Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Summary of WP:NPOV and UNDUE.

An opinion stated numerous times does not make it fact. American conspiracy theorist in the lead is a descriptive term based on opinion. WP:NPOV states Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Griffin's view of the term "conspiracy" as quoted from a published interview: First of all, we need to define this horrible word, conspiracy. A lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to that. They talk about conspiracy theorists as though conspiracies weren’t real, and I feel sorry for these people because I know they have never read a history book because history is full of conspiracies. In fact, it’s hard to come up with a major event in history that wasn’t created to some large and significant extent by a conspiracy or more of them. Conspiracies are very real in history. They’re very real in our present day. If you doubt that just go to any courtroom and sit there and listen to the cases that come before the judge and before the jury, and a good percentage of them involve conspiracies of one kind or another. So when people talk about conspiracy theories, I have to laugh. It’s too bad they don’t know anything about history. [1]

WP:Fringe theories - Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. References to laetrile and quackery in the article to describe Griffin's opinions and writings are POV and UNDUE as written, partly because the earlier claims are outdated by 35 years or so. There is no mention of the significant published results and/or recent scientific and academic research wherein the results either dispute or question the antiquated claims, and is still ongoing. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr., Dean Burk, and Kanematsu Sugiura, John A. Richardson, Philip E. Binzel, Jr., Hans Nieper of West Germany, N.R. Bouziane, M.D., from Canada, whistle blower Ralph Moss, and other highly reputable science writers, notable researchers and medical doctors, several of whom are included in Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, are not quacks, and their findings and actual clinical experiences/results are not quackery according to some RS. Where is the balance? Where is NPOV? Some of the theories Griffin pointed out in his book have been validated by factual information that was recently published, such as Ralph Moss' book, Second Opinion, and John A. Richardson's book, Laetrile Case Histories [2].

Further validation relative to the above is further evidenced here: [3]...(a reliable, published academic source which holds relevance as a source because Griffin is mentioned and cited in their research). Following are two excerpts from that published work:

The other major criticism made by Second Opinion has been corroborated by the New York Academy of Sciences through its official publication, The Sciences. According to a press release of the Academy, the recent Sloan-Kettering experiments were done on `the most drug resistant of experimental cancers, and that many drugs that are effective against cancer in human patients have never been tested on them. As a result of the Academy's investigative work, Sloan- Kettering had to alter its manuscript which was forthcoming in the Journal of Surgical Oncology.

AND....

Our position is impartial, or perhaps even agnostic: we are not directly concerned with whether or not Laetrile cures or controls cancer. Rather, as in an analysis of the Velikovsky conflict, our interest is in 'the methodological significance of the affair,'93 or 'the methods which are actually used to distinguish those knowledge claims which are "true" from the rest.'94 Both sides of the controversy warrant examination. Finally, by giving equal time to both sides of the controversy, we are not suggesting that both sides have similar legitimacy. Rather, our explanation of the phenomenon is symmetrical, meaning that the behaviours of both sides must be understood if the controversy is to be understood.

The same issues apply to The Creature.... It is not our job as editors to advocate for or against what is written in Griffin's books. Our job is to present in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. And therein the problem lies. The article simply does not meet the requirements for NPOV, and contains several BLP violations. Atsme☯^Consult 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

