Talk:Webster Tarpley

message: - Where was he born?
- When was he born?
These two informations should stand on top of the article, as they do on most other people's biography  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that quite many articles lack these basic facts, i.e. when someone was born, and where. I think that is a basic information that needs to be included for these kind of articles. The article grows and grows, but people have no slightest idea of the origin of a person. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Information 

message: It seems to me that the name of this page has been changed from Webster Tarpley to Webster G. Tarpley. Not a good change. Tarpley goes by the name Webster Griffin Tarpley or else simply by Webster Tarpley. I don't think he uses the form Webster G. Tarpley much. There are only 33,000 Google hits on "Webster G. Tarpley" and 238,000 on "Webster Tarpley."
How can we change the name back? 
Also, is it possible to get an archive copy of the deleted page (and the deletion discussion) for his book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror? JPLeonard 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of page should be Webster Tarpley, not Webster G. Tarpley  

message: Thanks for making the name change.
What about external links (Audio, video)? Why were those deleted?JPLeonard 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I found the Wiki page for our #1 non fiction reviewer on Amazon. I also spoke to him and asked how we can verify he is #1 non fiction reviewer. He said that last time he checked the list, everybody ahead of him reviewed fiction, movies, dvd's etc, so he was the top in non-fiction. 
Robert has a fascinating suggestion about how to improve Wikipedia, which I think could be really useful, because I have found it can be so frustrating that it is not worth the time adding material to have it torn down in 24 hours. He wrote at his own Wiki entry discussion page:  
"I continue to believe in Wikipedia, but it needs two things to really survive all these fools[a reference to destructive types in the CIA]: a "lock down" on documents facts that mature editors can block for frivolous change without a nomination process; and a graduated scale that limits newcomers to posting new stuff but not destroying old stuff."
A perceptive comment.
:Robert D. Steele is a "top 50 reviewer." Meaning he earned an Amazon "badge" for reviewing lots of books on Amazon. To call him a top non-fiction reviewer is inaccurate.Njsamizdat (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think tihs qualifies as a WP:RS. I'm going to delete the Steele review.   Will Beback  talk   04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Robert David Steele]] 

message: I just edited some of the summary a little bit ago, and the read the article more closely.  It seems that the information in the summary is not in the article at all.  It should either be cited in the summary, or expanded in the article, and cited there.  I'll be happy to do this myself, if somebody else will respond with a couple of links to start me off in that direction.  Umeboshi 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary Information

message: Am I alone in thinking that this tag is unwarranted? The citations (all 3 of them) are from 9/11 movement sources but document unremarkable statements, like his appearance at a conference, the organiser and the number of times a discussion was televised. Assuch I don't see why 3 rd party citations are necessary except as an ideal. I'll remove the tag shortly unless anyone has a serious objection.Felix-felix 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after that spectacular response, I've removed it. Although I suspect nobody really cares anyway....Felix-felix 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and references tag

message: I reverted the last edit made on the first para by user:Tom Harrison, as the edit seemed more restrictive and less accurate than the previous one, for example, 'conspiracist lecturer and author' is unnecessarily restrictive as he doesn't just lecture and write about false flags etc. Er, ..so there you go. But obviously remain open to sugesstions.Felix-felix 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also reverted the inclusion of 'conspiracy theorist' to the intro-as although his subjects often include what people would commonly  understand by conspiracy theory, it's also a perjorative, and therefore probably POV. I think that you get a good flavour of his subjects, and more specifically what they're actually about in the intro para, so I'm not sure what adding the generalisation 'conspiracy theorist' really adds except possible POV.FelixFelix talk 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Para

message: The second sentence of this article reads: "He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the Bush administration."   
I'm not sure that this is correct.   Tarpley seems to make many references to a "rogue network" which is pulling the strings to which Bush is simply giving in to.   In his book, "9/11: Synthentic Terror" there is a chapter called "Angel is Next" which details the supposed threats made to Air Force One on 9/11/2001.  This chapter paints a picture of Bush relenting to the demands of the mentioned network.
Of course what is meant by "Bush administration" is a little vague.  Can the administration mean just certain members or appointees and not include Bush himself?
: Wikipedia should try to be as close as possible to the original wordings. If Tarpley did not say "Bush Administration" but instead referred to a "rogue network" then it should be worded that way. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush administration engineering 9/11 ? 

