Talk:James Fetzer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Babble

This article is filled with incoherent sentences like the following: "To publicly combat Fetzer's claims, a former prosecutor, Republican, formed a chat room, where his own lost privilege to practice law and past charges of sexual harassment was aired by Fetzer, sued for defamation in Bieter v Fetzer." Not only is it ungrammatical, it's unintelligible. It appears to be several separate claims fused together. So, someone created an anti-Feltzer chatroom. Feltzer used it to accuse the person who founded it of various misdeeds. Feltzer was then sued for defamation by this person. Am I getting this right? Paul B (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence of mine that you quoted is quite grammatical. Yet you ironically make a fitting if unintended criticism. I ought to write so that individuals of lesser reading ability can understand it. I think that we have a demonstrable problem of your making severely exaggerated allegations that are self-contradictory [seen here]. Occurring (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You really are an utter jerk, aren't you? Your long rambling sentence is so incoherent that it is far from clear to any reader who is suing whom about what. If you had tried to answer the questions I asked we might have been able to progress, but your sole interest seems to be the need to maintain belief in your perfection. My advice: learn to write and try to listen. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You were just trying to make "progress" by asking merely a "question" in a new talkpage section that you titled "Babble"? You open by calling the article "filled with incoherent sentences", and then directly quoted one I wrote. Immediately, then, you asserted, "Not only is it ungrammatical, it's unintelligible". Then as if startled at a new discovery, you note, "It appears to be several separate claims fused together". Well, yes, that is how most sentences are encountered by second grade.

By the time I posted here in this talkpage section, you were already at the Fringe noticeboard similarly smearing my writing as absolutely horrible. Yet atop that, you complained of me allegedly ruining other articles, too. For that, you cited "Instrumentalism". You accused me of faking citations in it by writing within the citations my own fringe theories via original research. Yet I placed quotation marks within the citations since I was directly quoting Samir Okasha's Philosophy of Science (Oxford University Press, 2002), the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Roberto Torretti's Philosophy of Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1999). My "original research" must be great!

Even here, you managed to interpret my "incoherent" and "unintelligible" sentence fully correctly! Maybe the problem is not my "fringe theories", my "incoherent" and "ungrammatical" and "unintelligible" writing, and my "fake" citations being decoded by your omniscience and omnipotence. Maybe there is, indeed, also "lesser reading ability". It is not a crime that some students need longer to finish on reading tests, nothing to be ashamed of until some people turn English composition into a war of who is omniscient on grammar and who is absolutely horrible [1]. You called me bombastic and narcissistic on the Fringe board, and now, here, call me not even a jerk, but an "utter jerk". That said, I will try to write for a wider range of reading levels, although that will make the article longer, and much less swift a read at higher reading levels.

—

Fake citation #1: "If you had [simply] tried to [ask] the questions [you] asked we might have been able to progress, but your sole interest seems to be the need to maintain belief in your perfection. My advice: learn to write [very well and without making absolute, categorical accusations and insults and belittlement before your questions] and try to listen [without being hypersensitive]". Now will you stop the personal attacks? — Occurring (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize, since there was one grammatical error in my sentence: the word was ought to have been were (as I clarified hours ago on the Fringe noticeboard). And I could have stated it clearer. I could have stated, "To publicly combat Fetzer's claims, a former prosecutor, Whoever Bieter, a Republican, formed a chat room, soon exploited by Fetzer to reveal Bieter's lost privilege to practice law and past charges of sexual harassment. The defamation case Bieter v Fetzer ensued". You see how simple it is? I have no problem improving my writing. And in fact, my citation quoted verbatim a book summarizing what happened. So unless you titled this talkpage section "Babble" to confess, you could have titled it "Bashing". Occurring — (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