everybody understands your position on this atsme and yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT is not helpful for resolving the dispute. We are discussing specific issues above, and we are making some slow progress. At some point, when we have identified specific core areas of disagreement we can perhaps take this to mediation, but a) we must have first thoroughly talked things out here; b) we must have sought outside input via postings at notice boards, (and we should consider an RfC that we all agree accurately identifies the issues). If we still fail to get resolution then, mediation may be our best final step. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess it was so slow I totally missed it, so please point out what you consider progress. So far, and I might be wrong, but all I recognize as your primary contribution is WP:SQS while the BLP violations remain unresolved. FYI, the above is not a statement of my position, rather it is a very specific summary of the BLP violations, complete with accompanying WP policy statements and reliable sources that validate my position. It would be refreshing to see those who dispute my claims actually cite policy explaining why the named BLP violations don't exist. Surely I haven't overlooked something that important. I also don't understand your interest in this article considering the fact you haven't made any attempt to expand or improve it. I've already made known my purpose here, and I see where Srich32977 and a few other editors have attempted collaboration for the sake of progress. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain yours. Atsme☯^Consult 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have commented above on specific issues and briefly, which is generally the way that progress is made.Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of Atsme's claims in this section are new. The notion that there are BLP violations has been peddled extensively and has failed to gain consensus. I don't see the point of this new section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason I keep mentioning the BLP violations is because they still exist, and the editors who kept reverting and/or adding unreliable sources in an attempt to qualify the violations did not satisfy the NPOV requirement. And you wonder why I have to keep repeating myself. Ok, so I'll repeat what I stated a few lines above, and will also including the section title in the event you missed it...Summary of WP:NPOV and UNDUE - {{xt...it is a very specific summary of the BLP violations, complete with accompanying WP policy statements and reliable sources that validate my position. It would be refreshing to see those who dispute my claims actually cite policy explaining why the named BLP violations don't exist.}} Why did you think they were new claims? It is ludicrous to advance to new claims before the prominent BLP violations have been resolved. I'm still waiting for the editors who so boldly reverted the violations and caused PP to actually cite policy explaining why they think the named BLP violations don't exist. I haven't seen anything yet that qualifies as strict adherence to BLP policy. I do not see where any progress has been made, either, and I've actually read, re-read, and re-re-read all the comments. Atsme☯^Consult 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that when the full protection ends you'll quickly begin repeating the same edits you were making before. The fact that this might not be a good idea probably won't give you pause, will it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, it would probably help if you work through the article section by section and solve the issues in each section rather than wanting to do it all at the same time. Others don't share your concern that there are BLP issues in the article which need to be addressed straight away, therefore you need to move on from that onto improving the article the usual (proposal, negotiation and compromise) way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, my focus has been on the lead section, and trying to make it policy compliant. I understand your point, and under normal circumstances, I would definitely agree and follow your advice. Actually, I wouldn't be in this position under normal circumstances, so please try to understand mine. JzG actually acknowledged the contentious label in the lead, [4]. Unfortunately, he didn't come here as a proponent of NPOV, and tried to validate the violation by adding a few more unacceptable sources (trivial mention), holding true to his belief that "quibbling about the strength of sourcing does not really help." He's right to the extent that an RS will not magically convert an opinion into a statement of fact. In 2008, there was a collaboration of GF editors trying to get the Griffin article ready as a possible GA candidate. They kept the contentious labels and pejoratives out of the lead [5], which is unlike what I've tried to do. In June 2014 the contentious label was added back, [6], appearing as a statement of fact supported by WP. The article went downhill from there. I credit Srich for trying to negotiate and compromise like what you suggested - his patience is admirable - and his take on it may be quite different from mine, but his edits were also reverted before the PP. I think a few of his edits were "allowed" to remain, which begs the question, WP:OWN?? The pattern of responses in the section by section discussion above resembles WP:SQS. Is keeping Griffin a WP:Coatrack so important that it's worth all this disruption? Atsme☯^Consult 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, others agree that it is a contentious statement not that it is a BLP violation, in fact the rough consensus here so far is that it isn't a BLP vio. So you need to move on from arguing that, and probably the lede as well and focus on other parts of the article. Once you have sorted out those other parts you can go back to the lede. Continuing to post walls of text about the same issue isn't going to lead to progress and just is going end up with someone getting blocked when the protection expires or the article getting protected again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, are you seriously suggesting Ralph Moss as a reliable source? A man who has consistently lied about the job he did at MSKCC and was sacked for misrepresenting his employers? I do hope not. He is a crank. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the man, JzG, but if you are referring to the quote I included above about Second Opinion, please be advised it came from Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed journal. It's actually a well-balanced, well-written paper, and a good read. I highly recommend it. I'm not quite sure why my work has been so heavily criticized, but it appears as though it is the result of misinterpretation. Please rest assured that the prose I write is balanced, dispassionate, NPOV, well cited, and follows policy to the best of my ability. I'm not perfect, so if another GF editor takes issue with something I've written, I am always ready and willing to discuss and collaborate if given half the chance to do so. If I've made a mistake, improperly cited a reference, etc., I have no problem correcting it, or having another editor correct it. My opinions about the subject are irrelevant, and the same applies to collaborators because our job is to be balanced and neutral. I don't factor in my personal opinions about anything I write unless I'm commissioned to write an opinion piece. If you haven't already, please read what I wrote, and tell me what's so wrong about it. [7].

Atsme, please see WP:MEDRS. Our content on laetrile needs to be sourced from independent sources: statements by major medical and scientific bodies, and the most recent reviews we can find. Those sources are already used in the article. Please especially see the "respect secondary sources" section of MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? What are you referring to? Atsme☯^Consult 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You only reference one-health related matter in this section - laetrile, and you discuss sources for material on laetrile. Those sources fail MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific - I truly don't know what you're referencing. Are you talking about the diff? Are you talking about something I referenced in this discussion? Just tell me what source please. Atsme☯^Consult 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

none of the sources you bring above, about laetrile, can be used to trump the MEDRS sources we already have; and there are yet more. Please do read MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If Guy is referring to Moss' book, Second Opinion, as mentioned above, then please refer to the source I actually cited. I did not cite Second Opinion. The excerpt that referenced Moss' book was published in Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed academic journal - May, 1979 - Vol 9, pgs 139-166, [8], chapter title=Politics and Science in the Laetrile Controversy - and I quote: "the other major criticism made by Second Opinion has been corroborated by the New York Academy of Sciences through its official publication, The Sciences." Our personal opinions about Moss are irrelevant.

Jytdog, surely you're not suggesting that the American Cancer Society, and The New York Academy of Sciences are not reliable sources, are you? I'm confused over your repeated references to WP:MEDRS when its application is context dependent. Griffin is not an article about laetrile, therefore citing sources that don't meet the standards of MEDRS is not an attempt by me to "trump" anything. Different RS will be cited in order to validate what we write about a particular opinion or passage in Griffin's book. In fact, Griffin's book fails MEDRS, but we can still refer to it. Regardless, we should not be conducting a scientific debate in Griffin's BLP regarding the use of laetrile. We must avoid UNDUE by keeping mention of laetrile proportionate to its prominence in Griffin's body of work. Also keep in mind that we cannot exclude the information that inspired Griffin to write, World Without Cancer, which may include information Griffin refers to in John A. Richardson's book. Atsme☯^Consult 19:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

that was just a note about your wall of text and subsequent comments, generally. we are discussing specific content above. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Moss, and reasonably familiar with Second Opinion since it is the source of a laetrile propaganda film made by Eric Merola, who also produced the two propaganda films promoting the execrable Burzynski Clinic and whose only past feature-length work is on his brother's Zeitgeist Truther-fests. Moss specifically and laetrile generally are good litmus tests for credulous reporting. Any acceptance of the claims of laetrile quacks is prima facie evidence of lack of proper critical analysis, because laetrile, once the most profitable scam in America, is refuted. Not unproven, refuted.