message: I'm against this phrase being used in the intro para, as
*It doesn't tell you anything about him not already covered in the para, apart from the implied fact that you don't believe him.
*It's an empty perjorative that defies definition itself.
And thus, I reckon it's inclusion is POV.FelixFelix talk 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Conspiracy Theorist"

message: I removed the passage;
"Critics of Tarpley note that he still sells copies of the book on the Bush family he co-authored while working for conspiracy theorist and antisemitic cult leader Lyndon LaRouche." 
For not only having weasel words, but also for BLP vio for Lyndon Larouche. There's no need for that.FelixFelix talk 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: Deleting the entire criticsm section was POV and contentious.--Cberlet 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: :Please remove from Wiki.
  
:Tarpley is a completely irrelevant fringe figure.
:With relation to the LaRouche cult: 
:"Fascist, Jew-hater, Cult Leader, Convicted Felon...and Now an Accessory to Murder?"
:http://dennisking.org/
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46883-2004Oct20_5.html
:"...they might try to shoot me," she says, speaking softly. "Then the world would know the truth, wouldn't they?"
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm
:"The preponderance [of early members] have left in disgust," said one former member. "They realized they've wasted years of their lives . . . . I woke up one day and realized I hadn't thought about the cult for two months. That's when you know you're back to normal. It took a couple of years."
</blockquote>
::Wow - I would't consider a Fulbright Scholar in any way 'irrelevant', no matter what his political stance.84.28.82.149 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating-in what way are these links pertinent to Webster Tarpley?(and don't forget to sign in.)FelixFelix talk 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted a small amount of text about LaROuche and Tarpley's relationship to the LaRouche network.  It is appropriate to the page. See lengthy discussion at Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Please do not delete properly cited text without a discussion.--Cberlet 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chip, You may be a professional Larouche buster, and good for you, I'm sure-but that doesn't mean that we have to suffer irrelevant (and contentious) invective about Larouche in every article about anyone who has been associated with his organisations. I have also removed an irrelevant citation (an Amazon listing for the book) and a repated one (the HNN citation). Please don't replace these. And if you want to pick a fight with some actual Larouchies, then by all means do so, but do it somewhere else-improving this article is what we should be doing here.FelixFelix talk 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious as to why this is such a long piece. Tarpley does not seem to be a very influential journo, his work looks to be mostly self-published and very much on the fringe. A lot of the material could be dramatically condensed without losing any understanding of him or his ouvre.Njsamizdat (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should material be reduced just because someone is 'not influential' (which, BTW, are just your own words and in no way makes it fact)? Is it Wikipedia's intent to 'marginalize' non-superstar like scholars and prevent them from climbing up the ladder or what? Otherwise, I can't get why anyone would even champion doing such a thing - why 'reduce information' when there's no valid reason to? Sounds very 'memory hole' and Orwellian-like.84.28.82.149 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sounding Like another Wiki 'Love Piece'

message: :Image:G Bush Unauthorized Bio.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:G Bush Unauthorized Bio.jpg

message: :Image:Synt3ed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Synt3ed.jpg

message: This article gives undue weight to a series of fringe claims, without any balancing mainstream material or other context. Most of the supporting references are from unreliable sources - blogs, youtube videos and an amazon reviewer. If the unverifiable/unreliable material is removed that would seem to leave very little (which is why I am adding this note rather than immediately making the edits). LeContexte (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant problems with article