fringe theories tag restored

Until I get to cleaning out all the primary-sourced WP:FRINGE stuff, for which there is sufficient support on this talk page to proceed and which I hope to get to soon, I am restoring the "fringe theories" tag. Fleenier (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The entirety of a banner atop WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. (In other words, by your own argument, you indirectly assert that Fetzer's viewpoint on government-conspiracy theories is not a minority viewpoint, but is instead a mainstream idea.) Occurring (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's rather painful to have to simplify this so much, and cut your food into such little tiny bites for you, but apparently it's necessary. Fetzer's scholastic work is mainstream. An article about them is not out of place and is not WP:FRINGE. Fetzer's conspiracy nonsense is not mainstream but WP:FRINGE. It should not be explicated in depth here but briefly noted, where and only where those notings are supported by WP:RS rather than primary sources. Hope this helps. Please don't reply three times in a row with tedious walls of text. Fleenier (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, read the "nutshell" about twenty more times, each time paying close attention to individual words and how they are connected. Occurring (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove "Conspiracy claims" section?

Should we remove the "Conspiracy claims" section?

To me it seems to be a mess of WP:FRINGE claims given undue WP:WEIGHT.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fetzer does have some conspiracy claims that are notable, but right now we're giving too much space to those that aren't. The section needs to be cut back to claims and comments that have been covered by RS secondary sources that are independent. There's too much being cited to primary sources of Fetzer himself, his writings in Veterans Today, his comments on conspiracy radio talk shows, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article is not to reflect the balance of some 7 billion people's view, to mirror Joe Public, to recite Western governments, or to echo American mass media. It is to reveal what that topic's devoted researchers and scholars indicate on that topic. University of California Press describing one of Peter Dale Scott's books closes, "He", that is, Scott, "shows how, in implementing these agendas, U.S. intelligence agencies have become involved with terrorist groups they once backed and helped create, including al Qaeda" ["The Road to 9/11", UC Press website, accessed 29 May 2014].

UC Press published that book by Scott the year after Scott contributed a chapter to Fetzer's edited book on 9/11 ["The 9/11 Conspiracy", Open Court website, accessed 29 May 2014]. The Fetzer article has a mainstream area and, apart from that, it has a minority area. In the mainstream area, which is philosophy of science, Fetzer's views were and are authoritative. In the minority area, which is alleged government conspiracies, Fetzer's major views are controversial and contested, far from fringe. They would be a fringe in the Obama article. — Occurring (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that any of it is more than "Views that are held by a tiny minority [which] should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)". (WP:UNDUE). We have existing articles on JFK conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories etc - those would be the equivalent of the 'flat earth' article in the example given in policy. We could say that he's a leading proponent of those theories, and wikilink to the theories themselves.

OTOH, which views do you think do deserve coverage? IIUC the 'bar' isn't notability, it's representation "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that to a large extent, except that that is clearly biased to be so brief, and that I lack clue what OTOH and IIUC are. It is normal practice on Wikipedia to have sections discussing a thinker's views. The acute problem with the article—its genuine undue weight—is that it lacks discussion of his views in philosophy. He is a heavyweight among scientists and scholars for that, and so the article is heavily biased toward conspiracy discussion, the more actual reason that the conspiracy discussion might be cut back. Yet as to the conspiracy claims, Fetzer is perhaps the globe's leading conspiracy theorist known for the most thorough investigations of JFK's assassination from the controversial perspective. And he launched the 9/11 Truth movement among scholars. Fetzer's major conspiracy theories are merely controversial, but are far from fringe by now among scientists and scholars who do investigate them. The mere refusal of most scientists and scholars to investigate or even comment on them is far different from scientists and scholars universally rejecting a flat Earth. Occurring (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry.

OTOH = On The Other Hand

IIUC = If I Understand Correctly.

