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.


 * It isn't bias when a state body issues the order against the organization Ruppert owned, and was the prime instigator in creating the type of workplace sited by the state of Oregon labor board. Are you saying that he, or FTW has paid the $125Gs ordered by the state of Oregon labor board, and therefore should no longer be noted as a fact related to this character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.4.34 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is really pathetic Wikipedia. Get your act together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainchannels (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying reliable sources do not desribe him as a conspiracy theorist? Feel free to add any relevant info on the book. Jesanj (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the real issue here is how people define "conspiracy," because most people seem to think of a conspiracy theorist as some kind of fringe nutjob...when in fact, conspiracies happen all the time, and that isn't limited to government. Hell, 9/11 was a conspiracy, and I'm not saying it was an inside job either.  But the official story says it was a radical Islamist conspiracy...all conspiracy means is a group of people made a plan, secretly, and then carried it out.  I don't think it's the least bit far-fetched to expect governments to do this on a very regular basis, so to call somebody a conspiracy theorist should be a compliment.


 * Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 1:14 AM EST, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

It looks like the link to The Lifeboat Hour archives does not work. Those archives appear to have been moved / removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyllei (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 June 2016 (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)

Something to consider: not all facts are easily verifiable. Let me ask you something - does something being unverifiable mean it's definitely fiction? I could back this up with so many examples that I figure even you should be smart enough to conjure up some.

And @Lippard, Frankly, it doesn't much matter how he strikes you. That is your opinion, which leads to bias, which will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.131.251 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2011 (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 Articles for deletion/Michael Ruppert and then restored per 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)


 * So, what about his confrontation was deceptive? I see nothing you quoted from Crossing the Rubicon that indicates this...indeed he was no professional detective but I'm just curious, what makes you say he was deceptive?


 * Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 1:06 AM EST, 11 September 2011 (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)


 * I agree.


 * Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 1:07 AM EST, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here to comment on this part also. The criticism goes: "such-and-such newspaper reported that thus-and-so claim was made by so-and-so. The paper reported on the claim, but that doesn't mean the claim is true." That can be said about most people's informed opinions. It's pretty pathetic if this is the best argument against him. Point being, it's not a real criticism. Maybe something more sensible and honest could be quoted instead. Neurolanis (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Death, Reliable Source
Reliable Source for death: His website Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not an acceptable source
If the Daily Mail is the only source we have for the rather pejorative term "conspiracy theorist", let's wait to slander this man until we've got something more substantial, yes?  petrarchan47  t  c   23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not the only source. The other sources that were already here in the article and were already used to support the dubious claim of "investigative journalist" also cited him as a "conspiracy theorist".   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the most detailed source I found, but still suspect when his cohost has to say "This was not a “fake” suicide.". Tom Ruen (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Miller, Michael’s attorney and business partner at Collapse Net, told me he confirmed Michael’s death with Napa County Sheriff’s Office Monday afternoon and that his death was, “an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.” According to Miller, Michael used a “Glock 30 .45 caliber pistol” and shot himself in the head; his body was discovered by a friend.

Says who, for godsake!
I'm sorry, but as to the section heading, "Daily Mail is not an acceptable source": on what possible ridiculousness could such an assertion possibly be based... that is, at least as to the material facts of the story? The Daily Mail and its MailOnline is part of the huge Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), which is one of London's oldest and largest media corporations (see here). It is a real newspaper, with a real newsroom, and real and professional journalists -- who've been to journalism school, which, at least in the US, is no small fete to either get into or graduuate from -- working for it; and with equally-well-educated and even more experienced editors vetting their writing.

The Daily Mail is not some fly-by-night, grocery store Penny-Saver-type publication, fortheloveofgod! We may not like that it's conservative; we may prefer The Guardian, but we don't, no matter what, get to call it an unreliable (or... rather... I'm sorry... "unacceptable": same difference, for our purposes, here) source...

...again, at least not as to the material facts. Granted, the "conspiracy theorist" part may have seemed like a shot to some; but, c'mon: the guy was part of that world; and no Ruppert fan's wishing otherwise is gonna' change that. Again: C'mon!

You know, this kind of crap is precisely the reason why most in academia will not accept research papers -- and especially masters' thesis and/or doctoral dissertations -- with citations in them from Wikipedia. When fans of an article's subject refuse to allow facts which may be reliably cited into said article simply because it might paint him as something other than they wish he was, then a horrible ethical line has been crossed. Yes, I suppose it's possible that it could later turn-out that he didn't kill himself; that he was murdered, or something. But, if so, then fine: that, too (that it was first reported to be a suicide, but investigators later learned it was a murder) would, at that point, belong in the article; with proper citations. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: we can change stuff when needed.

The Daily Mail is reporting that he committed suicide, and there's nothing wrong with writing that in the article. This whole business of just saying that he took a gunshot to the head, without including the hugely-important additional factor that it was apparently self-inflicted, is just disingenuous; and is, in and of itself, a form of bias and point-of-view and withholding of facts which, if properly remedied, some who liked Ruppert may not like; but said withholding is unassailably, incontrovertibly and facially wrong. Period.

