Talk:Milton William Cooper/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wrong Citation

The following sentence cites "Kirk, Paul (September 8, 2000). "Govt Aids nut linked to Ku Klux Klan". Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg). Retrieved January 17, 2013" as its source. The article cited, however, does not contain the information for which it is cited. (Number 12 on the citation list as of posting.)

Sentence cited: According to a "top secret" video of the assassination that Cooper claimed to have discovered, the driver of Kennedy's limousine, William Greer, used “a gas pressure device developed by aliens from the Trilateral Commission” to shoot the president from the driver's seat.[12] MECAVTP (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the relevant paragraph from the article:

"Cooper makes a fortune selling copies of his three books and charging the equivalent of R100 a head to those who wish to hear his lectures. His latest money-spinner is a top-secret video of the Kennedy assassination that he recently found. The R100 video shows Kennedy’s driver turn around and shoot the president in the head. The weapon used is not a pistol, but “a gas pressure device developed by the aliens from the Trilateral Commission”. At least that is what Cooper claims. The US television stations he hawked the tape to claim it was a poor-quality fake using chunks of the famous Zapruder film."

LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"American gun rights advocates" category

From what I've read, Cooper argued for "armed resistance" against imagined conspiracies (e.g. Alien/Illuminati-controlled government taking away guns in order to subdue the population and throw them into FEMA concentration camps) rather than simple legal rights to bear arms. Unless someone can find a reliable secondary source that demonstrates Cooper advocated for gun rights in any coherent way, I support removing that category. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Rather than tag it as "unsourced", it should be removed entirely unless a source can be cited. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Date of death

Milton William Cooper died on November 6, 2001. Wiki has the wrong day, as the 5th, and that is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.205.229 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be true.[1] I don't know the full details, but the engagement with police appears to have started on the evening of November 5, 2001.[2] - Location (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"He had vowed that he would not be taken alive"

Why does this have to be part of the article?

"He had vowed that he would not be taken alive."

Wikipedia is portraying this man as an immoral criminal with this simple statement. And only because one of the "moral" members of the Sheriff's Department says that he heard that once. What kind of source is that?

Make your country a favor and remove that, which even if it were true there is no way to prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro.mc (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How is vowing you're not going to be taken alive immoral? Provocative or aggressive maybe. To answer your question, it's part of the article because the encyclopedia operates on verifiability not truth. In other words, it's verifiable that a reliable source (LA TImes) wrote that the U.S. Marshals Service made that statement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Still needs to be sourced. Just a government employee having heard that isn't enough. --41.151.58.5 (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

LuckyLouie is correct. The citation provided is enough to source what the spokesman for the Marshals Service said. This is clearly an appropriate use of WP:INTEXT. - Location (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed - Disreputable sources

The branding of Cooper first and foremost as a "conspiracy theorist" is a subjective pejorative assessment. The inclusion the sourced article by Paul Kirk, alleging that Cooper is involved with the KKK, is tantamount to libel. I am making a request to lower the protection of this article to enable the removal of this source. Please show your support in following this action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripleysnow (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"tantamount to libel"? I suggest you read Wikipedia - No Legal Threats" before slinging around that kind of language. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ripleysnow: In addition, you may want to study Wikipedia's rules. The fact that a source makes an allegation about someone does not make the source "disreputable." Further, the fact that the source makes such an allegation does not make the Wikipedia article using that source not be "neutral."

Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that a reference in a source to an allegation about Cooper and the KKK might be a "libel" of Cooper. If you read the article more carefully, you will see that Cooper died many years ago. Libel is a form of defamation. In American law, there is generally no such thing as an actionable defamation of a dead person. Famspear (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

And, at the expense of appearing to beat a dead horse, I would point out that the sources cited in the article apparently identify various conspiracy theories that were espoused by Cooper. So, the reference to Cooper in the intro as a "conspiracy theorist" is simply a summary of what is in the article. That's OK.

There is no rule in Wikipedia prohibiting sources from using what you call "subjective pejorative assessments." Reliable sources are allowed to be subjective. Reliable sources are allowed to be biased. Reliable sources are allowed to make pejorative assessments of people, things, ideas, etc. Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia does not mean lack of point of view. Wikipedia's job is to report what biased but reliable sources say without Wikipedia itself taking a position as to who is correct. Famspear (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In Finland, Europe we have a law that prohibits pejorative assesments about dead people. To have some neutrality here i suggest that Coopers own prediction of a huge False Flag operation in the eve of 911 is put to the Cooper wiki page. This time the source - Cooper himself - is the most reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 05:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the real Cooper page myself? The "edit" tag is missing. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 05:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Several points: (1) please sign your posts; (2) this is Wikipedia, not Finland, and WP has no such rule, as already explained; (3) please read WP:RS carefully, and WP:PRIMARY in particular, as you clearly do not understand reliable sourcing as WP defines it; and (4) I have no idea why you cannot edit the article -- unless you have been blocked, or you are using some sort of "communal" computer that has been blocked -- but once again, please read WP:RS before adding the sort of controversial material that you have proposed to add and citing a YouTube primary source. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to make an appropriate edit:

from: according to a spokesman for the Marshals Service, he vowed that "he would not be taken alive".

to: according to a spokesman for the Marshals Service, he is alleged to have vowed that "he would not be taken alive".