World Without Cancer is billed as the story of vitamin B17. It is, therefore, fiction. There is no such thing as vitamin B17. Laetrile is not a vitamin, neither is amygdalin. The term "vitamin B17" was coined ins a cynical attempt to evade drug regulations and capitalise on the lax regulation of supplements in the US, itself a result of industry lobbying and legislation promoted by congressmen with extensive financial interests in the supplement industry. The name "vitamin B17" is simply fraudulent.

Yes, we do, and absolutely should, have a position on laetrile: it is a quack cancer "cure" that does not work. That is the scientific consensus, unambiguously established from every single reliable independent source that discusses it. WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS apply. You may choose to quote mine sources that superficially meet MEDRS in order to imply support for Griffin's book, but that is cherry-picking and quote mining and a violation of policy. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you'd share what you really think. If you would please provide a link or two with some updated research (21st Century if you don't mind) that confirms your stated position, or are we supposed to maintain the status quo of results that date back to 70s and 80s? Just curious. Atsme☯^Consult 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a very thorough Cochrane review from 2011, PMID 22071824, which concludes: "The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative." Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, you forgot to click on the update link in that review which dramatically changes the landscape, and why updating Griffin is necessary - [9] - (bold underline for emphasis): AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The claim that Laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by data from controlled clinical trials. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for randomised or controlled clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of Laetrile or amygdalin for cancer treatment. Looks like Moss' Second Opinion may have awakened some of the sleeping dogs, maybe even stepped on the tails of a few. GF collaboration is a good thing if for no other reason than to keep us on our toes. Oh, and please take a look at the following update from Sloan-Kettering: With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment. [10]. It really is better to pay closer attention to the updated, rather than the outdated information. I also strongly recommend reading the October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories). [11] Read the Nacci's Curriculum vitae on pg 3 before attaching any labels to him. He is a specialist in nuclear medicine, and published the book, Diventa Medico di Te stesso (Become your own doctor), which was awarded "Best Scientific Book of Year 2006". And yes, his work passes the acid test for MEDRS. Alrighty then, since JzG stated that "we do, and absolutely should, have a position on laetrile", I agree. In light of the updated information, the only violation of policy I can see at this point would be the continued used of pejorative terminology and contentious labeling, so we must be careful how the prose is written. Updating antiquated information is a long way from "cherry picking", and more like getting the article right. NPOV requires the inclusion of updated information. I think the impact is even greater when it comes from world renowned authorities who have provided (and performed) the scientific research including numerous clinical trials that corroborate Griffin's book. Finally, I know we're all busy, and I realize the following 2007 doctoral dissertation doesn't qualify as a MEDRS. However, it is archived in the University of Western Sydney's Thesis Collection (with a citation on Google Scholar), and truly an enlightening read. It's titled, "Changes in Direction of Cancer Research Over the 20th Century: What Prompted Change: Research Results, Economics, Philosophy", authored by Jeannie Burke, Master of Science (Honours).[12]. Atsme☯^Consult 12:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The "update link" is to an earlier (2006) version of the 2011 Cochrane review Jytdog cited. Brunton (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Did a strike-thru, rest remains as is. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

now that atsme has understood how pubmed works, I see nothing else in the walloftext to respond to.Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose not, Jytdog, considering Dr. Nacci's documentation on the whole laetrile thing, and all the sources he cited. Sometimes we get too focused on U.S. based policy and decisions, completely forgetting that Wikipedia is world-wide. Maybe you could start writing prose and helping to expand the article, maybe work on correcting the UNDUE issues, and help make it NPOV friendly. A good place to start would be changing the section titles so they reflect NPOV. We can't just leave the article looking like a WP:Coatrack. Atsme☯^Consult 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to address the "ideally from the 21st Century" point, as I have seen similar for several forms of quackery. For example, HCG diet hucksters claim that the research refuting the HCG diet is no longer relevant because it dates back to the 1970s.

Medical trials are governed by the Declaration of Helsinki. Under that declaration, it would be nigh on impossible to get ethical approval for a new human trial of a refuted treatment like laetrile. The existing evidence is so strongly against it, and the purported mechanism of action so far out of line with current understanding, that no institutional review board would approve it.

Put simply, when science finds an answer, it tends to stop asking - whereas quacks will always keep asking until they get the answer they want. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile is refuted everywhere. See this from the UK, for example. Your problem here would be WP:TRUTH if it weren't for the fact that the claims for laetrile are not actually true. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence quoted from Sloan-Kettering isn't an update either. It is a single sentence cherry-picked from a page that clearly says that amygdalin has not been found to be effective as a cancer treatment. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And the conclusion of the 2011 Cochrane review is: The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative. Which is how Wikipedia will represent it, because we're a project of the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, Griffin is a BLP not an article on fringe science or pseudoscience. The topic is not laetrile, and it is not our job to advocate, debunk, promote or criticize laetrile in this BLP. Wikipedia editors are obliged to follow policy and guidelines, particularly NPOV which requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Perhaps a refresher will help remind everyone what is required in WP:FRINGE under the heading Evaluating Claims - Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. The latter is what is being ignored, and what my edits have tried to correct, all of which have been reverted. Atsme☯^Consult 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That latter element calls for editorial judgment. The simple fact that you appear to have a hard time accepting is that others disagree with you as to the judgment that ought to be made here. I specifically disagree that we are being "overly harsh or overly critical". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

at some, the usual way of resolving a dispute which, as in this case, consists of one editor with a rather obvious PIC refusing to accept that his POV is not neutral according to numerous long-standing Wikipediams, is to topic ban the one user. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue tag

