Jump to content

Talk:Michael Collins Piper

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

Comments

[edit]

Phew, I dunno if it's disputed. Listen to one of those programs, they are anti-Semitic. Now, anti-Semitic in it's connotation rather than denotation is up for dispute. TKE 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he making it a racial issue (wherein he makes statements of negative characteristics, even ideologies and abberant subjects, like criminals, as geneticly inherant traits)? That is what I would have as a criteria for classifying him as Anti-Semitic. -- 69.248.43.27 09:57. 4 June 2006

Michael Collins Piper should continue with his work.This is America.We have freedom of speech.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nordwave (talk • contribs) .

Amen. IdeArchos 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nordwave, the Euro-American Racialist Newsletter ..." A White Nationalist Racialist Organization, part of the Aryan Nations movement - heavily involved in anti-Semitism (among a whole host of other forms of bigotry and prejudice) supports Piper. Which is no surprise for anyone who has read Piper’s addled, paranoid and deeply twisted version of reality. Yes, we do have freedom of speech in the US. We also have the right to accurately describe demigogues and crazies for what they are. The Wik entry is too complementary and does not do justice to the rubbish espoused by Piper. 71.76.38.68 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case (in regards to Piper), then how do you explaine some of this exchange between him and Mark Glenn 44 minutes into his August 22nd broadcast?
Here you can obvioussly hear him speaking derogatively about the supremacist, and even to some extent, seperatist movements for denying the participation of non-whites such as Glenn, Heshem Talawi, Matthias Chang, and other assorted Arab and Asian authors. - 68.32.201.254 13:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a smear piece well outside Wikipedia guidelines. Just because his writings are republished in "supremacist" websites doesn't mean he is one of them. This is a simply ploy, one that has made Wikipedia a shameful tool in the hands of some very evil people. Shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpduf (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did he die June 1 or May 30?

[edit]

Only notices I find of death go back to this: http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/06/michael-collins-piper-1960-2015.html which says May 30. I didn't find notice in Coeur dAlene papers. We must await an autopsy or better report. Are there better reports? Also, is it superfluous to mention that the conspir. sites posit it was murder (by heart attack)? GangofOne (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source for his death?

[edit]

Brought this up at WP:BLPN#Our article on Michael Collins Piper declares him dead with no reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed mention of his death due to the BLP policy.--Racklever (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This can be frustrating when you are very sure someone died, I've seen it take weeks to find a source. We don't want to get caught out by a hoaxer. Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Hoffman at "On the Contrary" blog, who lives in the same city as Mr. Piper, has reported his death. Here: http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/06/michael-collins-piper-1960-2015.html WHEELER (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't use blogs as sources for WP:BLPs. And BLP can apply for up to two years after he dies. Doug Weller (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This eponymous and very non-RS purported bio lists Piper in present tense, i.e. alive. There is, in fact, no reliable source anywhere online, that I can find, which confirms Piper's death (or much of his existence). Should be taken as "purported death" at best. Even local Coeur d'Alene, Idaho papers carry no reports of death or obits. Quis separabit? 17:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I never heard about Piper before either, let's say, not my type of guy. But as presented as a WP:RS/WP:V thing at WP:RSN this seemed easy enough to step in for finding a way of how to convert in acceptable article content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DougWeller: I am bringing this up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#American_Free_Press. - Location (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Reliable source" is a sliding scale here. It takes more reliability to attest for an effective treatment for cancer than it does to attest whether a personal acquaintance is dead. Cloudswrest (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#American_Free_Press, this is covered by WP:SELFPUB "unreliable sources about themselves", as far as I can see all five conditions of that WP:V provision are met. Would however not add detail that is not actually in the source (like calculating age at death). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Francis Schonken: Looks good to me. AFP states: "...we report on May 30... Michael Collins Piper passed away, the victim of an apparent heart attack." Is the source reliable enough to note the specific date and cause of death? - Location (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree

[edit]
  • A) [a]s far as I can see all five conditions of that WP:V provision are met."
I do disagree regarding at least two of those five conditions, to wit:
"the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim"
The material is extremely self-serving given that is quite hagiographical in nature and comes close to implying -- between the lines -- that his enemies drove him to his presumably lonely and miserable death
"there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"
Doubt is inherent when no reliable sources, only fringe websites and their mirrors report it


"surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" -- self-evidently uncovered in any, much less multiple, mainstream sources, which is the main problem. For instance, had any mention been made in msnbc or the the NY Times or even the ADL, that would have been more than sufficient for me, and I suspect, most editors.
"challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"