See also: WP:FLAT.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I could see getting rid of the stuff sourced only to Veterans Today, Russia Today, or Press TV, none of which are WP:RS (to put it mildly). Fetzer would still be notable as a truther via the BBC reference. I don't think any mainstream sources have picked up on his Holocaust denial yet. I've cleared a lot of stuff away, but there's more than can go. Fleenier (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And yet somehow I myself am the one who have made the article most strongly suggest that Fetzer supports Holocaust denialism. But, yes, you can get your way, and we shall have to remove that since, as you point out, it is not yet in mainstream sources. So how do you not notice that I have, by your own suggestion, violated Wikipedia guidelines to criticize Fetzer? And why when you edited earlier, did you not delete that? Occurring (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also source #8 Paraview Press: "primarily publishes books on mind, body, and spirit and the frontiers of science and culture. ... publishes original books, by using on-demand print technology". Doesn't look much like an RS to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What you fail to gather is that, actually, it is a reliable source, is merely lower in the hierarchy of reliable sources. So your notion that it cannot be in the article suggests your confusion, not understanding Occurring (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I'll do some pruning, which will probably mean removing a lot of extraneous stuff in the next couple days. Unfortunately ther's an editor who is not getting the message. Fleenier (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your own editing for "a lot of extraneous stuff" is that you even delete reliable sources, including a book by publisher Random House, but keep only the harsh criticism of Fetzer that I myself added. Occurring (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The irony of this was that LuckyLouie was the one who called for the elaboration and elucidation of the reception to Fetzer's claims by adding the fringe tag and wholly stating, "Odd that there's no 'reception' or 'criticism' for the many fringe theories presented here. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to present how the fringe view differs from mainstream view" [difference]. When the article really was just a board for Fetzer's conspiracy claims made in primary sources, none of this criticism was being aired [difference before/after my very first edit at this Fetzer article]. Why does all of this criticism come only once I show—as LuckyLouie urged—the reception of Fetzer's "many fringe theories"? (I already explained that there are not even "many fringe theories presented here" [here]) Could it be that, actually, I have made Fetzer merely appear not wholly crazy? Occurring (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The entirety of a banner atop WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

Severely biased editing

WP:UNDUE instructs to include all major viewpoints and significant minority viewpoints published in reliable sources, and that undue weight is generally to receive restatement and further information, not deletion of reliably sourced material. On 26 Mar 2014, one editor wholly claimed to have "removed some irrelevancies" [1]; I restored the sourced material, but stated it more moderately, whereupon the editor wholly reverted it while supposedly "removing extraneous soapboxing" [2]. Somehow, that editor deleted Fetzer's strongest point of fact and areas of support as to his conspiracy claims, but kept the strong criticism and contradiction of Fetzer's conspiracy claims. Ironically, the editor failed to find a journalist Bill O'Reilly's mere rhetoric via logical fallacies and namecalling—weak criticism—to not be "irrelevancies" or "extraneous soapboxing". Yet all of my indications can found associated within the reliable sources with Fetzer or his activities as leader of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

I had added all of the above in order to include all major and significant minority viewpoints—not merely viewpoints that are defensible—published in reliable sources. It is a major viewpoint when a number of mainstream physicists, engineers, and onetime US government officials have cast public support for Fetzer's primary and strongest argument that the speed of the 9/11 collapses of the Twin Towers violated a fundamental principle of modern physics and warranted the conclusion of controlled demotion, whereas the official story's strongest counterargument via the NIST is ignoring that principle of modern physics. I was not the one who even sought to include that until a recent editor had called for including mainstream views posed against Fetzer's views. If one insists to remove that, then we must remove also the namecalling and rhetoric quoted against Fetzer as well as even the actually cogent arguments against Fetzer's claims. — Occurring (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No, 9/11 conspiracies are not a "major viewpoint" in the WP sense. They are WP:FRINGE. Fleenier (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion is confused, perhaps unwitting bias despite your perhaps editing in good faith. This article is not the place to battle solely major versus fringe viewpoints on "9/11 conspiracies". The topic in the § "Conspiracy claims" is Fetzer's major and related public stances and activities concerning his own conspiracy claims resulting in his public influence and its reception from all major viewpoints and significant minority viewpoints published in reliable sources. To warrant large deletion of sourced material, cite reliable sources more authoritative and overwhelming. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy.

