anti-Semitism. Thus, my same edit note mentioned clarified, "Sec [Subsec, rather] isn't on just 'Allegations of' but 'Alleged' anti-Semitism itself" [diff].

Despite Sceptic1954's vows of seeking neutrality, Sceptic1954 neglected areas of possible bias that seem to favor the putative truth of United States governmental conspiracies. In my same edit, I did not only target Sceptic1954's changes. I also changed in the article abstract the part saying, "He is also among the most prominent proponents of government conspiracies...", so that it after my change it says, "He is also among the most prominent investigators of alleged government conspiracies...". (Earlier, someone else, with an edit note stating "word choice", had used proponents to replace by word accusers [diff]. I found the replacement word worse, formally suggesting that Fetzer advocates having government conspiracies. Yet in the meantime, I conceded that my word choice was somewhat awkward, and left it to readers to recognize the obvious that Fetzer opposes having government conspiracies.) Likewise, the section "Conspiracy claims" had opened, "Interested in government conspiracies since the 1963..."—my own earlier clause—which I changed to say, "Interested in alleged government conspiracies since the 1963...". I think my editing argues more in favor that I am seeking neutral point of view.

Most recently, Sceptic1954 switched the part saying, "Alleging treason and oath violations, he called for military overthrow of the Bush administration, a position that hurt his credibility ...", to instead say, "Alleging treason and oath violations, he called for military overthrow of the Bush administration, a position that may have damaged his credibility..."—italics mine—while Sceptic1954 in the edit note asserted, "Atkins opinion should not be presented as 'objective fact' unless backed by many RS" [diff]. Why many? I know of nothing in the Wikiguidelines on reliable sources to justify Sceptic1954's opinion, which suggests a view that collecting many reliable sources warrants posing as "objective fact" something that is not an objective fact. This is a social topic, not natural science. Please, tone down the positivistic rhetoric suggesting that "objective fact" is the standard in a social topic. In this instance, however, we do have an objective fact—established by even just one reliable source.

The citation to Fetzer calling for the overthrow is an article titled "Professors of paranoia?", published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. And Stephen E Atkins, where I cited that it hurt Fetzer's credibility, is the editor of The 9/11 Encyclopedia, 2^nd edn (ABC-CLIO, 2011). Factually, then, Fetzer's credibility was hurt. Hurt anywhere is hurt—an "objective" fact. And apparently, it was hurt in a place significant enough for a reliable source making a brief biographical entry on Fetzer in an encyclopedia on 9/11—a topic of Fetzer's own focus—states that it was hurt. (Even if the Bush administration should have been ousted, there is impeachment and such, whereas I myself cannot see how military coup could be successful, let alone beneficial for America.)

If Sceptic1954 offers a reliable source stating that Fetzer's credibility was not hurt, one might consider saying that it "may have damaged" Fetzer's credibility. Yet even that would risk tendentious editing. The contradictory source would show that Fetzer's credibility was not universally hurt, but it would not nullify the other sources revealing that it was hurt somewhere. Properly, then, the Wikiarticle would localize the hurt. As Sceptic1954 offers no source showing where the stance did not hurt Fetzer's credibility, I have edited the article to clarify that it "hurt his mainstream credibility" [diff]. I encourage Sceptic1954 to continue participating, but to better weigh edits as to the avowed aims of neutrality and reflecting reliable sources. I also suggest better recognizing the logical fallacy affirming the consequent when relating evidence to conclusions to statements. — Occurring (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get the COI from? How can you possibly say that there is one? Do you know who I am? I don't think I have any COI whatsoever. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get COI (conflict of interest)? I alleged "conflict of sympathy". And I stated, "Below, explaining my reasoning, I aim to prevent incessant back-and-forth edit wars. Despite the length of this Talk post, I think it more efficient and fruitful than merely making accusations in edit notes". May I also avoid strawman argumentation on the Talk page. — Occurring (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Occurring Actually I like you rewrite but have one or two minor queries with your use of english, but it's not worth getting into a long discussion about.Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A brief discussion can be apt. Yet your avowed corrections of my "bad English" have tended to impose merely your taste, or worsen the English, or wash out meaning, or state selfcontradiction—necessarily false—or contradict the very source cited. In another instance, you asserted that a view should not be posed as "objective fact" without "many RS", although one reliable source of sufficient authority—which I provided—established it as an "objective fact", indeed, whereas you offered no explanation or citation of its fallaciousness or of your advised protocol's propriety. If your series of edits had not exhibited a tenacious tendency to cast unreasonable doubt on major, published viewpoints that criticize Fetzer's positions, I would not have reviewed your recent edits to reveal their common principle of bias. And you responded by arguing strawman, not even addressing what I said.

