Regarding these edits with the summary: "removed labels from the lead to make the article better comply with WP:BLP. the whole article read like a heck job against a living distinguished academic with social science (google) h-index >30, which is equivalent of >50 in hard science". Google h-index isn't a WP:RS we use to base text upon, and WP:BLP does not direct us to remove criticism by WP:RS. 17:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Secondary sources seem to indicate that Fetzer is primarily known for his controversial views. In this article, Fetzer seems to be frequently cited for his own academic accomplishments. It would be nice to have more secondary sources for those things. -Location (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where you say a "fringe conspiracy theorist" a lawyer would call libel, because Fetzer is not a fringe writer who all day long (primarily) writes about or promotes conspiracy theories, but an accomplished academic who occasionally voices his opinion under constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. To paint a Wikipedia article on a living academic as though a generally known conspiracy theorist (I've never heard of him before finding this article) not only violates WP:BLP but is just disgusting, plain and simple. And not only is he (and other freely speaking intellectuals like him) being slandered with this article, but editors like me are also subject to WP:WITCHHUNT.Yreuq (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't say that because freedom of speech!". What utter bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said "He can say that because of freedom of speech" -- at least in the US he can, and English Wikipedia editors should recognize that and allow Americans to exercise constitutional rights instead of labeling them this-and-that/portraying them as some lowlife criminals (while real criminals like serial killers get far more balanced articles).Yreuq (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since freedom of speech applies also to the people who disagree with Fetzer, your deletion of their speech here is closer to violating that freedom than to defending it.

The term "freedom of speech" is a red flag. Every time someone uses it to argue a specific position, one should check how it applies to the opposite position. If the best reasoning you can find for something is "I am allowed to say it", then it is utterly worthless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to everyone, but you would not have it apply to Fetzer. Why? And I don't think freedom of speech is a red flag, that's just naughty thing to say. You're either pro freedoms or you're not. And we all know that the latter group of people belong to the recycle bin of history. So yes, he is allowed to say anything he wants without being afraid of any consequences; the founding fathers formulated freedom of speech for all Americans without any "buts" or "ifs". Yreuq (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you would not have it apply to Fetzer This is a fairy tale you invented. Anything you conclude from it, well, ex falso quodlibet. It is pointless to discuss people who lie about what their opponents say, so I will stop responding here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent anything. Under US law, opinions that target no specific individual are not harmful, and Wikipedia is not a platform for witch-hunt. Yreuq (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are also skirting very closer to legal threats territory. Wikipedia follows the sources, wherever they lead. The sources indicate that a primary notability of this person is for their advocacy of conspiracy theories. In fact, if it were not for this, it is debatable that this person would be considered notable enough otherwise. No one is arguing that he does not have the freedom of speech to argue in favor of conspiracy theories. We simply report that it is described as such and leave it at that. jps (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this was just about "simply reporting" then the article would not be so heavily (biased towards) portraying this academic as someone he is not/as something he spends 0.1% of his time on, and 99.9% of the article would speak about his academic achievements. As everyone can see, my edit would make the article much more balanced and in compliance with WP:BLP).Yreuq (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia rule that says that the proportion of text per subject in an article about a person should correspond to the time the person spent on that subject. Otherwise, a third of the article would have to be about Fetzer lying in his bed and sleeping.

We follow the reliable sources. Since they concentrate on Fetzer's wacky and dangerous ideas instead of his actual work (or his periods of rest), the article has to reflect that.

If you find reliable secondary sources talking about Fetzer's actual work, you are welcome to add it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is such a rule - it's even titled WP:Neutral point of view and regarded as a major one. If you claim his words spoken well within his freedom of speech perimeters are "wacky and dangerous" (dangerous to whom?), you're keeping a side instead of being neutral, and that's the whole point. I find (countless!) articles promoting serial killers really dangerous ones (to the whole society). And no, I don't have to find new sources as they already exist in the article's lead, which nevertheless begins with "...is a conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, and professor emeritus of..." instead of "is a professor emeritus of (...) and conspiracy theorist...". Yreuq (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history shows that you were trying to remove "conspiracy theorist" and "Holocaust denier" from the lede. Are you now stating that you would just like to see "conspiracy theorist" and "Holocaust denier" appear after "professor emeritus"? BTW, you are always welcome to bring this up at WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN if you would like additional feedback. -Location (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other relatively new editors, you do not understand the guideline WP:NPOV. It does not say that we have to take the position "some say this, some say that" even when the scientific consensus clearly favors "this" and rejects "that". That would mean that Wikipedia must be halfway to Crazy Town.

To the contrary, it says Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. You should actually read the guideline before you insert a link to it.

And of course, there is no connection between NPOV and your silly percentage reasoning, my refutation of which you ignored. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The essay WP:NOTNEUTRAL is helpfully concise: "When there are competing points of view, Wikipedia does not aim for the midpoint between them. Rather, it gives weight to each view in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources." - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should be deleted from the lead, there is no need to use (let alone repeat) labels ten times per screen as one scrolls down an article. Oh, I understand everything I read, but you don't seem to: your quotes confirm my point - there's no need to present all those trifles alongside his mainstream scholarship which of itself is impressive and (academically, therefore sufficiently) notable. Finally, I didn't ignore your comment on percentages - they still stand firmly. And you should finally read WP:BLP, your ignoring it is appalling. Yreuq (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article conforms to WP:BLP policy. Fetzer is widely reported to be a Holocaust-denying conspiracy theorist. His academic career is hardly discussed at all. We will describe him as such, because policy requires us to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, he is an academically notable scholar. Everything else he ever said or wrote unrelated to his science can be dealt with as in all other academics articles - shuffled somewhere (very low in the article) under a third-level heading titled "Controversy" (note I propose this only as a middle-ground solution, but personally I don't think labels should be used as I see nothing controversial in an American expressing her/his freedom of speech guaranteed to her/him constitutionally and unconditionally as founding fathers declared it: without any buts or ifs and without fear of any consequences whatsoever). Yreuq (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:NOTFORUM. And the find something useful to do. Preferably somewhere not connected to the internet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. That amendment only applies to governmental restriction of speech, and has nothing to do with non-governmental agencies deciding to critique what someone says. The idea that the founders wanted to grant the right to say what you want without fear of any consequences whatsoever is utterly laughable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Jefferson in the Bill of Rights grants all people ("men") are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," so that they have the right to reject any government that does not secure such rights. - so government is supposed to secure such rights across the society, not just in how it conducts its governance. Founding fathers came up with the freedom of speech clause not just to keep the government at bay, but more importantly to instate the spirit of freedom into all Americans. Mainstream media (including English Wikipedia) over the past few decades began taking the role of the British colonial government, and are literally (through various forms of pressure, including psychological banned under international treaties) suspending this key freedom/taking it away from Americans. So government or shadow government via various groups that misuse Wikipedia (we all know proven examples of interference by MOSSAD and CIA) - the result is the same. Under US law, opinions are harmless by definition: while Fetzer's labeling opinion about no particular individual are not libel, labeling opinions about the individual by name James Fetzer are libel. Yreuq (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is time, Yreuq, for you to recognize that your desired content for this article is not going to achieve consensus here (or at WP:FTN), with several experienced editors in good standing having clearly explained, multiple times, why your desired content is not acceptable. That being the case, I suggest that you now drop the stick and move on to something else. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: In December 2015 Tasnim News Agency published an interview with Fetzer here in which he claims the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the November 2015 Paris attacks, and the Islamic State beheading incidents were staged. He also believes Wikipedians were involved. No joke. -Location (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions that target no particular individual are not harmful under US law, and Wikipedia is not a platform for witch-hunt. Yreuq (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]