Talk:James Fetzer

Contributors who may be connected to this article

Deleted the "conspiracy theorist" labeling from lead

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

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

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

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

Might I add that it is allowed to add in the "Controversial views" section that some journalists call Fetzer a conspiracy theorist. This would conform to Wikipedia guidelines79.182.21.160 (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not consistent, at times, but is there anyone (reliable) who does not call him a conspiracy theorist? If not, and if one of this is a BLP-reliable source, then it should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here he is called an "Auther" http://www.sfgate.com/music/thewatch/article/Here-s-your-Thanksgiving-escape-route-4057966.php

and here is used "philosophical research" http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

and here he is called "An American university professor and political analyst" http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/01/275616/speech-freedom-essential-for-our-future/

and here "McKnight Professor Emeritus in the philosophy of science" http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur124756.html?lang=en

and here "Scholar and author" http://www.skeptiko.com/james-fetzer-jfk-assassination-science/

and here they just describe his resume http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfetzer.htm

In both interviews on Foxnews (Orielly + Hannity) they present him formally as a Philosophy professor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGWYyKNTPEc , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXEPhuq2tI8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.8.57 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The best unloaded and NPOV wording for this WP article should be "Conspiracy researcher"79.176.8.57 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced. "Conspiracy theorist" is sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not support the IP in demanding not to call him a conspiracy theorist, but after some more reading I do actually support Fetzer in that he is not to be called like this in the first place. As he wrote himself in his blog in August:

"The first change to the text is that I am no longer identified first as an "American philosopher" who is also a conspiracy theorist, but now as an "American conspiracy theorist" who is also a philosopher, even though of the 29 books that I have published 24 are in philosophy and only 5 deal with conspiracies. But they wanted to tarnish me with the label of being a "conspiracy theorist", because it is so useful politically as an ad hominem attack regardless of the quality of one's research."

And at least to some degree, he's right. Being a retired philosophy professor is a hard fact, making him relevant per se, and this has certainly contributed a lot to his reception as a conspiracy theorist. He might be primarily known for his work on conspiracies, but still this does not justify to highlight this as the primary fact. I definitely suggest to swap orders again, in the first sentence as well as in the following paragraphs listing his papers. --KnightMove (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you think contributes more to his notability; being a conspiracy theorist, or a philosopher? What do we give most weight to in the article? If most of the weight was for his work, you would have a point, but it's not the case. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hum. I think this leads to a debate on principles and will reflect a little more. --KnightMove (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, he is most wellknown for his work on conspiracy theories. He'd be barely notable without it. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Although Fetzer would likely pass WP:PROF #5 (i.e. he has held a "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research[1]), there is no doubt that he is primarily known for his views regarding various conspiracy theories and that is where the weight should be. I do think an argument could be made either way regarding the order in which the lede presents this information since he received the "Distinguished Professor" appointment in 1996 before the majority of his conspiracy work occurred. I have no strong objections to rewording the lede to something like this: James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940 in Pasadena, California) is a retired American philosophy professor and conspiracy theorist. - Location (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between Fetzer and Iranian government

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

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

Fetzer vs. Thompson

The subject inserted the following into the article:

Fetzer, in turn, has been severely critical of Thompson in multiple articles, including "JFK, the CIA and The New York Times".

[1] =http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/]

with the following edit summary:

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

I have reverted the addition given that there is a plethora of primary source material indicating that Fetzer is critical of many different people and organization. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or platform for the entirety of his views and opinions, particularly those that have not received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Location (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is grossly unfair. Josiah Thompson has been attacking me relentlessly since I organized and moderated the Zapruder Film Symposium at the JFK Lancer Conference in 1996. We have had intense, bitter exchanged hundreds and hundreds of times. To cite him specifically as though he were representative of a wide-spread opinion is completely disgraceful. If you want to cite him, then at least allow me to cite a study of my own in which I critique his role in the JFK research community. This one-sided approach makes a mockery of your professed dedication to "all points of view", especially when my views (about the fabrication of the film, for example) are more scientific and better founded.24.177.119.16 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)James H. Fetzer

The section is not about your views of your critics. It is about your views on the Kennedy assassination and assessment of those views by others, and it must be built upon information that appears in reliable secondary sources. Primary and self-published sources bring bias to the article. If you believe this to be unfair, there are various noticeboards in which you could seek further input (see Wikipedia:Noticeboards.) Location (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a statement from the same objective source you use for Thompson, which explains my point of view. It is verifiable, objective and from an equally reliable source, which is in fact the same source. It deserves to be retained.24.177.119.16 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Jim Fetzer