That said, many edits by others are far more biased, seeking to outright delete significant, published viewpoints—including roughly the entire first 60 years Fetzer's life including the career whereby Fetzer gained wide esteem as not merely a professor but as an authority in philosophy of science—to depict Fetzer nearly solely controversially amid indignity for "ridiculous conspiracy theories", etc. I commend you for helping defend my making this biography page biographical, not a pop conspiracy fan and hate post. Yet I encourage you to make more neutral edits, or else even your support teeters on promoting personal conspiracy opinions, though less egregiously than does your outright opposition—whom I am not among. If you would edit more neutrally, I can more efficiently improve the article, and less get dragged into dogfights with others who allege my bad English while their explanations of its putative badness suggest they read with dyslexia, then argue with poor short-term memory, while their edits curiously conceal unqualified violations of WP:NPOV's dictum to include all major and significant minority viewpoints published in reliable sources, and to generally not delete sourced material. — Occurring (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh,if these relatively minor edits mean so much to win I won't revert. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Needs focus and a significant reedit.

This article is way to long, and much too broad and imprecise. James Fetzer is primarily known as an author of conspiracy theory books, and a conspiracy theory talkshow. Yet most of the article weaves on about details on his personal life, army service and career in education. While all three deserves mentioning, neither of those is particular relevant nor interesting, when the only reason he's notorious enough for an article on Wikipedia, is his work and output in regards to conspiracy theories, especially the 9-11/truth movement.

Here's just an example: Fetzer is described in the article as important for theories on modern computer science. Yet Wikipedia is one of the only places he's mentioned as such, there is very little to none mentioning of him in works or material on either computer science or information technology. In fact the only citation of this is from.... An encyclopedia on the 9-11/truth movement.

Imagine an article on Albert Einstein, that primarily dealt with his interests in cooking and amateur golf, and only devoted a small section hidden near the bottom, about his work in physics and conception of relativity and quantum mechanics. This is what this article reminds you of. (The article on Ernst Zundel btw is a great example of an article that is thorough and comprehensive, yet still manages to mostly be devoted to what Zundel is known and notable for. Something that would improve this article.)

I would suggest a serious rewriting of the whole article, preferably by someone who hasn't been involved in edit wars/disagreements previously on this topic. Any suggestions or volunteers? 62.44.135.173 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

without totally disagreeing cooking and amateur golf are hobbies, Fetzer's career was not a hobby. And surely it is because of his academic career that people take note of his conspiracy theories. It is important to show that he has acheived academic distinction whatever we may make of his consiracy theories. (Not volunteering though) Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's important to note his academic distinction, as there are many, many others with similar levels of distinction who do not have Wikipedia entries. Fetzer's only claim to notability is his role as a promoter of ridiculous conspiracy theories, including the recent addition of Holocaust denial to his bag of tricks. As such, the current version is ridiculously laudatory. Frizzmaz (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There are similarly esteemed historians and philosophers of science with Wikipedia biography articles—for instance Frederick Suppe, William Bechtel, Garland Allen, and Sander Greenland—even though they lack the legendary status of August Comte, C S Peirce, Ernst Mach, Carl Hempel, and Karl Popper. I knew Fetzer as perhaps the most authoritative scholar on Hempel. Only last week when I Wikilinked to the Fetzer article from a citation to him in Wikiarticle "DN model of scientific explanation"—which I wrote virtually all of—did I discover his role in the conspiracy community. Such hotness of the pop topic does not warrant turning Fetzer's biography page into a conspiracy soapbox, whether stood on by the general public or by Fetzer.

