Talk:Webster Tarpley

Personal Information

- 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)

Done. ProgressivePress (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The above are good questions. This article lacks any criticism of Tarpley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.70.63 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on Kennebunkport Warning isn't critical enough? ProgressivePress (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Title of page should be Webster Tarpley, not Webster G. Tarpley

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)

External links

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

I have added a few words regarding the availability of the Bush book for anyone interested in a free read. Considering it was written 15 years ago, it was a marvelous insight into the future, like it or hate it!

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

for the whole thing.

http://www.tarpley.net/bushbook.zip (about 1 MB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.140.101 (talk) 07:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Robert David Steele

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)

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)

Summary Information

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)

I just did a google search for tarpley emphasizing the 911tm as being vital to stopping a 30yr nuke war, but couldn't find anything like it. I specifically looked at these two articles:

• "All Options Are On The Table"
• Webster Tarpley on the Real Causes of 9/11

It's starting to be bedtime for me, so my mind is running slow. I'm sorry if I'm being to pedantic about this, but I believe being that way helps with the overall credibility (and I'll take on some of the work required for it, else I wouldn't say anything at all). I guess I'm rambling a little. Umeboshi 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources and references tag

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)

Well, after that spectacular response, I've removed it. Although I suspect nobody really cares anyway....Felix-felix 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First Para

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)

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)

Bush administration engineering 9/11 ?

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)

"Conspiracy Theorist"

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)

Weasel words

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)

"This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed." Since it doesn't specify which words are weasels, this criticism is itself vague and weasely, and ought to be clarified or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeonard (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

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

Sounding Like another Wiki 'Love Piece'

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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The paragraph on his radio show was unnecessarily long so I trimmed it to a single sentence. Also Tarpley does not publish his books himself. JPLeonard (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "I'm curious as to why this is such a long piece." So you would prefer a stub? The material here helps to show that Tarpley is notable enough for the page to survive attempts to delete it. ProgressivePress (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:G Bush Unauthorized Bio.jpg

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)

Small images of book covers are fair use according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_book_cover. This image should not have been deleted. Fotozheni (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Synt3ed.jpg

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)

Small images of book covers are public domain. The images should not have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeonard (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Significant problems with article

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)

Censorship and vandalism of images

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)

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)

Martin H has explained to me that the issues with the Bush Bio cover relate to some images used within the cover. I think it would be a good idea when editors delete an image that they give a good reason like that. ProgressivePress (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now Eusebius who deleted one of my images with the comment "don't upload images that have been deleted," has explained a couple things, 1. it's best to ask administrator in such cases, and 2. that fair use images are accepted on Wikipedia, but not on Commons, so I should post fair use images directly to Wikipedia. For which I thank him. The policy I saw about book covers being fair use must be a Wikipedia policy. I wonder if there is a definition as to what file size limit constitutes a thumbnail of a book cover? Also how do you ask an administrator? Thanks for any more tips anyone. I'm also not clear how to post an image to Wikipedia, without uploading it to Wiki Commons. ProgressivePress (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Citation needed

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)

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)

Poorly source material

In August 2007, Webster Tarpley issued the Kennebunkport Warning, which claimed an impending "false flag attack" in America in the "coming months." Controversy ensued after Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright issued a joint-statement claiming that they did not sign this Kennebunkport Warning. In response to this denial, Tarpley sent out a widely distributed and highly publicized email in which he characterized Cindy Sheehan, Anne Wright and other anti-war activists as "lying in appalling fashion" and "wretched individuals."

In January 2008, Tarpley became one of the first critics to assert that Barack Obama is actually managed by elitist powerbrokers. Tarpley claimed that a shift in power had taken place in the ruling class, with the Zbigniew Brzezinski faction and its presidential candidate Obama ascendant over the lame-duck neocons. The targets of US imperialism would now be Russia, China and its ally Pakistan, instead of Iraq, Iran and Syria. He developed these themes in his two books on Obama.

Tarpley is also a critic of the free market, particularly the Austrian and Chicago Schools of economics .