I think the Undue tag can go, as it gives undue weight to a single opinion (that of Atsme) and it is abundantly clear by now that this is motivated in no small part by desire to advance a WP:FRINGE idea, the quack cancer treatment known as laetrile. Nobody else here seems to support the idea that the article gives undue weight to anything. The subject is known for his advocacy of crank ideas, and we reflect that dispassionately. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree so much that I'll do it myself. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to wait until after the holidays to express my concerns because I can see it's going to require a great deal of my time. Lucky for me, I have plenty of it. My main concern is how this article is being used as a WP:Coatrack even after I've provided reliable sources that dispute the prominent POV. Atsme☯^Consult 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a well known fact about Wikipedia that those advancing a fringe view have vastly greater motivation to press their point than other Wikipedians typically have to resist it. Don't be that person. The basis of the dispute as stated at the fringe theory noticeboard is that you dispute the categorisation of laetrile as pseudoscience, on the basis that this is a biography so should merely report the claims and not address their validity. Feel free to set me right if that is not your actual position (but do try to do it in terms that don't fail the TL;DR test, as many of your comments above do).

Whatever your personal view, the consensus of reliable independent sources is that laetrile is quackery. It's been identified as the most profitable quackery of its day. The only provable and repeatable effect of laetrile is cyanide toxicity. Asserting that laetrile is legitimate would be very unwise, as there is simply no way it is going to fly. It is one of the most widely discussed and best documented forms of health fraud in the world.

So, feel free to discuss the issues you have with this specific article, but don't even try to propose that Griffin's views on laetrile are defensible, because that will fail and it will piss off those of us who are here to keep the peace. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Let's start with the following: WP:PROFRINGE - specifically The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Have you even read the prose I wrote that was reverted? WP policy states that opinions cannot be represented as statements of fact.
• It is neither my desire nor intention to get into a debate with you or anyone else over the pros and cons of pseudoscience and/or fringe theories - but just a sidebar note: "Radiation therapy can damage normal cells as well as cancer cells." [13], or "Radiation has potentially excess risk of death from heart disease seen after some past breast cancer RT regimens.", and "Chemotherapy does not always work, and even when it is useful, it may not completely destroy the cancer." How about some actual results and survival rates after conventional treatments: [14]
• Regardless, that isn't what the Griffin biography is about, so I will reply matter-of-factly in a dispassionate tone. Read my UP to understand my motives, and please dispense with the conspiracy theories and insinuations that I have a "vastly greater motivation." Sorry to disappoint, but I have no other motivation than to get the article right, expand it 5x per DYK, make it a GA, and potential candidate for FA promotion. I wish more editors would edit with the same goals in mind.
• Why are you and a handful of other editors placing so much emphasis on pseudoscience in this BLP, and wanting to maintain it as a WP:Coatrack? Perhaps the answer is here, [15], and in your comments above. How can you believe the criticisms launched against me are not exactly what I'm being falsely accused of doing? The consensus of independent reliable sources is that Griffin has a Top 50 best seller on Amazon (in its 5th edition, 38th printing) about the Federal Reserve, not that he is a conspiracy theorist. The POV pushers, like Media Matters refer to him as a conspiracy theorist - not RS - but even if RS are cited that's fine with me as long as it is stated as their opinion, and not a statement of fact that represents WP's position.
• The article is riddled with other issues as well, including UNDUE and RS. I did not try to diffuse the claims that were reliably sourced. I simply tried to provide balance, and eliminate UNDUE in the article. I am suggesting (and you could call it "insisting") that certain statements in the article be changed to follow MOS as well as WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS, and WP:BLPFRINGE. Atsme☯^Consult 22:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not persuaded by any of these concerns; they rehash arguments above that failed to gain traction, and I think we're well into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. If the tag is re-added, I will support its removal again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears we've exhausted all reasonable channels of discussion. I'll take it to DR. Atsme☯^Consult 20:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've let Atsme take the laboring oar on these discussion, but the recent change to the Infobox (along with the lede) warrants the tag. As Atsme said, there is no such occupation as "Promoter of CT". At most Griffin is a writer who promotes kooky ideas, but using WP to tarnish him in this fashion is improper. This article was stable until August. But then we had a series of edits come in to slant the article. Sadly they have not let up and sadly editors have failed to describe Griffin and his ideas with NPOV in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The only particular undue weight concern I see in the lede is that for some reason it covers laetrile twice, saying that it is "scientifically-unsupported" in the first paragraph and that it is "considered quackery by the medical community" in the second. The lede needs to be rewritten to avoid this repetition. Brunton (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to delete the second lot of laetrile material in the lede, and keep the earlier "scientifically-unsupported" stuff; and actually "fake" or "bogus" would be a better term there too ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

When re-writing the lede (and other parts) care must be taken to avoid SYN. We cannot say "Griffin has promoted laetrile.^{[citation 1]}" and then say "Laetrile is quackery.^{[citation 2]}" The problem arises if "citation 2" does not specifically/explicitly mention Griffin. It is proper to provide RS that explicitly mentions Griffin and his promotion of laetrile, especially if the RS describes laetrile as quackery. – S. Rich (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977 instead of re-stating your view for the zillionth time, would you just please respond to my attempt to summarize and aim us toward next steps below? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

please TALK

Atsme and Srich32977 it is silly that you are resorting to edit warring instead of talking. Let's try to identify the specific things you are objecting to, so we can consider taking them to mediation or crafting a series of RfCs to address them (in other words, do dispute resolution.

• I think both of you disagree with characterizing Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" at all. Is that accurate?
• I think Atsme alone, objects to the description of laetrile in the article. Is that accurate?
• if not, please define exactly and concisely (no walls of text please) what the issues are. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't characterize the edits as EW. Who was it that added the ersatz "occupation" to the infobox before PP was instituted? (And why not direct your EW admonition to that editor?) What discussion has there been about the "occupation"? The edit was boldly made, it was reverted, and now it should be discussed. (Instead we see accusations of edit warring.) As for your question to me, I do think he is a CT, but the sourcing for that description is poor and thus the description does not belong in the lede. (And certainly not the infobox.) Instead of using WP as the vehicle to describe Griffin as a CT, the article should say "Some have described him as ....." Finally, without adding a wall of text (because I have commented earlier), this article should not be used as the vehicle to debunk laetrile. The SYN we have seen in this regard is shameful. – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have not/do not disagree with the fact that Griffin has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist. We cannot label him as such to make it appear as WP's position. We cannot call CT his "occupation" because such a statement is worse than ridiculous. It is an opinion, and considered to be a pejorative term.
• I have not/do not object to including the views of government agency supported descriptions and/or conclusions of laetrile, etc. My objection is to the use of this article as a WP:Coatrack to advocate, debunk, and/or promote. This article is about Griffin, and laetrile happens to be the topic of ONE of his books. If one view of laetrile is included as the prevalent view of government supported agencies, then the prevalent views of notable experts should also be included to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. FACT: there is/has been widespread use, its use is controversial, there are opposing opinions expressed by renowned experts on both sides, there is recent research, numerous results from clinical trials, new information has come forward in 2013 & 2014, and the sources meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP, WP:BLPFRINGE, 2nd party and 3rd party reliability/verifiability. The term quackery is pejorative, and we must be careful how it used to not create a BLP violation. The subject needs brief dispassionate mention from a NPOV.
• Bottomline - fix the section titles, fix all of the issues in each section that create WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, correct, then avoid WP:BLP violations. All sections have the same issues. Atsme☯^Consult 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious, unhelpful and untrue in regard to laetrile. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is a BLP about Griffin, not a fringe article about laetrile. Atsme☯^Consult 00:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• with regard to "conspiracy theorist" in the infobox. I think this is not precedented and should go.
• I don't intend to address Atsme's issues with regard to laetrile per se; that is a settled matter and there is no debating it. Laetrile is not effective for treating cancer and has a high risk of harming people. That is settled medical science.
• with regard to concerns stated about SYN with regard to laetrile.... I posted at the Fringe Noticeboard here (and please note that the discretionary sanctions now in effect concern FRINGE/pseudoscience). That attracted comments there, and here from two new editors (Kingofaces43 and admin Guy), and both of them - both there and here - have supported the current way we address the intersection between BLP and PSCI - namely addressing Griffin's claims about laetrile. Neither found that we are committing SYNs and instead found that the text complies with PSCI and BLP. :) In my reading of the discussion at BLPN by Atsme here, from what I can see only Atsme and Srich found a problem, and Alexbrn, Elaqueate, Roxy the dog,and NatGertler found no problems. Nomoskedasticity seems to have started participating here due to the BLPN posting. Yobol sounded in there too, but he has been here for a while. At some point TFD jumped in and noted that he finds a problem with SYN but it seems to me that TFD, Atsme and Srich are alone in finding a problem with SYN. We have been to two notice boards already. Pursuing this further seems like forum shopping to me. I would be interested in hearing a next DR step that would not be forum shopping.
• with regard to naming "conspiracy theorist" in the lead and in WP's voice, there is boatloads of precedent for doing that (have a scroll/click through this search to see what I mean). In our article, there are five sources for that description of him in the lead, and more in the body. I don't see how S Rich can say there is insufficient sourcing for that. Please explain. Thanks. Note on this one: w have not taken this aspect in particular to boards yet, and I would be open to us working together to draft an RfC that we all find acceptable, on this issue.
• if there are other specific issues (i.e. exact bits of content) that S Rich and Atsme are objecting to, please state them. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (fixed typo in username for Nat Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)) (add roxy to the list Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC))

The thread on this at WP:FT/N#G._Edward_Griffin is active (again). I've just commented there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whys of Cancer Quackery

has a dead link tag. the full article is here if anybody wants to read it now... and we can fix the link when the article opens again. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Got the following message: You don't have permission to access /store/10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3+<815::AID-CNCR2820531334>3.0.CO;2-U/asset/2820531334_ftp.pdf on this server. Atsme☯^Consult 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

weird. i am just on the plain internet at home. I went first to the Wiley site here and clicked on the "get pdf" link. that just worked again! maybe that will work for you. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

in any case I have it now. if anybody wants to read it, email me and i will email it to you. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A link is not needed. Detail the full cite as it should be (without link) and I will fix it, this is a minor thing. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually all the links there work for me. There may be some problem with the Wiley site for the abstract, so perhaps just remove the doi. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

K. Which article again? Mixed up two open windows! Guy (Help!) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read this article - [16] Atsme☯^Consult 01:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile (amygdalin, B17) is not pseudoscience according to WP:Fringe