If one would like to skip biographical information and review only conspiracy claims, I made it easy to do that—I demarcated sections and sorted information neatly—while ample Wikilinks and sources provide further elucidation. I even added such summaries and sources, and deleted none. In fact, I reinforced the criticism of Fetzer: I introduced that his credibility was hurt and that and he became marginalized as an oddity even within the 9/11 Truth movement. That you find the article "ridiculously laudatory", but apparently cannot fix the ridiculousness through normal editing process—not vast deletion of sourced material—suggests that it not ridiculous, after all. Once the biography page is created, it is a biography page, not a conspiracy page. That people more interested in conspiracy theories than in science and philosophy are usually ignorant of philosophy of science does not warrant concealing the general balance of Fetzer's life. I find the article lacking enough information on his views in philosophy. Later, I will add some of those views — Occurring (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary and irrelevant. While a short and informative overview of his background is great, James Fetzer is neither known or important in neither philosophy nor computer science. (For example: The only reference to his supposedly important work in computer science, is from a 9-11/truth movement encyclopedia. If his work in philosophy or CS was notable at all, surely there'd be many more references that aren't 9/11 related.)

The only reason he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is his work as a conspiracy theory proponent/author/radio show. So while a brief summary of his education and background is in order, that should be it.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama mainly deals with his work as a politician. There is only a brief section on his legal career (and no mentioning of his academic papers or whatever legal philosophies he might ascribe to.) for the reason that his legal career isn't notable. Just like Fetzers work in philosophy isn't notable. 62.44.134.36 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The abstract of the latest Wikiarticle version, well cited, shows not merely the sheer ignorance but also the downright absurdity of your assertion that "James Fetzer is neither known or important in neither philosophy nor computer science". That you assert this with merely your opinion to contradict authoritative reliable sources suggests your recklessness yet perhaps unwitting agenda to violate neutral point of view and reliable sources and, thereby, undue weight and tendentious editing. — Occurring (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your objections to the current state of the article. There is a very short section on his education and career, just a few lines covering decades of scholarship. And the bulk of the article is devoted to his conspiracy claims and views. Isn't this exactly what you want? Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy investigator or proponent?

I'm not sure I understood the summary given for this edit. Are you saying Fetzer is not a proponent of conspiracy theories, he investigates conspiracy theories advocated by others? LuckyLouie (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm very puzzled by this edit and the summary given for it. The article largely documents Fetzer's support of a number of conspiracy theories. Why should the article lead omit saying that he's a proponent of conspiracy theories, and instead say he's an "investigator"? LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@User: ‎Occurring: In your edit summary, you explain that, "Problem with "proponent" is that, formally, it suggest he wants more "government conspiracies". No, that's not what "proponent" is intended to convey here. The body of the article as well as its citations state that Fetzer is a well known conspiracy theorist, e.g. he is a proponent of conspiracy theories. Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to make that clear. I'm beginning to wonder if a language problem is behind the difficulty you're having and may be the reason behind your reversions. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware proponent is not intended to convey that Fetzer seeks more government conspiracies. That is why I specifically stated it as intended—that he is a prominent accuser of government conspiracies. What in the world do you not find clear in my stating that he is a prominent "accuser" rather than "proponent" of government conspiracies? Wikipedia also indicates to maintain WP:NPOV. Even the article on "Conspiracy theory" indicates that the term conspiracy theory is largely pejorative. Further, I have seen no sources whereby Fetzer has specifically asserted that he promotes "conspiracy theories". In fact, the The 9/11 Encyclopedia that I cited says that he is interested in "government conspiracies", which, yes, indeed is accurate and neutral, why I favored the term. Peter Dale Scott specifically shunned the notion of investigation of "conspiracy theories"—as they are generally simplistic—and coined the term deep politics.

Claiming that Fetzer has not been a prominent investigator of alleged government conspiracies was your severe error, since he became famed in the conspiracy community as a leading investigator of the Kennedy assassination, and then coauthored a book via investigation of Senator Paul Wellstone's death. I have already cited Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America (Austin TX: University of Texas Press, 2013), pp 138, 237, citing Fetzer's coauthored book on Wellstone's death to support that Fetzer's work on it has been received seriously. Further, deHaven-Smith coined the term SCAD—that is, state crimes against democracy—to replace the term conspiracy theory, biased by is simplistic, pejorative uses [9]. Fetzer also, as I cited in the article, edited a book investigating 9/11, while authoring in it alongside Peter Dale Scott, whose own investigations into the "deep politics" behind the Kennedy assassination and into 9/11 have been published by University of California Press in 1996 and 2008, respectively.

