Talk:Michael Ruppert

Serious Errors of Omission & Bias

After reading this Wikipedia description, it's clear this is a strongly biased account of this man. Where is any information on his best selling book Crossing the Rubicon? I've never seen a worse Wikipedia biased entry than for this person. Wanting to label him a conspiracy nut is so overwhelming, yet his book was one of the top three best selling books worldwide? What is the problem to omit relevant facts on this page? The bias is blaring obvious. I didn't even hear about this guy till today from a radio program and couldn't believe the garbage on this page about sex harassment cases, etc.

This is really pathetic Wikipedia. Get your act together!

Links

All of the links to Michael Ruppert's pages are to self-published material. To delete a page on publiceye.org that links to dozens of pages with a variety of viewpoints--many published elsewhere, is simpy POV censorship.--Cberlet 03:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But you can't add a link to an article you wrote hosted on the website of the organization you work for. See the Wikipedia guidelines about external links. This is important enough for NPOV and objectivity that it overrides the other guidelines about external links, according to those guidelines. If somebody else wants to link to one of your articles that's within the guidelines (unless they did so because you went on their talk page and asked them to, which is another issue), but you should not be doing it yourself. 68.239.87.12 04:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I seldom do it. Only when a page is lacking any balance and I can't find something else on the Internet.--Cberlet 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the link to "Ruppert's Depopulation Agenda" under Critics is to a site that's a little bit kooky/cranky. Quoting from the link: "We know UFOs exist." "The Illuminists know this and plan to break this spirit with a harvest of blood reaped with war, famine and misery." and "Hidden from us is a multiverse that is awaiting the acceptance of its invitation to explore it intimately." So I've gone ahead and removed it. --Valwen 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated the "External links" section to move the redundant FTW link from the "supportive" list up to the main list (and replace the "Official site" link). I also deleted the "bio" page for Ruppert as this is redundant to the FTW link and hardly an unbiased "pro" site.99th Percentile 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Claims of harassment

Why is there both a "sexual harassment legal issues" and a section on harassment in the criticism and controversies section? And why is the IP which made the edit come from Langley, VA? 24.22.218.196 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody want to check this out? Apparently there is a woman who claims to have been working for him since the begining of the year. She claims that he leered at her, made innapropriate remarks about her cloths, gave her a cd containing pornography (under the claims that it as for a news article about the war), and even striped to his underwear during an overtime shift. Mr. Rupert claims that she was making innapropriate sexual advances on fellow co-workers, and that she was verbally abusive to Rupert when he took action, and that this is simply petty revenge on her part. The story is here.

Ruppert addressed these allegations in his latest article. Apparently he believes the woman in question was involved in the recent burglary of FTW's offices.--Baltech22 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if an outside source could be used for this. Here is one local paper article. I think this might be a little more objective.--Janet11 09:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I checked out your linked article. At least it is independent. I am not sure it is objective. What I found more interesting is a post in the "Comments" section by Catherine Fitts on August 27. She appears relatively objective and explains her reasons for working with Michael Ruppert and From the Wilderness Publications.claimman75 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the current article state that "In the spring of 2006, Ruppert had false allegations of sexual harassment filed against him by a former employee days after she was fired"? What is the evidence that they are "false allegations," given that a newspaper articles states that "Ruppert admitted to stripping down to his underpants and parading around the office while he and the woman were the only two there, an accusation the woman made in her statement."?

http://www.dailytidings.com/2006/0825/stories/0825_ruppert2.php Lippard (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So we now have an official state judgment against FTW and actions by Mike, so allegations seem to have crossed into the "objective authority has determined" category. Can we add this to the article now?

http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/LEGAL/docs/FOpdffiles/From_the_Wilderness.pdf

"The Agency established by a preponderance of credible evidence that Respondent, through its proxy Michael Ruppert, subjected Complainant to offensive and unwelcome sexual conduct that created a hostile and intimidating work environment, in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(b), then discharged Complainant in retaliation for her complaint about the sexual conduct, in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(f). The forum concluded that Respondent was liable for Ruppert’s sexual harassment and awarded Complainant $2,713.42 in back wages and $125,000 for emotional and mental suffering damages. ORS 659A.030; OAR 839-005-0030." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.166.112 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging with FTW article

I think he is a distinct enough public figure apart from his website to merit a separate entry. For example some people may only know him from The End of Suburbia or some of his public lectures rather than his website. Actually, if the FTW article redirected here, that would be an appropriate merger, in my view. --Valwen 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG oppose, both articles are notable on their own. --Striver 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I agree that both the organization and the personality are distinct enough to merit separate treatment. This is especially true since his relocation to Venezuela and withdrawal from running the day to day operations of "From the Wilderness".
• Support, not notable enough to merit two articles.--Sloane 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone has entered a redirect to Michael Ruppert from "From the Wilderness Publications". Did we ever reach consensus on that? I am not going to change it back right now. I want to "shake the bushes" for separate references to both Ruppert and "From the Wilderness" when I get some time. The problem is that it's so hard to find objective material about either one, especially material that doesn't link the two of them. Nearly everything written about them is either fanatical support or virulent attack. He has appeared and spoken at numerous conferences, written a book which qualifies as a tome, and is building another life and network in Venezuela. "From the Wilderness Publications" is not even under his direct supervision anymore, although I am sure he has significant input.claimman75 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Something called 'From the Wilderness Publications' should redirect to the From the Wilderness website entry, not this bio, if you ask me. And since that site is now not published by Ruppert (he is Venezuela, apparently with a lot of health problems), I also think that's more reason to keep the entries separate. --Valwen 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Topseller

"Crossing the Rubicon" has recently been hovering around the number 30 spot on the Amazon Nonfiction Top Sellers (as of 11/23/2004). Is this relevant any longer? 2004 is no longer "recently." This would be a better article if it were changed to something like "Crossing the Rubicon reached a high of #30 (or whatever number) on the Amazon bestseller list on (date)." I don't have that info though. --Valwen 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No one addressed this so I changed it to "reached as high as..." so the entry doesn't look so dated. --Valwen 10:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"[B]y many"?

"He is regarded by many as a conspiracy factualist." First off, why does this matter? Many people consider Loose Change a factually-based documentary, when it certainly isn't. Who are these "many"? GreatGatsby 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Ruppert strikes me as a paranoid crackpot spinning webs of unverifiable conspiracy claims. Lippard (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is written by a Ruppert bootlick, and it amazes me that Wikipedia lets this thing exist, especially those meaningless links about his supposed knowledge of CIA drug dealing, nothing remotely verifiable but this article represents it all as "fact". Sheer madness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.145.123.8 (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wing TV nonsense

I listened to some of the WingTV broadcast before deleting these links -- what kind of source is this? Bashing Ruppert seems to be their sole purpose for existence, and their main arg against him seems to be that he's not enough of a conspiracy theorist for them.... They also get basic facts wrong (e.g. the confrontation with Deutch was in 1996, not "some time in the 80s"). The Daily Tidings is more of a WP:RS, but I'm not sure the info there is that notable.csloat 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Restored

The article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ruppert and then restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 5. Someone with a fuller knowledge of Wikipedia talk page templates should consider adding the discussions to a template at the top of the page. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was this page restored? Brandothegr8 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article could use a lot of cleaning up. However, the man is the subject of the film Collapse . The man definitely seems notable enough.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2010532808_mr18collapse.html

He is the subject of that film but how much of that film is true? Brandothegr8 (talk)

Why does it matter whether film is true or not? Being the subject of a film (fact based or otherwise) is certainly notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.68.217 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The film isn't all. He's appeared in numerous documentaries about drugs, and he got quite a bit of mainstream media attention in 1996 due to his activism surrounding the CIA and drugs. Had I noticed it was put up for deletion I would have opposed; I'm glad to see it was restored. csloat (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

not a police detective

Although the quotation from him while confronting the CIA director John Deutch has Ruppert saying that he was a LAPD detective, he only became eligible to be promoted and may have acted as detective, but never formally was promoted to that rank in LAPD. I want to see the article changed to emphasize that he may have been ready to be a detective, but never formally was one. I also want it noted that the CIA director confrontation was deceptive on Ruppert's part. Here are the following sources for this information:

Crossing the Rubicon page 5 top (online copy): "I had taken and passed the written civil service promotional examination for detective and had been given an oral examination score above 90 percent as evaluated by a panel of senior officers."

Crossing the Rubicon page 6 bottom (online copy): "I was returned to full duty, without restrictions, in the late fall of 1977. In my remaining fourteen months with LAPD I earned the highest rating reports possible, was certified for promotion to detective and assigned to a month-long school for those about to be promoted."

Crossing the Rubicon page 7 top (online copy): "Forced out of LAPD under threat of death at the end of 1978, with no pending disciplinary actions, and just days away from promotion, I resigned and made complaints to LAPD’s Internal Affairs Division and to the LA office of the FBI."

Oldspammer (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Columnist Norman Solomon has argued that Ruppert has a flawed analytical model

Jajajaja, it is the first time that I listen a "columnist" (usually known to write without any kind of knowledge) to criticize someone for the "analytical model". This is a bad joke. If the mass media have to pay a dolar or a euro for every flawed analytical model or flagrant faul or clear manipulation, there will be no newspaper or TV in the West World and the Countries budget problem will be resolved.

Please erase something so absurd (or at least this bla bla bla Solomon should explain the resons under this statement (or is it another flawed analytical model)).

(The paper/ air/ Leds have no critical sense, we have to do it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.119.112 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)