Your editing revealed your "major viewpoint" on the "9/11 conspiracy" to be a journalist's glib, a priori dismissal via logical fallacies like argument from popularity, argument from numbers, argument from ignorance, and namecalling along with the fallacious appeal to authority. You deleted the major viewpoint of mainstream physicists—apparently fringe in your "major viewpoint"—who have specifically assessed the collapse of the Towers independently of US government and via the movement that Fetzer launched. Yet the physicists' conclusion that the Towers' collapse violated conservation of momentum unless the steel columns were blown out asserts nothing in itself as to whether explosives were set via American elite or via Osama bin Laden. So why delete the major view of concerned physicists? Occurring (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A WP:FRINGE physicist is still WP:FRINGE. Trutherism is WP:FRINGE at WP. Please read up on WP policy on fringe, and you'll see why the material doesn't belong here, and why you wouldn't prevail in contesting that. Sorry if you don't like it, but there it is. Fleenier (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Will you clarify how Jones was a fringe physicist? Occurring (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your characterization of Steven E. Jones as a fringe physicist is preposterous, exhibiting downright confusion nearly without excuse about how to even define fringe physicist versus mainstream physicist. Jones was well known among applied physicists, and did not retire while professor emeritus for nothing. As a professor, he had gained tenure, how he could "risk" investigating 9/11 without losing his job. Occurring (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Will you show where at WP:FRINGE supports you agenda? It seems to me you still have not even read the first sentence. And doing a search for Trutherism on the page or even a search for 9/11, I found nothing. Since since you seem to know where, just quote it and put it here. Occurring (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The entirety of a banner atop WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell : To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. So you think that Fetzer's view is mainstream! Occurring (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Occurring, you are absolutely wrong about the "mainstream" view of 9/11. There is no truth to your statement: It is a major viewpoint when a number of mainstream physicists, engineers, and onetime US government officials have cast public support for Fetzer's primary and strongest argument that the speed of the 9/11 collapses of the Twin Towers violated a fundamental principle of modern physics and warranted the conclusion of controlled demotion, whereas the official story's strongest counterargument via the NIST is ignoring that principle of modern physics. (Well, there is a little truth. Only that he, and a number of people who have no idea what the appropriate field of expertise for discussing the 9/11 collapse is, and are not experts in that field, hold opposing views.) His views on 9/11 are WP:FRINGE, and should be treated as such...and it's what he is best known for, so should have a prominent place in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, you are absolutely wrong about what I said: not a mainstream viewpoint on 9/11, whoever did what on that day, but a mainstream viewpoint on physics, the speed of collapse at virtually a free fall. Yes, Fetzer's views on 9/11 are fringe in an article about a mainstream topic. But, as you stated, this is not an article about a mainstream topic. Therefore, exactly as I said, the mainstream view about physics must at least be mentioned in this article. I did not even give the opinion of mainstream physicists a central place in the article, but merely included it in the article since it is central in the controversy. And it got deleted, and so I restored it, and explained why it must at least be included. So apart from your misreading by holding 9/11 as synonym to physics, thank you for making exactly my point. Finally, someone besides me at least inadvertently—perhaps since it could seemingly be spoken against me—spoke some sense on this talkpage. Thank you. Occurring (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, read this: a number of mainstream physicists, engineers, and onetime US government officials have cast public support for Fetzer's primary and strongest argument that the speed of the 9/11 collapses of the Twin Towers violated a fundamental principle of modern physics and warranted the conclusion of controlled demotion, whereas the official story's strongest counterargument via the NIST is ignoring that principle of modern physics. Is that false, or is that true? If that is false, point out what is false. I already well cited it in the article with reliable sources, including a book from Random House, contradicted by nothing that anyone here has cited at all. In the scope of this topic, which itself is a minority topic, it is—what I actually said is—a major viewpoint within this article. I was not trying to say it as a major viewpoint in the article "Physics". Occurring (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome of counterarguments to substantial change planned

The entirety of a banner atop WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

Via the "nutshell", the arguments by others in the above sections that the Fetzer article violates Wikipedia guidelines on fringe theories are arguments self-contradictory, except my point out that the Fetzer article fails to present his views in philosophy, which yield Fetzer's mainstream role in society: the article is severely biased and violates WP:FRINGE in the regard that I have stated. Unless cogent and strong, not merely vehement, counterarguments are made here, I will greatly prune the section "Conspiracy claims" by collapsing much of it into notes, rendering its body mostly just brief conclusions of major points. Meanwhile, I will clearly review the mainstream viewpoint in the subsection "Middle Eastern affairs" to undo what I see as the only even reasonable violation of "nutshell" (although my "substantial change" might abolish that subsection). Occurring (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we certainly should add more about his mainstream academic contribution. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. I'm restoring the tag, although I'm not yet restoring the required criticism. We should add more about his mainstream academic contribution, but we should also add mainstream criticism of his theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There was plenty of criticism. As I had edited the article to make it mostly criticism or disagreement. — Occurring (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

This article should be based primarily on secondary sources. Much of the content from secondary sources seems like original research. We should be reporting what secondary sources say not analyzing and interpreting them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

All of the "analyzing and interpreting" of secondary sources was in notes, and it was summarizing Fetzer's claims—themselves elaborate—while the secondary sources did the reporting. Perhaps there was a dash of misinterpretation, which could be corrected by your simply showing us how to summarize/report it better. We cannot learn from vague speculations about "Much of the content". — Occurring (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

remove "Fringe" tag?

Since the conspiracy section was trimmed back to a more realistic size, does it still need the "Fringe" tag placed there when it was still metastasizing? If I don't hear otherwise in a couple weeks, I'll go ahead and remove it. Fleenier (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

The intro talks about holocaust denial from Fetzer's part, but the article itself does not contain anything about that. I assume something has been deleted for lack of source and someone forgot to delete that from the intro? Anyway, I suggest deleting this from the intro and deleting the "holocaust deniers" category. Asavaa (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two sources in the lead that support this, feel free to use them to add content to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

One of those links is apparently now dead - school year turnover - but I've added a quote from the other. AnnaLiver (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Promotion of conspiracy theories

Do Fetzer's bizarre conspiracy theories have a place in this encyclopedia - and if so, how are they to be included? At present, they are listed but not sufficiently challenged despite being dubious (at best). Of course, he is entirely free to make completely irrational claims – but that doesn’t make them true, even if reliable sources report him making them. By their very nature, totally whacko claims can't be rebutted – Fetzer could claim that Barack Obama used a time-machine to assassinate Abe Lincoln; his claim itself could be reported if it became newsworthy, but the proof that the event didn't happen that way would be hard to find! (My apologies in advance if he makes such a nonsense claim and it finds its way into a news report anytime soon…) JezGrove (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James H. Fetzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311232106/http://www.citypages.com/2006-06-28/news/the-man-who-thought-he-knew-too-much/ to http://www.citypages.com/2006-06-28/news/the-man-who-thought-he-knew-too-much

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit to intro

The new edit has been sourced to The University of Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.90.157 (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Professor Fetzer's Rethink on 911

Dr Fetzer interviewed two researchers who propose the 'Hollow Towers' theory. That is the Theory that says the WTC were basically two empty Towers for the most part that were brought down by controlled demolition and were the sensational centre of a TV Spectacular that day in New York City full of TV special effects. After listening to the two researchers Dr Fetzer was silent for a moment then said 'what I find so disturbing about the facts you present is that I cannot refute any of them' . Which would mean, no Israel, no C.I.A. no Mossad, no President Bush, no FEMA involvement. And no deaths at the WTC. So all of Mr Fetzer's colourful stories of vast conspiracies involving the people and organisations he usually accuses seemed to fall apart in front of him. A similar comparison could be made of Dallas in 1963 were Dr Fetzer has built a vast conspiracy theory involving (here we go again) Israel, the C.I.A. Oil Tycoons and the Mossad. Like 911, Dallas is increasingly seen as a TV special, that time with men in Cowboy Hats, Gangster Suits and American Pressmen suits. Johnwrd (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Consciousness Evolving

Consciousness Evolving fails WP:NBOOK, so should not be a separate article. TeraTIX 12:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

On further reflection, I don't believe this merge is controversial enough to require discussion. TeraTIX 12:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit by Sandy Hook survivors not included yet?

It's been covered in plenty of legit media:

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Father-of-Sandy-Hook-victim-sues-extremists-on-13442286.php

https://www.twincities.com/2018/12/04/sandy-hook-father-lenny-pozner-noah-sues-wisconsin-author-james-fetzer-promote-conspiracy-theory/

https://www.courant.com/hartford-magazine/hc-hm-leonard-pozner-honr-20190224-20190219-4ylgafrxerh5djcqsbhk67ekba-story.html

https://www.apnews.com/01ea34c3c4d940d6b91d2c7d544e99bd

"The father of a six-year-old boy who was slain in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre has sued two conspiracy extremists who claimed he forged his son’s death certificate.

The father, Leonard Pozner, whose son Noah was among the 26 first-graders and educators killed by a gunman at Sandy Hook School, sued James Fetzer and Mike Palecek, co-editors of “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook,” on defamation and conspiracy charges.

“[The} defendants acted together, as a cabal, to accomplish their defamation,” reads an 11-page complaint, filed Nov. 27 in Wisconsin Circuit Court. “[The] defendants’ defamatory publications were designed to harm (Pozner’s) reputation and subject (him) to public contempt, disgrace, ridicule or attack.”

The lawsuit - the latest in a string of defamation cases filed by Sandy Hook families against conspiracy extremists - does not name the amount of money it is seeking in damages.

Fetzer, reached at his home in Oregon, Wisc., on Tuesday, said he stood by his belief that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax."

SKyle666 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The trial for damages starts October 2019.

A Dane County judge on Monday found that a longtime conspiracy theorist living in the village of Oregon, along with his co-defendant, defamed the father of a victim of the Sandy Hook massacre and allowed a trial for damages against the men to move ahead.

Neither Fetzer nor Palecek was represented by an attorney. “Nobody wants to touch” their case, Fetzer said.

Zimmerman said a trial to award his client damages is to be set for October. Pozner is asking for $1 million.

— Chris Rickert, "Judge rules against Sandy Hook denier from Dane County; trial for damages is next step", Madison.com, 10 July 2019

https://madison.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-rules-against-sandy-hook-denier-from-dane-county-trial/article_b790c442-ba2e-5ca1-a69b-5df2f474396d.html

Copy of complaint:

https://huntingfororcs.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/pozner-v.-fetzer-civil-complaint-11-27-18.pdf

--Tangurena (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Some source material to update the main page with:

From Wisconsin State Journal:

A Dane County jury on Tuesday decided a village of Oregon conspiracy theorist must pay the father of a boy killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings $450,000 for falsely claiming that the father circulated fabricated copies of his son’s death certificate.

— Chris Rickert, "Jury awards Sandy Hook father $450,000 for defamation by local conspiracy theorist", Madison.com, 16 October 2019

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/jury-awards-sandy-hook-father-for-defamation-by-local-conspiracy/article_cdc741bf-4186-5ff3-af0c-e38be9f26592.html

MADISON, Wis. — A jury in Wisconsin has awarded $450,000 to the father of a boy killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting after he filed a defamation lawsuit against conspiracy theorist writers who claimed the massacre never happened.

A Dane County jury on Tuesday decided the amount James Fetzer must pay Leonard Pozner, whose 6-year-old son Noah was among the 26 victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec. 14, 2012.

Fetzer, a retired University of Minnesota Duluth professor now living in Wisconsin, and Mike Palacek co-wrote a book, "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," in which they claimed the Sandy Hook shooting never took place but was instead an event staged by the federal government as part of an Obama administration effort to enact tighter gun restrictions. A judge earlier ruled Pozner was defamed by statements in the book that claimed he fabricated copies of his son's death certificate.

Fetzer called the damages amount "absurd" and said he would appeal.

Palacek reached a settlement with Pozner last month, terms of which were not disclosed.