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)

: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 ([4],) just like the radio broadcasts of Tarpley that you deleted from this article. Thomas Conneff (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

:::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)

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)

Marxist

Having listened to Tarpley's web radio show on several occasions I can categorically reject that he's a Marxist. His perspective on history is definintely a few orders of magnitude more expansive than the strict dogmas of marxism dictate. I did make a change to the original addition by an IP user of this information to say Marxist historiography rather than Marxist, but I doubt even that is accurate. Since a reference has been provided, I think this needs to be consulted posthaste. The reference that is provided is an Italian language government report. Any suggestions on who we could ask to do this checking would be appreciated. __meco (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the original text of the report (it was published in 1978...) but for what I read about it online, I would not define it as marxist: it attacks "oligarchy" both on the left and right side, and puts forward the thesis of links between Red Brigades and P2 lodge. Moreover, the Italian MP who asked for the report, Giuseppe Zamberletti, is from the Christian Democracy party. I cannot say more about it--Dans (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please go check your references. Tarpley is a self-declared marxist since his 1978´s book on the Aldo Moro assassination, on which his "short biography" describes him as a "marxist heavily influenced by the works of of Gramsci and the ideas of Trotsky"... I could also quote his partnership on several books with the well known New Left marxist Anton Chaitkin, or the fact that Tarpley endorsed Chaitkin´s candidacy for Mayor of New York City by the marxist oriented Labour Party of America in 1973... -201.83.37.248 (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read the reference given by 201.83.37.248 and i can confirm its authenticity. -187.66.12.66 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why now he dont say that he is marxist? --Alexmilt (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can also confirm the source given by 201.83.37.248. I also found out that Webster Tarpley has recently had one of his articles translated for the well known brazilian marxist magazine "Caros Amigos". -187.106.102.232 (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I take issue too with Tarpley being a Marxist. As far as I know, his world view seems to be based typically on this kind of conspiracy theories that is peculiar to a certain style of right-wing thought (John Birsh Society, "NWO" stuff, Alex Jones, Lyndon LaRouche.....), rather than on historical materialism. And he's long been associated with the LaRouche movement as well. The fact that an article of his has been published in a Marxist magazine or that he's co-authored works with a Marxist doesn't necessarily mean he's a Marxist too (i.e. chances are he's worked with conservatives at some point during his carreer, but that wouldn't make him a conservative AND a Marxist, obviously).. Apparently, the only source supporting this is a short biography written about him back 1978 (by who?), to be published with a book of his. Is this really conclusive evidence? Also, it is possible he has been a Marxist in the 70's and changed his views later.

In conclusion, my opinion is that unless someone finds more references about this, the assertion of Tarpley's Marxism should be dropped for now. Because on the one hand his works hardly look like typical Marxist litterature, and on the other hand he seems to have been close to the LaRouche movement for most of his carreer and his ideas reflect LaRouche's (especially the "the British Crown secretly runs the world" obsession) - would it not make more sense to assume he's a LaRouchite type? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The short biography was written by himself and the source has already been confirmed by more than one editor... Also, the 2002 re-print of the book (in Italy), which is a reviewed version by the author, contains a brief "contextual introduction" where Tarpley sustains that his positions on the subject (the Aldo Moro assassination) and his political views have not changed in the light of the events following the 1st edition of his work and claims that his work remains "contemporary". -187.106.102.232 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Lyndon LaRouche started out as a Marxist/Trotskyist, though is reported to have moved from the far left to the far right in the mid-1970s. Tarpley was a part of LaRouche's movement while it was still on the quasi-Marxist left. That is not direct evidence of Tarpley's past or present Marxist affiliation, though.   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's possible that the subject was a Marxist in the 1970s, but has changed his views. If we had a source that said so clearly, then it'd be appropriate to discuss his former views in the body of the text, but it would not be appropriate to continue to describe him as a "Marxist". Further, among scholars there are some who have been influenced by certain aspects of Karl Marx's views on various topics, but who neither subscribe to the entire philosophy nor advocate a dictatorship of the masses. We need to be careful to use the term "Marxist" judiciously, since there are shades of meaning and it is considered a derogatory label in many circles.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Will, have you read what 187.106.102.23 posted? Tarpley himself sustained his marxist beliefs in the reviewed version of his book on the Aldo Moro assassination. Even if he is not a traditional marxist (which can be disputed), he considers himself to be "a marxist heavily influenced by the works of Gramsci" and therefore we cannot censor ourselves into ommiting this fact because it may be seem by anti-marxists as derrogatory. After all the vandalistic removal of content and references, despite its confirmation on the talk page, i´m starting to believe that some people are putting their beliefs and wishes above the need of scientificy required to an encyclopedia. I trust that, unlike those vandals, you are a reasonable person and being so, i would like to request you to take actions in order to prevent the removal of content and references from the article since its validity has already been confirmed by quite a few number of users. -201.83.37.248 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Matthew1722 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7916497706221999239#Matthew1722 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So around minute 20 he said that he is not marxist. Please delete that he is marxist. --Alexmilt (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