But DoctorJoeE reverted it as "Redundant + unnecessary (not WP:BLP)". It deserves suspicion and criticism every time someone is killed/murdered/terminated by the police or government, who have the only "legitimate" monopoly on violence with far too few checks and balances under a corrupt republic pretending to have democracy (busted Bernie is only the tip), and then they claim you said something without proof or evidence, not only does it seem suspicious, it demands to have "allegedly" in there somewhere. The militarized police state is out of control and no-one is guarding the guards. There is an expensive and murderous war on terror but not a war on bathtubs when you are statistically far more likely to die slipping in your bathtub than by terrorist - and way more likely to die from our own police. If we can't even doubt, question, or speak truth, we've already lost. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Because "according to" already takes care of attribution. Adding "alleged" is not necessary, e.g. "According to John, he is alleged (by John) to have done something". It's redundant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

A new book has just been published that should be added to the Further Reading Section: Pale Horse Rider: William Cooper, the Rise of Conspiracy, and the Fall of Trust in America https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pale-horse-rider-mark-jacobson/1127516832?ean=9780399169953#/ Bo Grimes (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm not sure that Cooper is the absolute main topic of that publication. I would think that they would need to be, for it to be included here.  Spintendo  13:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done If you read reviews in Publishers Weekly and elsewhere, the book is very much about Cooper, and is from a reputable publisher. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

William Cooper predicted 9/11

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTjPGy2k_U&feature=youtu.be is a must to understand this persons intelligence. He realized that cnn cameracrew can not beat the whole universe of secret services and war apparatuses intelligenses =) He also predicted that a MAJOR attact will be blamed on the US supported Osama =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This video was already discussed above. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Where? Shame this isn't even mentioned in the article. Cite: [3] u v u l u m (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It's discussed in the 2016 discussion above, headered Cooper claimed to have served in the US Air Force and the US Navy as well as Naval Intelligence, until 1975. Having viewed it, I agree with the scornful dismissal of the rantings of an obviously delusional fellow. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Cooper claimed to have served in the US Air Force and the US Navy as well as Naval Intelligence, until 1975

Well... Did he? ...or did he not? The above implies that his claim was incorrect. Was he in the navy or not? 2.101.138.244 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Without a reliable source other than Cooper's own book, it remains a claim rather than a fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me that Wikipedia has been unable to prove even this simple issue to itself either way? After all these years??? Oh my... Now I remember why I gave up editing this place... 2.101.138.244 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not our job to undertake a search for proof. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If Ann Coulter announced that there are undocumented-immigrant Central American fairies with Ebola holding orgies in her garden, the burden is not upon Wikipedia to set up monitors to check on the accuracy of her assertions. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Amen -- although it wouldn't surprise me for a second if Coulter made such a claim... DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Inscription: Milton William Cooper QM1 US Navy Vietnam May 6, 1943 - Nov. 6, 2001-http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=32578338— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.16.18 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)

So, assuming that's accurate, he was a QM1 (Quartermaster, grade 1) -- anyone ever hear of a bottom-grade enlisted man having any significant level of responsibility (let alone access to classified material) anywhere in the Navy (let alone in Naval Intelligence)? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

He received two medals for meritorious service in Vietnam. In 1969 he was a petty officer, second class. http://aad.archives.gov/aad/display-partial-records.jsp?f=4254&mtch=2&q=milton+william+cooper&cat=all&dt=1784&tf=F FreedomYeahRight (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good find. Is there any way of discovering the specific nature of the "meritorious service" that earned him those medals? It's interesting that they call him a "Sergeant" -- I have minimal expertise in military rankings, but the pertinent WP article does not list that rank as part of the US Navy command chain -- and why would his gravestone list him as a quartermaster 1, if he was in fact a petty officer? In any case, it does not help us in confirming his claims that he served in Naval Intelligence, or that he had a security clearance, which are the real questions here. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The non-commissioned rank of E5 is a sergeant for land forces and petty officer, second class for naval forces. The sergeant nomenclature is generated by the the national archive database, not the award. The award record only has "E5" and it is decoded, most likely generically, as "sergeant". As far as the QM1, that is most likely a job title, not a rank. A Navy Commendation Medal can be awarded at "end of tour" award or as a specific event. A request can be put in for additional information, although a blood tie may be required. My citation was not in support of his claim to have worked for ONI. Rather, it struck a bad chord with me that the phrasing was and currently is "claimed to have served in the navy..." That seemed a tactless way to describe the service of combat veteran. I was planning to rewrite the section to separate his documented and undocumented service. The ONI question is another matter entirely... Cooper claims that he was unwittingly used as a disinformation conduit while working in Naval Intelligence. It that were the case, I sincerely doubt they would claim him. It will take original research/FOIA request to divine that one.

