Jump to content

Talk:Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ADL":

  • From Ku Klux Klan: "About the Ku Klux Klan". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  • From Alex Linder: Alex Linder/Vanguard News Network (VNN), Anti-Defamation League.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

[edit]

Could someone fix the obviuos spelling error in the introductory paragraph (Wwhite nationalism)? I tried to do it from my phone and accidentally deleted half the page. CbGross (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traitor Glenn Miller

[edit]

Martin Lindstedt, a dual-seedline Identity activist frequently refers to Glenn Miller as "traitor glenn miller" as do many in the White Nationalist/right-wing movement. There are numerous articles where the word "traitor" precedes his name. Hence, Traitor Glenn Miller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are so mindbogglingly obscure that I find it difficult to believe you are asserting that this little gimmick belongs in an encyclopedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Election boxes

[edit]

His showing did not rate inclusion of his candidacy in Election boxes. Let's keep perspective here. Dont' give him Undue Weight - per Wikipedia policy.Parkwells (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The White Patriot Party

[edit]

According to a research paper titled "Rise of Domestic Terrorism and Its Relation to United States Armed Forces," by LCDR Steven Mack Presley, MSC, USN, submitted to the faculty of the U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 19 April 1996, "In 1979 the Army discharged a sergeant named Glenn Miller for distributing racist literature, after which he founded the White Patriot[s] Party ..." Currently, there is nothing in Mr. Miller's bio here to show that he was ever a member of the U.S. armed forces. 108.15.108.109 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Has that paper been published anywhere?
2. What is the Lt.Cdr.'s source? Has IT been published? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the SPLC, Cross quit high school as a senior to join the Army. In a 20-year Army career he had two tours in Vietnam and 13 years as a member of the elite Green Berets before he was forced to retire because of his Klan affiliation in 1979.", as cited by "Former KKK Leader Suspected in Kansas Jewish Center Attacks: Sources" on nbc.com or NBC. I think a 20-year career would most certainly be noted somewhere or leave a very long paper trail, especially if he were later forced-out. Sounds like an imposter? --roger (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the following Internet web page have any relevance?
"A White Man Speaks Out; The former leader of the largest active White Rights Group in the United States, Speaks out for White America."; F.Glenn Miller; Published 1999; http://whty.org/book/07.htm.
Chapter 4: "And, being retired from the U.S. Army and financially independent, thanks to my retirement pay, I could devote my full time and attention to the task." --roger (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More info. I found the Google Cache(ed) page about Miller published by the SPLC, "http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.splcenter.org/get%2520informed/intelligence%2520files/profiles/Glenn%2520Miller&sa=G&strip=1" The article is a very long biography about Miller written apparently by the SPLC (splcenter.org), and I think currently temporarily inaccessible due to server being overloaded with requests. --roger (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys. All I can see from my researching on the web for any possible official US Army career, is maybe two or three blurbs (or gossip) within the Internet public forums and a brief mentioned within a biography, and likely based on hearsay from Miller himself. (And his name is interestingly similar to the US Army Air Force "Major Glenn Miller" (1904-1944), albeit commonly happens.) One mention of the US Army affiliation also documented Miller suffering for extremely severe alcoholism. Could go either way. Here's the URL in referring his alcohol problem alongside the supposed Army career, "http://whitereference.blogspot.com/2007/07/former-white-patriot-party-leader.html" I would think, somebody running for public office and who had sincerely put forth 20 years of service toward their Country, they would have noted their lengthy US Army career on their Resume when running for public office? Might suggest retitling this section within Talk as, "Questionable US Army Military Affiliation or Service Record?" ---roger (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another blurb, "http://www.pitch.com/FastPitch/archives/2010/04/01/glenn-miller-us-senate-candidate-puts-racist-ads-on-kmbz-980s-airwaves-updated" "Retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant. 20 years active duty, with 2 tours in Vietnam and 13 years in the elite Green Beret paratroops. 3 and 1/2 years college - Johnston Tech College, Smithfield, NC. Married w/5 children. 43 years actively working for rights of White people." And a little more is found here "http://www.socnet.com/archive/index.php/t-64948.html", "According to a paper written by a Navy LCDR in 1996, a Sgt. Miller was discharged in 1979 for distributing racist literature." which is quoted from, "Rise of Domestic Terrorism and Its Relation to United States Armed Forces" (Thesis); Author LCDR Steven Mack Presley, MSC, USN; 19 April 1996; "http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/presley.htm" As you'll further read from somebody else posting on socnet.com, that Miller is listed as MIA. FOIA Request? --roger (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official record, obtainable from the government, states that Miller was in the Army from 03 March 1959 until 31 May 1979. Then he RETIRED. That's a standard 20-year stint. The official record gives no support to the claim that Miller was discharged involuntarily. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Buddy Fred Lewis: Need to go by what reliable, secondary sources say. Shouldn't use primary sources or do original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARE YOU SERIOUS? What the US Government's own authoritative documents say is not admissible on Wikipedia? That is crazy. Primary sources are normally consiered better and more reliable than secondary sources, which are simply reports of what primary sources say (plus a certain amount of bias and error). One wonders why somebody would not want the most reliable information to be used.