He clearly states that he is not a marxist as a joke. Everybody laughts when he says that... And less than 15 seconds later he withdraws the comment and reffers to himself as a studious of Marx. -187.38.116.145 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarpley considers Karl Marx an 'Anglo-Venetian operative' and writes "The collapse of organized Marxism in most of the world, although welcome in itself, has had the regrettable side effect of suppressing most class-based analysis of late twenty century society. The world centers of academic Marxism may be found in Great Britain and the United States, but Anglo-Amercan Marxists have ironically been far more interested in race, ethnicity and gender than class. The secret of Marxism is that it was from its very beginning a concoction of the oligarchy. [.......] Marx's misleading class analysis was dictated by his profound allegiance to the Anglo Venetian philosophical tradition of British materialism, empiricism and utilitarianism:" . Thus, while Tarpley considers a class-based analysis of society a useful and necessary approach the Marxist class analysis is in his view misleading and it would therefore be misleading to call him a Marxist historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner104 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oligarchist historian

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)

Conspiracy theorist

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 I would like to interject that historically it is incontrovertible that political conspiracies were common and often successful.  It is meaningless to hurl the term " conspiracy theorist"  because any competent student of History will be able to recount numerous conspiracies. Should we label them all "conspiracy theorists" also?  Tarpley has a considerable following because he carefully marshals his facts. If you want  to discuss his accusations you can reiterate them and investigate them and then either take issue with his conclusions or support them as you will.
I have my own theory in regards to those who dismiss any persons accusation of wrong doing against political figures with the perjorative " conspiracy theorist."  My theory is that they are unable to give a rational refutation of facts or allegations so they result to the tried and true tactic of shooting the messenger.  
 Because of wikis format it seems that certain gatekeepers take up constant residence at certain wiki sites  deleting anything that contradicts their bias.
 It would seem to me that the rules of debate should apply on controversial articles, persons, and organizations.  That is, people should be able to state their point of view  on these subjects  and defend them in the talk pages without being deleted. and of course all views should be allowed to be posted as long ad the rules of civility are followed.107.194.157.26 (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (JB) 24 January 2014

As long as the category exists, Tarpley is a "poster child" for the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is a meaningless term that only seems to pertain to domestic events. If his views are irrational figure out a way to write it w/o a meaningless, derisive label. Can you not do that? I gave you a leg up by mentioning LaRouche in the intro, maybe you can take it from there. 66.65.175.121 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Mr Tarpley took part in a classic debate with Mr Jonathan Kay about 911 Conspiracy Theories. Mr Kay supports the view 911 was simply as reported by American News media, Mr Tarpley took the view that there were other forces at work. The debate can be found on YouTube. Johnwrd (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• More than sufficient sourcing exists to describe Tarpley as a conspiracy theorist, see:
  • Byford, Jovan (2011). Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230272798.
  • Knight, Peter (ed.) (2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576078129. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
  • Aaronovitch, David (2011). Voodoo Histories: How Conspiracy Theory Has Shaped Modern History. Random House. ISBN 9781446424292.

92.2.66.209 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt is not an argument! I doubt that W.G.Tarpley is a conspiracy theorist, thus there is at least one doubt. The category conspiracy theorist is as worthy as the category philanthropist - only, that the latter is self-inflicted by the ultra rich to calm their conscious effervescence of psychotic episodes. It is as void as the awe-inspiring "I'm a bible scientist".--77.187.143.190 (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Webster Tarpley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)