Press TV is a RS on Fetzer's viewpoints

Press TV may be a source of outrageous conspiracy theories supported by Ahmadinijad, but it is the official news agency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and therefore it is a reliable source for the viewpoints of Fetzer. Fetzer also contributes to Veterans Today which appears to be simply an American-branded outlet for PressTV's government approved stories. Press TV was widely condemned by the western media for blaming Sandy Hook on Israel, but that does make it a notable and independent source on information on Fetzer who has consistently sided with Iran and its allies and against the United States, Israel, and its allies. There is enough information out there to make the case the Fetzer, and just about any other American who writes for Press TV are acting as as American-branded media spokesmen for Iran, but deleting any mention of people like Fetzer just because they are rarely mentioned in the western media is not helpful. In fact, removing such references and people from Wikipedia may be part of a deliberate strategy to remove their presence from the scrutiny of western media Redhanker (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the article:

In a PressTV column Fetzer accused Mossad of carrying out the Sandy Hook school massacre, as part of a Department of Homeland Security plot to confiscate civilian weapons as part of a process of "gearing up to conduct a massive civil war against the American people." Claiming that "the killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel," Fetzer further linked the Mossad's alleged role in the killings at Sandy Hook to alleged Mossad involvement in the Utøya massacre by Anders Behring Breivik. In the Utøya massacre, Mossad was supposedly taking revenge for Norway's support for sanctions on Israel. In the case of Sandy Hook, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanhu was purportedly angered by American failure to approve military strikes on Iran.

[2]=http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/20/279183/israeli-death-squad-massacred-us-children/

[3]=http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/23/mossad-death-squads-slaughtered-american-children-at-sandy-hook/

We've already been over this. Given that Fetzer has views on everything and everyone, we cannot pick and choose which primary source material to add to the article. The article should incorporate coverage of his views that have been published in reliable secondary sources and are independent of the subject (i.e. not written directly by him). Location (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You ARE picking and choosing to remove the very media outlets, Press TV and Veterans Today that are the primary promoters of Fetzer's viewpoints, and both are heavily linked to the government of Iran. The Washington Post specifically condemns Press TV, which makes it a RS for the viewpoint of Iran, and therefore, also a viewpoint of Fetzer, who is essentially parroting an officially approved viewpoint of the Ahmadinejad government http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/18/irans-state-run-news-network-blames-israeli-death-squads-for-sandy-hook-shooting/ Iran’s state-run news network blames ‘Israeli death squads’ for Sandy Hook shooting

Posted by Max Fisher on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 am "Iran’s state-run media outlet PressTV, which broadcasts in English, on Tuesday carried a story blaming Israel for the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. PressTV has a well-earned reputation for incendiary anti-Israel stories and for wild conspiracy theories, but even this seems a far stretch for the organization, which maintains a bureau office in the District." Redhanker (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The goal here is not to simply pass along sources that promote Fetzer's viewpoints, but rather to include sources that meet the RS criteria. So, yes, we "pick and choose" sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. It is not enough to re-publish in Wikipedia ever self-published thought that Fetzer may post about. When in doubt, take it to WP:RSN. Location (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Press TV is not self-published. It is reflects the official editorial opinion of the government of Iran. To the extent that Veterans Today also publishes content or supports Press TV, it also reflects positions that have the editorial approval of Iran. There is an entire article devoted to Press TV controversies which are notable. WP does not remove propogandists for WWII Germany or Japan or Soviet Russia or Israel simply because their only outlets were government approved news agencies. That Fetzer holds viewpoints that are congruent with Iranian conspiracy theories or neo-nazi such as holocaust denial have largely been removed because of the position that Press TV is not a RS for the views of the government of Iran or its spokesmen, which makes no sense. Redhanker (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Veterans Today source explicitly states: "Posted by Jim Fetzer" at the top. Regarding the Press TV source, it is primary source material. On this, WP:BLPPRIMARY states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Per the discussion at WP:RSN, let's see if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html fits the requirement of a reliable secondary source. Location (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Press TV hands over the megaphone to Fetzer

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

This article has the title "Iran Propaganda 101: Mass Killing of Children in Connecticut --- The Jews Did It"

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

Done. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView. Location (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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