FYI I did not do the research. Jim Giles ordered the documents and posted them online, although they have been taken down now. I did not edit the article but anyone who is going to edit the article should be advised of what facts are out there. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Buddy Fred Lewis: Sorry, you need to understand Wikipedia's policy on original research as well as the use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources better. The page to read is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. EvergreenFir gave you this advice as well but evidently you did not read the page that s/he referenced.Gharlane (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia rules allow the use of both primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia rules say that primary sources should be used with care, because it is easy to mis-use them. Generally, an article should rely mainly on secondary sources. The obvious corresponding concept is that there will be some situations where an article does not rely mainly on secondary sources.
Obviously, a primary source is much more reliable than a secondary source on the issue of what the primary source actually says. For example, the text of a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress as published in the United States Statutes at Large by the U.S. Government Publishing Office is legally conclusive of what the actual text is, while a secondary source (such as a newspaper report) on what the statute supposedly says is not as reliable.
The problem with the use of primary sources is not a problem of what the source says, but rather a problem of what the source means. That's where the Wikipedia concept of "No Original Research" comes in. A secondary source, such as a newspaper, might include an interpretation of the meaning of a primary source. In Wikipedia, we want interpretations to be handled by reliable, published secondary sources -- not by Wikipedia editors themselves. When Wikipedia editors take primary sources and then try to overlay them with the editor's own interpretation, the danger of mis-representing what the primary source means is increased. In part because of that danger, we have the rule called "No Original Research."
Merely using primary sources properly is not, in and of itself, prohibited "Original Research." And, even though secondary sources are generally preferred, mis-using a secondary source could be prohibited Original Research. Famspear (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another point about using primary sources: Although the primary source is generally the best source for what the primary source says, that does not mean that what the primary source says is necessarily true. For example, suppose that the issue is: "What did a witness say in open court?" Obviously, the actual transcript, the actual official court record of the testimony, will be considered more reliable than a secondary report on what the witness said.
But, suppose the issue instead is: "Is what the witness said actually true?" Believe it or not, some witnesses do lie under oath in open court. Wikipedia generally does not allow a court transcript to be used to show that what the witness said is true. The mere fact that a statement is found in a court transcript does not make that statement true.
There is a big difference between a transcript of the testimony of a witness and (for example) the text of a court order. Both of them are primary sources. But primary sources must be used very carefully, and most Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on secondary sources. Famspear (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This makes no sense. How can an official U.S. military document (a primary source) be misused? In my opinion, it is the other way around. Secondary sources often include opinion. In fact, a major component of writing history (secondary sources) is making an argument. Primary sources can't lie. They can be misused, but only through the process of writing a biased secondary source, which Wikipedia seems to value over anything else. Miller's service record(primary source) does not lie. I smell an agenda to discredit the man afoot. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP 108.38.29.47: Primary sources "can't lie"? Of course, a primary source can be full of lies. I think you need to get clear in your mind what a "primary source" is.
No, you don't "smell an agenda". You don't even know who I am. And, my explanation makes perfect sense. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and with the concepts of primary and secondary sources in particular.
Nowhere in my commentary did I refer to any "official U.S. military document," or whether the document should be used as a source in the article. I was trying to help new readers understand some of basic principles about primary sources, secondary sources, and Original Research (which is a term of art in Wikipedia, and does not mean exactly what it may mean in other contexts).
As an editor here, you are going to lose credibility very quickly by making statements like "I smell an agenda." Famspear (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

portrait image

[edit]

Possible sources for a fair-use image of the suspect:

Needless to say, before displaying an image in the article, it should be critically verified to really show the suspect. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WP:NFCI would allow "fair use" of a non-free image in this situation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC under attack by media personalities

[edit]

The work of the SPLC can now have a posterchild of their efforts to track and warn of bad eggs. The previous month's airwaves have been full of critical commentary of the SPLC; some, going so far as to classify it as a hate group. A section on this angle seems relevant. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the article about the SPLC, but not here. 24.228.230.15 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the access of Frazier's files by the SPLC be called something more accurate, like an illegal invasion of privacy, and theft. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did the SPLC "access" the files? And, which specific records are you talking about? And, specifically, what law was broken? Famspear (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, please refrain from engaging in the emotional,delusional, anti-Semitic ranting. Famspear (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to see a trend here. Merely criticize a Jew and you get slammed, but emotional, delusional, anti-Christian ranting is OK. Got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.29.47 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified Special Forces service

[edit]

The article cites some "who's who" type book about racists which is the source for Miller supposedly being a "Green Beret" which would mean he actually was Special Forces qualified. There's been a fair amount of debate over this, but the bottom line is that it's unverified. Until his service record (DD-214) is verified, this claim cannot be made, and should be redacted. He apparently was a clerk and may have been part of the administrative detachment that supported SF - big difference. He was in the US Army - that much we know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.30.76 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authorities say Miller was allegedly caught with black prostitute

[edit]
Issues with WP:BLP as no convictions were made. Also completely WP:UNDUE to even mention it here. Moreover, the language used in that and related articles is quite offensive to trans and queer people and crossdressers. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete "black" from my original title for this section? (In the article, the prosecutor says Miller, a prominent white supremacist, was found with a black sex worker which seems noteworthy to me but I see your point that Miller wasn't convicted.) --TheCockroach (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP policy applies to everyone, including people I may personally find contemptible. If there was no conviction, we should not repeat this allegation. BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as article space. It is not our role to point out hypocrisy. The man's words and alleged actions in a far more serious and notable crime speak for themselves. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I delete this section from the talk page? --TheCockroach (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fine. The discussion here does concern improving the article and is quite civil so I don't think there's a need to delete anything per WP:RTP. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir deleted the word "black" from my original section title. Am I allowed to re-add it since taking that word out changes the meaning/point of why I posted this in the first place? --TheCockroach (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it necessary, you can add the ascribed race of the prostitute. I find the sex/gender ascription questionable and mildly offensive however (hoping they change the article, but not holding my breath). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added "black" back into the title. --TheCockroach (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is not being applied here correctly. The article does a very extensive job at documenting the chronology of his illegal activity. Furthermore, a conviction is not required to make this fact about his life meet WP:BLP. It's widely documented and confirmed. The fact there is an admission makes the part about innocent until proven guilty with no conviction a moot point. Mkdwtalk 01:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and your version was much better written than the original one. However, I understand the other editors' concern that it seems very tabloidy. I feel like this sort of info is the clickbaity stuff that news media like to generate. It's questionable if there should be so much written on it. Maybe as a middle ground, a brief sentence could be included. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually believe there is quite a bit of material here that could be fleshed out. For example, the article does not mention the fact that he was an FBI informant and received a false identity. That is a major aspect of his involvement with law enforcement, and the mention about his criminal record could be placed somewhere in there as he seemingly received protection as no charges were filed and this only came to light during a review of his file. Mkdwtalk 14:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to inclusion of any mention of a prostitute, especially when trans-antagonistic descriptions are used (as they are repeatedly used in the media about it). FBI thing makes perfect sense to include, but alleged crimes do not, no matter how much tabloids have published on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS, per IDENTITY, we should not assume the gender identity of the prostitute. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:IDENTITY. Evan (talk|contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference in making content adhere to policies and completely wiping it out as a significant amount of other information such as his 5 year sentence was removed without explanation, clearly relevant and cited, and not in relation to IDENTITY. Please use caution and adjust on the relevant sentences than mass removal. I would also like to further mention that while we can be ambiguous that the gender and race of the incident were specifically cited in the official statement by law officials and not antagonistic but a key detail. I've made it more neutral but the released statement and coverage of particular international headlines makes no sense because it's more than just a prostitute but a situation where a person facing hate crimes has been involved in something contrary to character. I'm fine if you feel there needs to be a reword but not that the expense of not making sense. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current state. It avoids the somewhat tabloidy, possibly transphobic sensationalism over the identity of the prostitute. I don't think it's necessary to comment on the identity of the prostitute, because if the identity of the prostitute was the only thing that made this event notable, then I don't think it's notable at all. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 05:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I've not been involved in this discussion up to now but I've just removed a sentence on this topic from the article. My main objection's the unexplained assertion that the media was interested in the race & gender of the sex worker, without clarifying those things – I think we either need to explicitly mention those things or not mention them at all rather than falling into one of those awkward compromises; however I don't have an especially strong opinion as to which of those sides we should come down on. I haven't read enough on the topic to know how WP:IDENTITY fits into this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Saying the media was interested and then citing a media article talking about it seems like original research. To make that claim, we would need to find a source reporting on the media being interested itself. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we have many references clearly stating that the prostitute was a black and that he/Miller was a leading figure in KKK, this information needs to be in the article. It is a dichotomy and shows how two-faced the white supremacy movement is, so it is indeed a key statement. I've added in 4-5 refs that fulfill the rather loose criteria for sources on Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia does not have as stringent rules on sources as for example peer-reviewed research so these should clearly suffice. All in all, Miller was busted, the prostitute was black, but Miller was not convicted due to FED protection. Seems simple to to me. In the current form, the hypocritical state of the white supremacy movement shines through (and it outweighs the negatives of divulging the race of the prostitute in question). Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. It is not our place to show hypocrisy. "It is a dichotomy and shows how two-faced the white supremacy movement is" is a POV and agenda statement. We must write for the enemy and remain neutral. A minor offense for which he was not convicted for does not belong in this article at all, no matter how delicious the irony. Moreover, we absolutely cannot identify the gender of the prostitute if we don't know it. Flies in the face of WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above (though I wasn't previously familiar with WP:ENEMY – certainly an interesting essay). I'd also add that although you're right, Sjuttiosjuochfjorton, that Wikipedia doesn't require peer-reviewed sources, there's nonetheless a consensus against using sources like HuffPo, Gawker and the Daily Mail to support contentious material about living people (see WP:IRS, WP:BLPSOURCES, and multiple discussions about each publication in the archives of WP:RSN). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC

Contrary to what somebody says above, the essential nature of the incident is not confirmed. Doug McCullough, who is quoted about the incident in WTVD's seminal article on the matter, now says that Miller was not caught in any sex-act with the transvestite prostitute. Miller himself has consistently stated that the reason why he had picked up the transvestite prostitute was for the purpose of beating him up. In other words Miller was acting as a vigilantee. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Buddy Fred Lewis: First, we do not know why the prostitute was allegedly in women's clothing. Don't assume the person was a transvestite. Second, that is not vigilanteeism, that's a hate crime. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any future discussion of this allegation should be informed by the fact that WTVD's implied source for the story, J. Douglas McCullough, has denounced the central claim, which is that Miller was caught in a lewd act with the male prostitute. He says that this was not in the incident report that he saw, although WTVD and other news sources have been implying that it was. McCullough seems to be the best available source for that information other than Miller himself, since ABC News has reported that no public record of the incident could be found. http://noncounterproductive.blogspot.com/2014/04/former-federal-prosecutor-backtracks.html Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Born Frazier Glenn CROSS, Jr.?

[edit]

I added a 'citation needed' notice to this sentence: "Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr. was born Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr. in North Carolina, and named after his father." Is this right? Or is Cross the name he took when he went into witness protection? —Morning star (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME

[edit]

If it's true what the lede says, that he's commonly known as Glenn Miller, then why isn't this article at "Glenn Miller (some disambiguator)"? That's what WP:COMMONNAME prescribes.

46.194.62.8 (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article titles policy also recommends using natural disambiguation instead of parenthetical disambiguation when possible. His full name is probably used frequently enough in reliable sources for it to be preferable to "Glenn Miller (murderer)" or similar. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr military records.

[edit]

Here are the official copies of his military records from a FOIA request.

Document 1 Document 2 Document 3

These are copies obtained from the National Archives, that can be foundhere. This is a federal organization that records and keeps records of all past and current military personal. You may request a copy of these records set can be done by following these directions .

Articseahorse (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate of Neo-Paganism?

[edit]

That doesn't seem likely when his every reference to religion quoted in the rest of the article advocates for Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.76.235.72 (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is cited to an article in the New York Daily News, which cites as evidence something he wrote in 1999 where he said "I'd love to see North America's 100 million Aryan Christians convert to the religion invented by their own race and practiced for a thousand generations before the Jews thought up Christianity ... Odinism! This is the religion for a strong heroic people, the Germanic people, from whose loins we all descended, be we German, English, Scott, Irish or Scandinavian". Clearly his views on these things were somewhat confused, as we have other quotations in the article, dated after 1999, where he venerates Christianity. But I agree that the point probably shouldn't be in the lede section, which is supposed to summarise the article, given that it isn't mentioned elsewhere. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frazier_Glenn_Miller_Jr.&oldid=1216341531"