Some painfully obvious things -- like that water's wet, for example -- simply don't need to be either explained or defended. Shame on anyone, here, who thinks that that it was a suicide -- or at least a reported one, at this point -- shouldn't be in the article.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To be very clear, my remarks about the Daily Mail come from a read of the reliable sources noticeboard. It is a tabloid (which is why there were no qualms about reporting his death sans any sort of corroboration) that can be used for direct quotations at most, but not for reporting facts. Further, I am not a "fan" of Ruppert and had never heard of him until twp days ago. But in the few hours since his death, the introductory paragraph meant to summarize this man was changed so that his questioning of the official 911 story became slander rather than NPOV information. I have checked others who are listed in the category "911 conspiracy theorists" and do not see this label included in their biographies (let alone the opening paragraph!). At the end of the day, this is a human being who deserves respect. Remember, to label something a conspiracy means that we have all the facts and can say for sure what the truth is. "Peak oil" was considered a wild conspiracy only 4 or 5 years ago, now, with a bit more knowledge, it is considered fact and those who were ostracized for supporting the theory garner nothing but respect for it. We can say Ruppert questioned the 911 story, and elaborate on that, but there is no justification for attempting to de-legitimize him by hinting that he is a nutball overall. His questioning of 911, in the few days I've been researching him, has not come up. Rather, he is known for saying no to the CIA's request that he watch over their shipments of drugs to the US, and for later 'going off the grid', getting sober, and practicing Native American spirituality, as well as his series on VICE and his documentary, "Collapse".   petrarchan47  t  c   22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail was merely an addition to the five other sources already cited in the first sentence of the article that all identified him Ruppert as a conspiracy theorist. He is also identified as such by Slate and NPR.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The DailyMail article did not confirm his death, so they are reporting hearsay, not verifiable facts. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "9/11 conspiracy theorist and investigative journalist Michael Ruppert has reportedly committed suicide. Attempts by MailOnline to confirm Mr Ruppert's suicide were unsuccessful. 42 West, the New York publicity department for his 2009 documentary Collapse hung up the phone when contacted while the Milwaukee production office could offer no information. Attempts to contact author Carolyn Baker were so far unsuccessful. Phone numbers connected to Mr Ruppert's businesses were disconnected."
 * You have apparently never worked for a newspaper. I have... as both a reporter and editor. I have the AP Stylebook practically memorized. No serious newspaper would report something that was not reasonably believed true; and when the story's young, they tend to couch their assertions with such as what you quote when all they have is one quoted source. But, trust me, they never would have run it without being darned sure that when they could finally verify, it would be as they reported. Trust me.


 * Please learn how newspapers actually work before insisting on such ridiculousness. Anyway, as long as the Wikipedia article reflects the facts, as they are -- which, for the moment, includes that it's been reported, and by whom -- then Wikipedia is being responsible. Moreover, large general newspaper credibility is such that when one reports something, it may reasonably be cited, based on said reporting, alone.


 * Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't be arrogant while I'm learning to be skeptical, there's a credibility to Wikipedia as well, if it maintains second-hand alleged facts as facts. You encourage me to be bolder in my skepticism. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not being arrogant. You're just not living in the real world; and apparently buy-in to the whole suspicion-for-its-own-sake silliness of that it wasn't suicide as we're now seeing on such as the Drudge Report. As to Wikipedia's being responsible, how I wrote what I wrote is, believe me. That said... | Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the death date from the intro paragraph until there is a primary source. There's no hurry in waiting for an official statement. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...actually, I think that's a good move, for now. I agree with that. At least the information is there. When you and your likes are finally convinced (which given your uncalled-for skepticism may, I suspect, be never), then you can reinstate the "Death" section. I'm happy as long as the information is there, and you've done it in a way that gives us both what we want, and still well-serves Wikipedia's interests. Kudos.
 * Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Further activities and reception
The further activities seems to be out of chronological order:

Ruppert is contributing to the Collapse Network before he then goes on to launch it.

Also the Reception section seems out of place, maybe move to a filmography section? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Michael Ruppert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130325185007/http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=66 to http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=66

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ruppert's claims
The article says this early on: "While serving with the LAPD, he became involved with a woman, Nordica Theodora D’Orsay, through whom Ruppert became aware of the relationship between organised crime and official government agencies, particularly with respect to narcotics and arms trafficking. Ruppert's attempts to alert the LAPD to these realities resulted in his being 'forced out' of the department in 1978, even though he had achieved the highest ratings in his professional conduct as an LAPD officer."

Shouldn't that be sourced by something reliable? (It currently isn't.) At the very least it should be said that this is something Ruppert claimed that has never been proven. In fact, to my knowledge, no one has even confirmed that this D’Orsay even existed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have partially reverted that addition from September 2016. That edit also screwed up the sourcing making it appear that one source said things that are not actually in it. -Location (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Ruppert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215072047/http://prn.fm/category/archives/lifeboat-hour/ to http://prn.fm/category/archives/lifeboat-hour/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Marriage
Shouldn't it be mentioned that he was once married, and that his ex-wife's name is Mary? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Please substitute this video link for Apocalypse, Man
Please substitute this video link for Apocalypse, Man (all 6 parts, uncut):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6O0WD9Y0c

173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Can't do that. It appears to have been posted by someone other than the copyright holder. Skyerise (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)