IN SUM

[edit]
I am not saying not to report his purported death but the dubious tags should remain in this case given the clear lack of consensus. P.S.S. I just did something which is inherently unreliable and OR, but I'll share. I called the Budget Motel in Coeur d'Alene and just asked the girl who answered the phone. Now I tend to speak quickly (New York City), especially when I am nervous, but I got the words out and she finally replied: "yes", and I assume she understood what I was saying. I added some more blather and thanked her and hung up. So I accept that he died but nonetheless, my own OR (do as I say, not as I do crap, LOL) notwithstanding, there is sufficient reason to maintain the {{Better source|date=July 2015}} tags regarding anything to do with the death.
I later checked with the local newspaper and spoke to an individual (let's just leave it at that, name and title not germane) who said that the death had been reported but as an unintended/non-suspicious death the decedent's name was likely not released by the police, possibly (IMHO) pending notification of next of kin. Now that I think about it, it's possible that the clerk who answered the phone at the Budget Motel knew of the death but not the name, I am thinking (in retrospect). The local police phone number is 208- 769-2300, if anyone is interested. I am not going to make any further inquiries. So,........ Quis separabit? 02:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "unduly self-serving" – it is not unduly self-serving for a newspaper to declare one of its collaborators dead. Wikipedia doesn't write an eulogy or whatever (the "self-serving" provision does only apply to the content Wikipedia displays).
It could be if it is not true and/or there is reason to question the motivation, accuracy, and/or truth of said declaration. Quis separabit? 07:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "reasonable doubt" – the person died, there's no reasonable doubt about it.
There was doubt when his name does not appear anywhere but in sources you yourself admit are inadequate (see below; "I'm OK with keeping the {{better source}} tags") Quis separabit? 07:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "exceptional claim" (WP:V) / "surprising/important claims" (WP:FRINGE) – people die, and when they do they get an obituary in the circles where their death is most felt, I don't see anything exceptional or surprising about such notices. The issue has been at BLPN and RSN. Live with the answers you got there. You could draw it to a third noticeboard, WP:FTN, but that would be close to WP:FORUMSHOP I suppose.
  • Please stop inserting detail in Wikipedia that is not in the quoted source, especially as that detail doesn't make any difference.
What does this mean? Is this a reference to age 54? That's basic arithmetic, not synthesis. Besides, that precise age appears in at least one of the url links being bandied about, namely this one. Quis separabit? 07:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. exact day when he died: all sources agree that he has died in 2015, I see (#Did he die June 1 or May 30?) some other unreliable sources purport another day of his death, so that part, that makes no real difference, goes only where there's an in-text attribution to the source that reported it. Adding less certain detail, that really makes no difference, just to be able to cast more aspersions in the Wikipedia article is not a good idea.
I never questioned the May 30 date, so...........? Quis separabit? 07:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you are OK with my suggestion re {{better source}}. Quis separabit? 07:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting update

[edit]

I got a call (I didn't even know they had my phone number) from an editor at the local paper (Coeur d'Alene Press) -- a different one than the one I spoke with yesterday, who must have noted down my phone number. Apparently I ignited some interest in the story and this second editor told me that the paper will be publishing an "interesting" story about the death. He confirmed the name on the death certificate was Michael Piper. So, I am in Eastern Standard Time, and Idaho is a different time zone, so I am not exactly sure when the story will appear. It seems we finally are going to have a genuinely reliable source after all!! Quis separabit? 01:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PSS: He asked me who I work for, and I told him that I am not a journalist and that all this originated over a Wikipedia article. I think he was shocked. Quis separabit? 02:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS IT: the one and only reliable source in the entire article: Coeur d'Alene Press report on death of Piper. You're very welcome. Quis separabit? 15:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • quoted from that source:

    [Wikipedia] posted a link to [the piper article] "talk page" for people to discuss the details of Piper's life and death

(bolding added) - that's of course not the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages per WP:NOTFORUM: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, blame me then because that's how I explained my interest in the story. I didn't lie and pretend I am a journalist nor did I make up some fictitious publication. IMHO, regarding BLP (which includes recently deceased individuals), we have had to discuss the details of Piper's life and death to some degree while trying to improve this very dicey article. (And that is usually the case with BLP articles). Details are unavoidable. You also left this out: "The confusion prompted Wikipedia to flag the death information on Piper's page as unfounded and in need of citations" from the reliable source you just quoted. Quis separabit? 15:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Collins Piper. 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Collins Piper. 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MLK Jr. Assassination theory

[edit]

The citation note here has got my attention;

"Piper wrote articles in American Free Press which alleged that the Mossad and the FBI conspired to set up the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Piper claims this was motivated by fear of King's anti-Israel statements combined with his massive grassroots power."

Piper may or may not have made this claim, but as near as I can tell, Martin Luther King Jr. was hardly the "Anti-Zionist" that people like him made him out to be. In fact there was some letter published online years ago where he replied to a young black militant discouraging him from being so hostile towards Israelis and Jews. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There’s a link to “ADL Files Controversy” that goes to the ADL’s Wikipedia page rather than a page for the controversy 2600:1700:E71:90B0:A06A:38A3:F322:2762 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Collins_Piper&oldid=1195557058"