message: Images of book covers that I as the publisher and copyright holder have uploaded to the Commons and posted to this page have been repeatedly removed with amazing rapidity under the disingenuous pretense of "copyright violation." To me it's clear this is censorship and vandalism. 
I have uploaded the front cover of Tarpley's biography of George Bush, his 911 Synthetic Terror, and the schema of his model of the rogue network of false flag terror several times. I am the creator and copyright holder of these images and I want them to be on Wikipedia and in the public domain. I have stated that each time I uploaded them, trying to follow the Wikipedia templates for uploading own content closely.
Continued harassment and deletion is very much in keeping with the banner message about lack of neutrality here. Tarpley's wiki page is under constant attack by thought control thugs because of his political stance. 
I appeal to the editors or moderators to put a stop to this vandalism.ProgressivePress (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I resonded in part on your user page. In my cursory review, it appear that the book cover files are missing necessary information. Read the notices on each image page. Many include automatic deltion provisions if no response is made. It looks like it's more of a project-wide bureaucratic enforcement than anything to do with the content of this article.   Will Beback  talk   04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should discuss Eusebius's comment with him. Every user account has a talk page (even yours, which you should read promptly). The suggested size limit for fair use images is 300 pixels in the longest dimension. However, fair use images can only be used in cases where the work is discussed directly. Merely listing the book, etc, isn't sufficient cause for invoking the fair use exemption. I don't understand your problem with uploading to Wiki Commons versus Wikipedia. One the side of my screen is a link, "Upload file", for uploading to Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk   09:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship and vandalism of images

message: Right now there exists this phrase in the article:
"In January 2008, Tarpley became one of the first critics to assert that Barack Obama is actually managed by right-wing powerbrokers.[citation needed]"
I am not sure when I saw the video (perhaps December 2008 as I made a comment here earlier too), but he made several statements back then, and the videos should still be somewhere (perhaps youtube). I dont know if wikipedia accepts youtube as "proof" - wikipedia could download the flash files locally, at least for reference - but the videos exist where he made his accusation against Obama. So at least the reference to "citation needed" should be removed, citing youtube (or wherever else the videos would be hosted)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points: First, Youtube video, unless copies of high quiality news programs, are rarely adequate sources. Second, a video of the subject making that statement does not prove the assertion that he was among the first to do so. The only way of citing a statement like that is to a reliable source that says so. Per my comments below, I've removed the material entirely pending an adequate source.   Will Beback  talk   09:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: I've moved this material here because the sources, where used, are all insufficient. Blogs and Youtube are not adequate references. If we can't find adequate references then we need to leave it out.   Will Beback  talk   08:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an incorrect reading of the policy here. Self-published sources are permitted as a means of documenting the views of the subject of a bio. Also, I have seen YouTube used as a source, including in the article about Tarpley's former group, the Schiller Institute. There is a prominent box featuring the opinions of Chip Berlet, and it is sourced to a news broadcast that was taped and put on YouTube (,) just like the radio broadcasts of Tarpley that you deleted from this article. Thomas Conneff (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources are only allowed if they're published by the subject. YouTube is tricky- it's not a source for anything. If the video that are uploaded there are otherwise reliable, such as being from a BBC newscast, then they are reliable unless there's a concern that the videos were altered significantly. OTOH, a video of a guy sitting in front of his computer would not be reliable. Then there's the copyright issues, which is a separate matter.    Will Beback  talk   20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reason to believe that the person being interviewed is not Tarpley? Unless there is reason to doubt their authenticity, they are certainly a reliable source for the views of Tarpley. Thomas Conneff (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which link you're referring to. If it's a Youtube link, then there may be copyright issues too.   Will Beback  talk   00:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly source material 