The problem with your editing was not that you wish to say that he is a "proponent", but that posed his being a proponent as the confirmation of your own conclusion, against reliable sources, that his is not an investigator—your reasoning by the deductive fallacy affirming the consequent. Now you wish to replace the word accuser with proponent, but you cannot even refute that I am correct that proponent at least formally suggests that he wants more government conspiracies. No, your argument is merely that it is not intended to mean that! Gee, then just let it go and allow me to use language that is inarguably clear instead of throwing worse argument after bad by now suggesting that I am incompetent to use English, whereas you seem to have not used a single reliable source or logical argument in your dispute with me so far. — Occurring (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The subject of the article is indeed a well-known conspiracy theorist. Have you read the sources cited in the article? Here's one that states it directly. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, the article that you just cited is titled "We're all conspiracy theorists at heart"—quite undercutting the great relevance of his being a "conspiracy theorist". Further, although the article does say, "As Jim Fetzer, one of the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists...", it does not claim—as went your earlier argument—that he therefore is not an "investigator" of alleged government conspiracies. Nor did I ever indicate that he is not a conspiracy theorist. I pointed out that I have never seen Fetzer characterizing himself as a proponent of "conspiracy theories", and that the 9/11 Encyclopedia—a more reliable source than a journalist opening an article with the quip that we're all conspiracy theorists at heart—characterized him more neutrally as interested in "government conspiracies". Meanwhile, it is inappropriate to depict Fetzer only as he depicts himself, yet he has certainly investigated alleged government conspiracies and prominently alleged them, while I indicated that the term is conspiracy theory is pejorative, and you have not refuted that it is. Anyway, the latest issue is why your opposition to my term accuser of, which you insisted to replace with the term proponent of government conspiracies, despite my pointing out that at least formally, proponent of suggests that he wants more government conspiracies, rather than opposes them. — Occurring (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand English. "Accuser of government conspiracies" makes no sense at all. Is he accusing the conspiracies of conspiring? A proponent advocates a theory. You can't accuse a theory. Maybe you mean he accuses the government of conspiring? Bhny (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

One, a proponent does not advocate only a theory. There are proponents of euthanasia and of the death penalty—either a practice or a policy, not a theory. Second, a government conspiracy is—hint, hint—the location of conspiracy. That is, the term indicates that Fetzer has accused governments of conspiracies. Your confusion apparently reflects a fixation to append the word theory in irrational locations—euthanasia theory or death penalty theory, perhaps? I never said that Fetzer has been a prominent "accuser of government conspiracy theory". If I had written that, then your rhetoric would make sense. But I didn't.

What makes no sense is your translating the term government conspiracies into the term conspiracies of conspiring. If the term accuser of government conspiracies "makes no sense at all", then the term proponent of government conspiracies, too, would "make no sense at all": your translation of it would most defensibly be advocating conspiracies of conspiring. Yet editors before you found proponents of government conspiracies to make sense, indeed. And yet as I pointed out, it formally suggests that Fetzer wants more government conspiracies. In sum, I think your position, irrationally reasoned, suggests acute bias, not an attack on ambiguity and senselessness. You made three edits just now, the third clearly defensible, the second marginal, and the first a flagrant violation of neutral point of view.

The 1^st edit note states in entirety that " 'accuser of government conspiracies' is very strange wording. Not sure what it was supposed to mean. Body of article says he basically was a proponent of these theories. also unhid link to 'conspiracy theories' " [diff]. Yet the key problem with your edit is that—as your edit note failed to mention—it deleted the significant point of view, which I added to the article abstract, that Fetzer has also been a prominent investigator of alleged government conspiracies, not only a proponent of conspiracy theories. That did not need to be deleted in order to target "very strange wording".

Somehow dovetailing with your edit, LuckyLouie had earlier argued that being a proponent of conspiracies theories shows Fetzer to not be an investigator of alleged government conspiracies—LuckyLouie's argument in an edit note to delete that Fetzer has been an investigator. Meanwhile, I already addressed why that is fallacious argumentation and acutely biased by an a priori postulate that anyone who originates or alleges conspiracy theories cannot also investigate alleged government conspiracies [diff]. This suggests that conspiracy theory is within LuckyLouie's own use a pejorative term to install biased dismissal of Fetzer's more apparently respectable activity of investigating alleged government conspiracies, not only of the widely disreputable activity of merely advocating conspiracy theories.

Your 2^nd edit note in entirety says that "links shouldn't be hidden like that. 'government conspiracy' is also ambiguous" [diff]. Please, cite not merely your opinion but the Wikipedia guideline indicating that links shouldn't. Also, it is dubious that the term government conspiracies (localizing the conspiracies) is more ambiguous than is the term conspiracy theories (clearly more diffuse). I had added the article's most authoritative biographical source on Fetzer: Stephen E Atkins, ed, The 9/11 Encyclopedia, 2^nd edn (ABC-CLIO, 2011). It opens, "James H Fetzer is one of the leading conspiracy theorists in the United States and Scholars of 9/11 Truth. His academic training was in philosophy, but he has had a long fascination with government conspiracies, going to back to the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. This belief in government conspiracies made him direct his attention to the attacks of September 11, 2001" [p 181].

So Atkins moves from ambiguous to more precise by switching from conspiracy theorists to government conspiracies, states "government conspiracies" again, and thus explains Fetzer's interest in 9/11—how Fetzer gained this present, controversial spotlight in the first place. Yet you merely make absolute assertions via personal opinion while incidentally violating WP:NPOV in your edit deleting a significant point of view without even attempt to explain the deletion. And you replaced the term government conspiracies to exclusively use conspiracy theories, although your stated reasoning for this reverses of the usage displayed in the article's most authoritative biographical source on Fetzer.

Further, deHaven-Smith cites Fetzer's coinvestigation into the Senator Paul Wellstone's death via possible state crime against democracy (SCAD) [Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America (University of Texas Press, 2013), pp 138 & 237]. Also, deHaven-Smith shuns the ambiguous, pejorative term conspiracy theory as one counterproductive to serious examination [pp 9 & 138]. Yet I will not hypersensitively try to bar the term conspiracy theory from the article. After all, I'm the one who Wikilinked the term government conspiracy to the Wikiarticle "Conspiracy theory". Still, I will return later to undo the flagrant if stealth violation of WP:NPOV. I will see if I can take this to arbitration or whichever option if such biased editing continues under cover of avowed purging of bad English — Occurring (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't read your gigantic explanation and neither can other readers of this article. I'm just saying to a normal English speaker your words make no sense. Bhny (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Regardless of the factual reasoning behind an edit, the final product must be coherent to the average reader of standard English. Gamaliel (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the "final product must be coherent to the average reader of standard English". I am the principal author of the entire article's wording. Is the article generally incoherent? I never posed infallibility. I conceded twice that my saying "accuser of government conspiracies" was awkward. But others wished to ignore that their saying "proponent of government conspiracies" is formally false, since Fetzer does not promote government conspiracies—he alleges them. Wikieditors apparently confuse conspiracy theories (types of explanations) with government conspiracies (types of crimes). Thus went Bhny's argument that accuser of government conspiracies "makes no sense at all". Really now, does accuser of government crimes "make no sense at all"? Perhaps not only my English competence ought to be questioned.

Perhaps since my own interests are principally theoretical science, history of science, and philosophy of science, not conspiracy theories, I do not realize that others cannot recognize such stark differences ontological—that is, conceptualizing, recognizing, and sorting into categories. Meanwhile, no other Wikieditor in the past few days has conceded fallibility, despite their demonstrably severe ontological confusions when reading, reasoning, and supposedly rebutting. Fetzer may be characterized as a "proponent of conspiracy theories" (rational), but not as a "proponent of government conspiracies" (irrational). When Bhny changed the article to say "proponent of conspiracy theories" or similar, I accepted that. I contested Bhny's unexplained deletion of the unrelated statement that Fetzer has also investigated alleged government conspiracies.