Please read my post at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#G._Edward_Griffin - I explain why it isn't fringe or pseudoscience. Atsme☯^Consult 03:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect at FTN. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not incorrect. A compound that is being used in Italy, Mexico, and other parts of the world is not pseudoscience. Regardless, this is a BLP, and the way it is written makes it a WP:COATRACK, so please, let's stay on topic. Discussion about laetrile is at the fringe noticeboard. Atsme☯^Consult 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It can only get worse if you continue down this path. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask that you please stay on topic and refrain from the spurious warnings. Instead, let's collaborate to get the article right. In order to accomplish that goal, Griffin cannot be used as a WP:Coatrack. WP policy states that WP:SYNTH is unacceptable, but that's what we're seeing here in Griffin. I consult you to read the policies, paying very close attention to WP:NPOV. Other issues are WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, and of course the contentious labeling that represents a statement of fact rather than opinion. The problems are readily fixable by simply following guidelines and respecting policy. Thank you kindly. Atsme☯^Consult 20:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is not an article on laetrile, it is a biography. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the lead

I was asked by email to opine about this. I have no opinion about any aspect of the biography but I do think that the lead must be changed.

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist,[1][2][3][4][5] filmmaker, and author.

See my Timbo's Rules: Rule 14. Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. (March 2012)

One might describe him as an "author and filmmaker" and then in the body observe (with footnotes) that many of his ideas are regarded as conspiracy theories, etc. — but phrasing like this in the lead is definitely out of bounds as POV.

My two cents. Signing off. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks Carrite - the other case where you get piles of refs is where something is highly contested despite solid sourcing, and the only way to address the objections is to pile up references. More of a product of difficult process and disagreements among editors than the content per se. No? Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend viewing the following presentation (approx 8 min in) regarding BLPs - [17] Happy New Year everyone!! Atsme☯^Consult 21:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Unlike Alex Jones, whose profession really is "conspiracy theorist", Griffin is merely known for conspiracy theories. I'm not sure how that should be stated in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I won't argue with you there, and I'll throw in Jesse Ventura on the same level. Griffin has been referred to as.... Atsme☯^Consult 21:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

PS - Jesse Ventura, who actually hosts a TV Series titled Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura doesn't even mention that he is a conspiracy theorist in the lede - James George Janos (born July 15, 1951), better known by his stage name, Jesse Ventura, is an American politician, actor, author, naval veteran, and former professional wrestler who served as the 38th Governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003. Yet, G. Edward Griffin who is most often referred to as a distinguished film producer, author, editor and political lecturer. is contentiously labeled a conspiracy theorist. [18] Makes no sense. Atsme☯^Consult 13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesse is known for something other than his conspiracy theories, but I can see your point. On the other hand, neither Ventura nor Griffin should ever be refered to as "distinguished". I'd like to see your reference for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton once referred to the "Vast right-wing conspiracy". Do we describe her as a conspiracy theorist? As the term is derogatory, it would be disruptive (and pure POV) to do so. Let's adhere to NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

we have five sources in the lead alone for "conspiracy theorist" and several more contextual ones (his view of the Fed as a "cartel" and "instrument of totalitarianism", and his views on the "suppression" of laetrile as follows: "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health"....are conspiracy theories themselves. We call a duck a duck in WP. It does not violate NPOV. The comparison to Clinton is a strawman and not helpful; Clinton has not built her career as a "crusader rabbit" against various conspiracies. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we have 5 sources that are stating their opinion about Griffin. WP should not be the vehicle for their opinions. But I'll give you another example – Jeremiah Wright. Quoting from the article: "Writing for The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates characterized Wright's remarks as "crude conspiratorial antisemitism."" And in Jeremiah Wright controversy we see him quoted with "The government lied about Pearl Harbor too. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie." Should he be described as a "conspiracy theorist"? Good grief, using the term in the lede, much less in the infobox, is just wrong. It is a BLP violation that should be changed immediately, without further discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

S Rich, we are just rehashing stuff. Above, I suggested that we frame an RfC and you didn't respond. Please let me know what kind of DR process you are interested in us pursuing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Srich. It is defamatory and a violation of BLP policy. His points about Hilary Clinton and Jeremiah Wright (Which by the way, are not "re-hashing") are spot on. Unless a "conspiracy theorist" characterization is SELF-applied, then it does NOT belong in the lead paragraph or in the infobox. TheSwitzerdude (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The desires to put CT in the lede/info box or simply in the article text may be a rehash of the arguments, but the examples of Jones, Ventura, Clinton, and Wright are new and illustrative. (Let's see what discussion ensues.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the examples you bring are parallel to Griffith. None of them have made a career as a "crusader rabbit" against various conspiracies (with the exception of Ventura, who has certainly ventured there in his post-governor life). Conspiracy theorist is Griffith's main bid for notability. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverend White certainly made a career as a "crusader". Here is an opinion piece from The American Spectator: "The Gospel According to Wright". If we pick up 4 more sources that describe him as a duck (or rabbit), are we justified in describing him as a conspiracy theorist in the lede? If not, then why not? "Governments lie" sounds very duckish to me. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And considering that 2 of your 5 sources are from Slate.com, here is an interesting one about Wright: "The AIDS Conspiracy Handbook". – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC) And here is another one: [19]. By Christopher Hitchens no less. So we now have 3 sources that describe Wright as a conspiracy theorist. Go ahead, I'll put Wright on my watchlist and await your edit to describe him as a duck in the lede and infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) As I watch the Rose Parade, I'm Googling for more sources about Wright being a conspiracy theorist. Number 4 is from Townhall.com when it was owned by Heritage Foundation. Do I need to post the link? Do I need to come up with more? No, I think the point is well illustrated – when we have a contentious, POV-based opinion about someone we do not dress it up as a "fact" and put it in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jones and Griffin, at least, are not called anything else than conspiracy theorists in reliable sources. I'm not sure about White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite correct. Griffin is also known for his films (especially the Noah's Ark work), for promotion of laetrile, and (I believe) his promotion of gold & silver as investments. The opinion sources that "know him" as CT are grinding their axes. Also, we only have 4 sources because the McLeod citation in Salon.com is a reprint of his Pranksters book (and that description is problematic). In Koerner's blog we see a parenthetical mention of Griffin. I have little objection to most of the lede (we do need to cull the redundant info about laetrile/amygdalin). I suggest we use the brief description used by London: "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker". But using CT as the first term in the opening sentence and in the infobox as an "occupation" is improper. Again, to compare, there is much more RS available to describe White as an antisemitic-AIDS-denying-CT. But adding CT/AIDS denier to White's lede sentence or infobox would be undue as well. – S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to Arthur Rubin. A few examples: "With distinguished speakers including G. Edward Griffin...", [20], and "Mr. Griffin is a distinguished film producer, author, editor and political lecturer." [21], and "American scholar G. Edward Griffin wrote, 'To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.'" [22]. Hopefully that's enough to get the point across. And Jytdog - his name is Griffin, not Griffith. You must be thinking of Andy from the town of Mayberry.

It was quite refreshing to read the comments by Carrite, TheSwitzerdude (talk), and Srich32977. Now if we can just get past the recurring obstacles of WP:SQS and WP:OWN demonstrated by some who haven't even contributed one sentence of prose to improve/expand the article. Why expend so much energy in a starter article? Perhaps because it is much easier to maintain a WP:Coatrack whereas improving/expanding threatens POV. Isn't that similar behavior to what we'd see if there was an underlying motive, or WP:COI? The WP:UNDUE aspects along with Griffin's book World Without Cancer have taken on a life of their own. The focus is continuously diverted away from what is best for the BLP to what is best for....what, exactly? There has been far too much disruption over the minor policy compliant changes that have been proposed. If we can't move forward with improvements/expansion, we should skip the RfC because of the sensitivity of the BLP and Pseudoscience sanctions on this article, and go straight to a higher level of DR where we have a better shot at neutral eyes seeing it that are also trained in BLP matters. Atsme☯^Consult 22:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's very difficult to have meaningful discussions with you when you take the view that only you and others who agree with you are "policy compliant" and "neutral". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I accept their view as being policy compliant and neutral because I respect their judgement as Master editors. Carrite has collaborated on countless articles (including over 500 BLPs political biographies), and Srich32977 is also a Master editor (with over 78,000 edits). Together they dwarf the experience and edit counts of all of us combined. I have chosen to learn from editors like them, and I feel fortunate to be able to collaborate with them. Doing so has improved my work as an editor on WP, even though I have enjoyed a very successful career as an accomplished publisher/writer/producer in the real world. We are never beyond learning, especially when we venture into disciplines with learning curves like the ones WP presents. Not every editor sets their sites on creating and/or collaborating on DYK articles, GAs and FAs. I happen to be one of those editors. You apparently have chosen a different path. As a result, we have come to a crossroad where we disagree. It's nothing more - nothing less. Again, I consult you to spend some time watching the 2009 Wiki conference keynote by Newyorkbrad who focused on BLPs. [23]. FF to 9:00 minutes in. It's about an hour long, but quite enlightening, especially for those who find it difficult to see beyond their own perspectives and POV. Atsme☯^Consult 23:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I quite naturally think that my perspective here is policy compliant and neutral. I could hardly think otherwise, could I? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I rather doubt I've worked on even 50 BLPs — I usually do the biographies of dead people because they don't wiggle as much. Regardless, getting "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead seems extremely basic and obvious regardless what one thinks about the subject's ideas. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Carrite you haven't provided a rationale. In my view, the description is very well sourced, and there are plenty of other BLPs described as such in the lead (per this search. Why do you say this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The search results provide leads, but how many of the articles have CT as the first descriptive in the lede? (BTW, using quotes on the search term culls the results to 426.) Also, the results are very much WP:OSE. That said, what say you all to my proposed compromise? Can we put in an edit request and/or removal of page protection? – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

you are the guy citing other articles. and while precedent is useful it is not a determiner (which is what OSE is about). The precedents make it clear that it is not out of bounds to use it in the lead. The question for us here, is whether there is sourcing for it. The sourcing is there to see, and i would appreciate it, if you would actually address the sources. As for your compromise, I have already said I am fine with "conspiracy theorist" coming out of the infobox. Nobody has objected to that, so an edit request to do that seems reasonable to me. Too bad that Carrite provided no reasoning; that just means his view will be discounted when consensus is reckoned. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec x 2)

A few notes to indicate that none of you accurately understand the relevant policies.