message: I just deleted a couple of words in the opening sentence, where in the list of Tarpley's professions it said - without even quotation marks - that he was an oligarchist historian. The job title  is perhaps an invention of the author and has not been used on the internet for any other people than Tarpley himself. Furthermore, in connection with him, an internet search only produces one text, which has been recycled word for word on several other websites (e.g. his Facebook entry). It appears   to be a term which either he, his promoters or publishers have coined, or even the author of the original wikipedia entry. If it is his own self-description, that should be clear. If it is merely his promoters', it should be dropped. 
The source citation  next to the words "oligarchist historian"  on the previous Wikipedia version  refers to an Italian article of Tarpley's which apparently talks about oligarchies but even there it would appear he is not directly using the phrase to describe  himself. If anyone has a clear reference source in which he describes himself as an "oligarchical historian" this could be mentioned, but making it clear it is his self-description.
I don't know if there will be a consensus to restore the word "historian" on its own - that depends on how you define a historian. He doesn't have a position at a university as a historian, as far as I know, and the books he writes are only "historical" in the sense that they refer to some events in (mostly very) recent history, as part of political comment or analysis.  I suppose any discussion or narrative  of recent political events could be in a sense described as history but I think Tarpley and his promoters are stretching the definition a bit here.
--DougieM1 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oligarchist historian 

message: There is no doubt whatsoever that he is a conspiracy theorist.  We do need a source, but I'm sure the anon would remove the statement even with a source, so it won't stop the edit warring.  Any ideas as to the next step?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not re-add this information unless you have a source. I'd also recommend reading the Lyndon LaRouche article for how we deal with these claims when they can be sourced (that is, we don't flat-out describe LaRouche as a "conspiracy theorist", we mention that certain critical sources describe LaRouche as such). "Conspiracy theorist" is a normative judgment, not an objective assessment, but if we can find credible sources that describe Tarpley as such, we can cite those and say something like, "Tarpley's critics, such as _____, describe him as a conspiracy theorist." Adlerschloß (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: LaRouche is just crazy; we can't determine whether he believes the crazy conspiracy theories he promulgates.  Tarpley has written about 9/11 conspiracies and global warming conspiracies; that makes him a conspiracy theorist, or crazy.  I'll settle for either one in the article.  The only way Tarpley would not be in the category :Category:Conspiracy theorists would be if the category were removed as being inherently a WP:BLP violation, if applied to living persons.  That discussion has been made and failed, but you're welcome to try again.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See, this seems to be based on your subjective assessment of Tarpley's views (which you describe here as "crazy") rather than any independent source. Find a source describing him as such before adding the descriptions back to the article. Your own assessment that his views are "conspiracy theories" is not enough to describe him as such in the article without a reliable source. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And I do think the category itself is extremely problematic (I'd go so far as to question whether the concept "conspiracy theory" actually has genuine sociological/epistemological validity, although clearly as a pejorative descriptor the concept has massive political importance), and I'll note that its application seems rather uneven. We could describe Keith Olbermann as a conspiracy theorist for his recent remark that speculators are deliberately pushing up oil prices in order to harm the reelection chances of Barack Obama, for instance. That's surely a "conspiracy theory" meeting the technical definition (and also surely not the first statement made by Olbermann which would meet the definition of "conspiracy theory"), but with only a few exceptions the label seems applied on Wikipedia only to figures with very specific types of cultural connotations. Should Hillary Clinton be in the category for her "vast right-wing conspiracy" remarks? Of course not. But why the selective application? I think years ago I had to remove to label from the article about Mos Def. I'm almost surprised the label isn't on the Will Smith article (Smith has publicly stated that he believes the US government engineered the AIDS epidemic as genocide against blacks). Adlerschloß (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the category exists, Tarpley is a "poster child" for the category.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Please remember to use this page for discussion of the article, not to express personal opinions about the article subject. If and only if there is a reliable source that calls Tarpley a conspiracy theorist, it should be included in the article, with proper attribution so that our readers may evaluate the credibility of the claim. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theorist 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Webster Tarpley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120626023736/http://www.gcnlive.com:80/programs/worldCrisisRadio/ to http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/worldCrisisRadio/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140903095035/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/18/309609/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout-op/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/18/309609/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout-op/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090830083903/http://www.gcnlive.com:80/programs/worldCrisisRadio/ to http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/worldCrisisRadio/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified