Talk:Milton William Cooper

Off-topic:Bias in the Wikipedia article

The Wikipedia article on this topic demonstrates several issues arguably suggestive of bias, both specific to this article and indicative of broader systemic problems.

In discussing Behold a Pale Horse, the article refrains from citing it directly—which is correct because it is an autobiographical work—except where it highlights its inclusion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This selective citation seems designed to emphasize supposed flaws while ignoring other notable aspects.

The article cites sources that are probably hostile, opinion-wise, to Cooper, such as Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. This is problematic because Franken's book is not likely to offer neutral or substantive expertise on Cooper. At the time of writing, Franken was probably no more, and probably significantly less, qualified to evaluate matters related to things like U.S. naval intelligence than individuals like Cooper himself.

Moreover, the article leans on the broader field of conspiracy theory studies, which itself has been criticized for inherent bias against the validity of the subject matter.

In summary, the article adopts a stance that implicitly dismisses conspiracy theories and Cooper’s claims as false, aligning with broader biases on these topics. There also appears to be a reliance on politically or ideologically motivated sources. Since the article is locked, these troubling citations and incomplete perspectives remain locked in, carrying the implied imprimatur of Wikipedia and its reputation for neutrality.

A more balanced article would, among other things, contextualize politically charged sources by including critiques of the sources themselves (e.g., "so-and-so, a a commentator avowedly opposed to Cooper's views, said..."). Such an approach would help achieve a fairer and more nuanced representation.

Another thing, in the intro of the Wikipedia article on Milton Cooper, it cites theories on AIDS and HIV, which would perhaps tend to prejudice readers against him, even though it wasn’t central to his overall ideas. This specific claim is sourced not from a secondary source or even something he wrote and edited, but from an interview of him, albeit with a mainstream outlet (CNN). In other instances, Wikipedia has required non-primary sources instead of relying solely on videos of claims (to be clear: even for claims that someone made a claim, not the claim itself, even when there is a video of them making the claim), yet this single primary source is used in the lead. This appears inconsistent with the guidelines and suggests that some Wikipedia editors who control the articles might be bending the rules to portray some individuals as less appealing. EnWikiAdmin (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Edited: EnWikiAdmin (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)