Regarding Cooper's military service, a good amount of WP:REDFLAG is warranted, given that he leveraged his military service story to support his extreme fringe claims of global conspiracy. Even a scholar like Michael Barkun will only go so far as to say Cooper made certain claims about his background. That said, I'm not against adding details cited to official government service records such as his Navy rank, tour in Vietnam, and two medals. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nor would I; in fact, I'll do it now. But we still have no corroboration of his claims regarding Air Force and Naval Intel, and the article should continue to reflect that. Obviously, any original research by us would be contrary to WP:OR. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Milton William Cooper was a fraud, possibly motivated by personal gain, or engaged in Walter Mitty-esque flights of fancy. Having had a career in just the United States Navy is plausible, but also serving in the United States Air Force and the Office of Naval Intelligence beggars belief. Cooper has all the earmarks of a teller of tall tales. It reminds me of the 2015 news story of 89-year-old William C. Goehner of Morgan Hill, California, who would at every opportunity tell strangers he met about his exploits in the Navy as a young man, being the first Navy SEAL, having been the youngest-ever Lieutenant Commander in the Navy, having traveled all over the world on secret missions, and so on. Eventually, his adult son caught on and spilled the beans, forcing his father to apologize and publicly admit that it was all tall tales. Like Cooper, Goehner did actually serve in the Navy for a time, but only in a low-level position; in Cooper's case, there were no family members to tell him to stay grounded in reality and stop wildly embellishing his credentials. Sure, Cooper's Navy service can be documented, but I'll venture to guess that all the rest of it can't, and you won't find any witnesses to corroborate it, because it never happened. Moreover, I recently watched a 90-minute YouTube video of Cooper presenting a lecture on his version of history, purportedly recorded in 1989. While Cooper had a great stage presence and spoke with an air of authority, to anyone trained and experienced in the physical and engineering sciences, many of his statements in the presentation are clearly so wrong that it takes on the quality of a a bedtime story told to wide-eyed five-year-olds. The article mentions the Priory of Sion, a proven hoax. I don't know if Cooper knew it was a hoax, but if his conspiracy "theory" was based on it, it was firmly anchored in the sky. Editors should keep this in mind while editing the article. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Something is definitely not quite right, but whether he was a fraud or not is hard to tell. It looks to me like he is a 'manufactured' persona. With face recognition technology and maybe even a public 'who knew this man?' it should be possible to find out who he was. I have read about many people who were active operatives during the Cold War having strange endings. 2001:8003:AC99:3B00:BDAE:454A:F795:B543 (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits

What does Timothy Mcveigh being a fan of his radio show have to do with anything. Adding that piece of information in there discredits him and makes him look like an extremist Native303 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s cited to the Los Angeles Times, a WP:RS reliable source according to our editorial policies. -LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing whether the claim is true. Why is it relevent to the section? 108.27.255.25 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If you read the article, it’s all about Cooper’s influence on the militia movement and anti-government groups and ideas. A scholar’s noting that Mcveigh was an adherent only helps illustrate the extent of Cooper’s influence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Reportedly, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was a fan." No evidence provided whatsoever that McVey was a listener, let alone a "fan", which implies a judgement Cooper was a fellow-traveller with McVey. The LAT article is not credible even if coming from a "generally credible source." Fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

We do occasionally examine normally reliable sources, especially when there is some wp:extraordinary or questionable assertions being made by the source, however, the reporting that McVeigh was a fan of Cooper’s conspiracy theories and anti-government rhetoric isn’t controversial in the least. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Prove it with any credible evidence at all. Hearsay is not evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The difference between Wikipedia and things like Facebook and Twitter is that we are an encyclopedia, and so, as editors, we can only summarize what is published in WP:RS reliable sources no matter if we personally disagree with them or not. That’s a core editorial policy, as is no original research, so our responsibility does not include the burden of proving or disproving what reliable sources say. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Name of Deputy Killed by Cooper

Came here after reading an online conspiracy theory claiming Cooper was assassinated, and learned he was killed during an arrest wherein he killed a Deputy. I think the Deputy should be named in order to provide some evidence disproving the assertion that he was "assassinated" by the Government for whatever reason. Failing to name this Deputy facilitates belief into the idea he was killed for reasons other than what actually happened. Also the Article's comment regarding whatever issues he had with the neighbors is weak and ambiguous, and serves to perpetuate the "assassination" theory.68.206.248.178 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The deputy's name is mentioned in the cited sources [4] and he didn't die, so whoever is telling you otherwise is misinformed. As for the rest of it, the article merely reports what reliable sources, say, not what we think they should say. - 15:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

Addition to "In popular culture": Lithuanian underground music band Will Cope originated their name from Milton William Cooper. The band's lyrical themes are related to conspiracy theories. VJ.slint (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

In Behold a Pale Horse, Cooper proposed that AIDS was the result of a conspiracy to decrease the populations of blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals.[10] Polis23 (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

From the "In Popular Culture" section, the second bullet point is missing a citation. The Mark Jacobson book Pale Horse Rider discusses how the rapper William Cooper got his name. Jacobson meets Cooper who tells him that the rapper Killah Priest introduced him to Behold a Pale Horse and encouraged him to take the name William Cooper. 121.74.88.247 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Done I verified that it is present in Jacobson's book, but the Vulture.com article was more accessible, so I've added that as a citation. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)