Curiously, LuckyLouie had recently argued fallaciously—via LuckyLouie's postulated binary hypothesis—that because Fetzer is a proponent of conspiracy theories (types of explanations), Fetzer did not investigate alleged government conspiracies (types of crimes). Yet that contradicts the reliable sources, which establish that Fetzer attained prominence for both. I had stated that Fetzer has been both a prominent proponent/accuser of government conspiracies—I favored accuser simply to not inadvertently state that he promotes government conspiracies:crimes—and, too, has been a prominent investigator. Fulfilling LuckyLouie's agenda, Bhny's deletion of the investigator part—without explanation—was not even approximately called for to fix "very strange wording". That is they key issue. And if Bhny can neither explain that action in an edit note nor take under five minutes to read my explanation, including that that editing was in my allegation a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV, then is Bhny posting on the Talk page principally to personally attack me? — Occurring (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Also agree. The edits to the article appear to have the same lack-of-English-comprehension problem. For example, this edit contains non sequiturs like, "They incriminated principally Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, failed to merit legal prosecution, yet claimed that not their aim—identifying causes". (Also I should point out that claims made by conspiracy theorists can't "incriminate" somebody if criminal charges are vague or unspecified.)LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Incriminate means "to cause (someone) to appear guilty of or responsible for something (such as a crime)" ["Incriminate", Merriam-Webster, 2013]. Non sequitur means "a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it" ["Non sequitur", Merriam-Webster, 2013]. Please, will you clarify where I am the one with trouble understanding and accurately writing English? Here is the entire subsection "Senator Wellstone":

"In 2002, just weeks before an imminently close election, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone died in a small airplane's crash.[10][38] Conspiracy theories about it abounded.[10] Fetzer wrote articles in an alternative newspaper incriminating top members of the Republican political party, allegedly seeking Senate control,[10][39] perhaps using an electromagnetic pulse to mediate the plane crash.[38] Thus becoming embroiled in a dispute with a Republican former prosecutor, Fetzer was sued for defamation.[10] A court of appeals found Fetzer's statements legitimately relevant to the conspiracy debate, a genuine controversy.[10] In 2004, with Don 'Four Arrows' Jacobs, Fetzer coauthored a book on it.[21][40] They incriminated principally Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, failed to merit legal prosecution, yet claimed that not their aim—identifying causes.[21] Some have found their argument strong,[11] or there at least noteworthy evidence of an intra-government role.[12]" — Occurring (talk).

As it stands right now, the article is hilariously hagiographic and treats Fetzer's "theories" with stunning credulity. Fetzer is at best a minor academic, and now a conspiracy addict, but was always a first-class self-promoter, as his own edits to this article indicate.

As far as the grammatical qusetion, "conspiracy investigator" implies the pre-existence of the conspiracy being investigated. Fetzer is a conspiracy theorist; he theorizes conspiracies for which he does not have proof. Frizzmaz (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have a strident declarations, yet provide no reliable sources cohering with them. The article version] does not claim that Fetzer's claims are proved, so your concerns seem rather hypersensitive to me. In fact, I deleted no significant content from the article, and only added some, including the indications that Fetzer's stance on the Bush administration hurt Fetzer's credibility and that Fetzer's comments on Israel and Jews have brought Fetzer's marginalization as an oddity even within the 9/11 Truth movement. I also added further criticisms, such as all expert investigations—as of 2006, at least—of the WTC collapses disagreeing with Fetzer. I also added that his own cofounder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth left because he felt that Fetzer's claims were too extreme, not scientific enough. Merely, I also added significant minority points of view, in keeping with WP:NPOV, by showing that Fetzer does have some support of his claims about Kennedy, Wellstone, and 9/11 published in reliable sources. Meanwhile, the only aspects of the article that suggest hagiography—treatment like a "saint"—are his roles in academia. If your opinions about Fetzer's role in academia are accurate, simply find WP:RS sources indicating such, and add them to the article, more or less as simple as that. — Occurring (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I never used the term conspiracy investigator. When I used the word investigator, it was in the term investigator of alleged government conspiracies, a role whereby, according to the article's reliable sources, Fetzer attained prominence as a conspiracy theorist. LuckiLouie's earlier argument, and now your reasoning, is that—via your a priori postulate trying to fit the world into the box of your expectations—it is logically impossible that Fetzer could have investigated alleged government conspiracies. What is your verification of this being? It is merely the observation that Fetzer is a conspiracy theorist! You are trying to reason via the argument form denying the consequent—logically valid without any postulates—but starting from a postulate that you arrived at by affirming the consequent, logically invalid, apparently via pop social heuristics. I will try to not even respond further to this inane reasoning whereby you and LuckiLouie ignore and try to override the article's reliable sources with your own folk philosophy of science. — Occurring (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)