Pozner has been pushing back for years against hoaxers who have harassed him, subjected him to death threats and claimed that he was an actor and his son never existed. He has spent years getting Facebook and others to remove conspiracy videos and set up a website to debunk conspiracy theories.

Others who lost relatives in the Newtown shooting have joined the fight lately after quietly enduring harassment and ridiculous assertions for years. Their efforts have turned the tables on the hoaxers. A defamation case by Sandy Hook parents against Alex Jones, host of the conspiracy-driven "Infowars" website, is pending.

Pozner thanked the jury "for recognizing the pain and terror that Mr. Fetzer has purposefully inflicted on me and on other victims of these horrific mass casualty events, like the Sandy Hook shooting," and emphasized that his case was not about First Amendment protections, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

"Mr. Fetzer has the right to believe that Sandy Hook never happened," he said. "He has the right to express his ignorance. This award, however, further illustrates the difference between the right of people like Mr. Fetzer to be wrong and the right of victims like myself and my child to be free from defamation, free from harassment and free from the intentional infliction of terror."

Pozner testified during the trial that he's been repeatedly harassed by people who don't believe the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, including through messages posted to photos of his son on a memorial website. He said Fetzer's writing caused him to worry about his safety and his family's safety and how his surviving children could be treated. One of his two daughters is Noah's twin.

— Associated Press, "Wisconsin jury awards $450,000 in Sandy Hook defamation case against retired UMD professor", StarTribune.com, 16 October 2019

http://www.startribune.com/wisconsin-jury-awards-450-000-in-sandy-hook-defamation-case/563202082/

Several years ago a small publishing house called Moon Rock Books published a 455-page volume that argued the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre had never happened.

In a dozen chapters, the book professed, among other things, that the school in Newtown, Conn., had been abandoned years before a gunman killed 20 first graders and six staff members.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, it claimed, had staged the event to promote gun control measures. And Leonard Pozner, the father of the youngest child to die that day, had faked his 6-year-old son’s death certificate in service of the conspiracy, it claimed.

On Monday, Mr. Pozner, who has made it his life’s work to stop those who would seek to deny the Dec. 14, 2012, school shooting, won a key challenge: A judge ruled for the first time that Mr. Pozner had been defamed by the publication of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control.”

Mr. Pozner is also suing Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars, over his assertions that the massacre was an elaborately staged ruse meant to promote gun control. That case is proceeding in Texas. Separately, another case against Mr. Jones brought by relatives of five children and three adults killed in the shooting, along with one F.B.I. agent who responded to the scene, is proceeding in Connecticut.

In 2016, a Florida woman, Lucy Richards, was sentenced to five months in prison for sending Mr. Pozner death threats. She was also banned from visiting websites run by conspiracy theorists, including Mr. Fetzer’s.

Mr. Pozner, 51, said he lives in hiding because of ongoing harassment by Sandy Hook hoaxers. Noah was also survived by his mother, Veronique De La Rosa, a twin sister, Arielle, now 13, and an older sister, Sophia, 14.

— Sharon Otterman, "Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theorist Loses to Father of 6-Year-Old Victim Over Hoax", New York Times, 16 June 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/sandy-hook-victim-court-ruling.html

Tangurena (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There's too much puffery in his bio

I presume it was added by him or one of his fans. Are minor awards he won at the very beginning of his academic career or even in HS really relevant?

Lenbrazil (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Fetzer has essentially zero notability as a philosopher and would, with 100 percent certainty, not have an article here if not for his inflammatory writings denying the holocaust, sandy hook, the moon landing, etc. I could name 1000 philosophers more notable than Fetzer qua philosopher who lack articles here. Encyclopedia Logic (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if he is more notable as a conspiracy theorist than as a former University professor of the philosophy of science, in his article/bio here WP should enumerate his functions/achievements in the correct chronological order, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Re the puffery and WP:RESUME-like quality of the article, I agree, a majority of his publications, whether it is a paper, a book, or a chapter in someone's book, are cited only to themselves. There is little to no third-party coverage of them. This suggests they're not really notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)