1. The category requires more justification than an unadorned description.
2. If a single reliable source explicitly states that he is a "conspiracy theorist", we can say it. (I haven't checked.)
3. It is true that everything he is known for is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, or pseudohistory. However, we can't say that unless a reliable source explicitly says that, which I doubt.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have parsed the 5 sources: McLeod is duplicated, so that leaves 4; I commented on McLeod above, so he is not that strong; the other Salon.com source is partisan, as is Media Matters. That leaves London. Arthur, I don't object to calling him a CT in the lede paragraphs; rather, I am urging that we use the simple, unadorned London description in the first sentence. And I urge that CT be used as "known for" in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a lot of biographies of notable people that I may personally think are nuts, kooks, cranks, charlatans, fanatics and even conspiracy theorists, based on what the reliable sources say about them. Of course, BLP policy does not require that we describe them in glowing terms, as if they are likely to win Nobel Prizes in 2015. On the other hand, banging them over the head with a sledgehammer in the opening sentences of their biography is unwise and may well be counterproductive. Editorial judgement calls for some subtlety and restraint. Conspiracy theorist is not a job title. An article written with the tact and restraint that BLP and NPOV asks of us is likely to be much more effective and persuasive than something that reads like a "hit piece" from sentence #1. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977 What exactly are you proposing on the lead? I am interested in hearing - sounds like we might have something there. (and btw, I am fine with your suggestion about the infobox - that's great) Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

[From the section above]: The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

sources for 'conspiracy theorist'

Those objecting to the "conspiracy theorist" label don't seem to be dealing with the sources in our article. Here they are.

• ref 1 Pranksters. see ref 4 below.
• Ref 2 [24]: Quote: "On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck presented author G. Edward Griffin as a credible authority on the Federal Reserve. But Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories, including the notions that HIV does not exist and that cancer is a dietary deficiency that can be cured with "an essential food compound."" followed by a long list of examples.
• ref 3 [25] Quote: "Watch his conversation with noted conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin."
• ref 4 [26] (note, this is an exerpt from Prankster and is redudant to ref 1) Quote: "Paul’s endorsement of G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve”—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin’s book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul’s blurb for “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” he calls it “a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.” It sure is. " (NB: the book is all about conspiracy theorists. when the author says "standard issue". he clearly means standard issue conspiracy theories)
• ref 5: [27] Quote: "Conspiracy-theorist G. Edward Griffin also asserts that doctors aren’t taught about “natural cures” or nutrition in medical school."
• ref 8 is from Kenn Thomas's magazine Steamshovel Press, which is a magazine devoted to conspiracy theories and parapolitics. The sourced content is "He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism"

• Other sources not cited in our article:
  • Griffin spoke at Conspiracy Con in 2007 on "THE QUIGLY FORMULA (A Conspiratorial View of History)" . Conspiracy Con is what it sounds like.
  • [28]] quote: "To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order.”"
  • Griffin is featured as the key example in the chapter on Fed conspiracy theories here, in a book called "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, the Illmuniati, Skull & Bones, Black Helicopters, teh New World Order, and Many, Many More".
  • and griffin himself talks about the "conspiracy theory" he is advocating in his own book here

• i cannot see how folks are saying that Griffin should not be called a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead. hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand a policy that is stated unambiguously, and that provides examples for further clarification. Arthur Rubin, I agree with (1) and (3) regarding relevant policy, but (2) needs to be qualified. We can say so-and-so considers him a conspiracy theorist, or so-and-so referred to him as a conspiracy theorist, or he is considered by many to be a conspiracy theorist. We cannot/must not make it a statement of fact that he is a conspiracy theorist because it is still an opinion. Griffin does not consider himself a conspiracy theorist, nor did he choose it as his occupation. See WP:NPOV (my bold) which is one of the three core content policies in a BLP: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." A BLP must be handled with even more care, so if we say so-and-so referred to him as, we need to have several high quality reliable sources that states it, and not just as trivial mention. Atsme☯^Consult 04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see people arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned in some form in the lead. I see people arguing that it is a mistake to hammer it so aggressively in the opening sentences, in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

[From the section above]: The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

AGREE with S. Rich. BLPs are supposed to be NPOV, dispassionate in tone, verifiable, no OR, no undue weight, balanced, no synth. The 3 core content policies must be followed. The sources Jytdog referenced above are not even close to RS. Another problem is "trivial mention" which should not even be considered for inclusion in a BLP. #2 ref is so trivial it is in parentheses. Then there is the problem of WP:SYNTH. References #1, #3, #4, #5 are partisan, and totally unacceptable. #8 is a joke, and shameful to even include it. These sources are a slap in the face to BLP policy. Atsme☯^Consult 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, if you will agree I will edit the first line as per my suggestion. London will be the reference for it. The infobox "known for" will contain the remaining 3 refs (McLeod's being a duplicate). Then I'll redo the redundant laetrile description. Say yes and I will post the edit request for PP removal. (Or Arthur can remove the PP.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977 - please be a little more specific regarding what you are proposing. When rereading the above, I saw where you agreed to keeping CT in the infobox, and want to include an "unadorned" what in the lede?? Atsme (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• first sentence: "GEG (dob) is an American author, lecturer, and filmaker.^[London]"
• Infobox 'Occupation': "Author, lecturer, and filmaker"
• Infobox 'Known for': "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion^{[the other 3 refs now in the lede first sentence]}"
• Jeez, trust me on this. You can object to my edits after they are done. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to include the statement that he is a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We can include that his critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, but it is not Wikipedia's position that he IS one. He is an author who writes about controversial subjects, and some have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist. I included the exact terminology from policy above. Atsme☯^Consult 06:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Second sentence will remain the same. "He is perhaps best known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System." And he will remain in the CT category. Double jeez, I'm stepping away from this till tomorrow, which is, after all another day. – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My computer's Internet connection is flakey, so I cannot access my guideline list, but, for a person's article to be in a category, the fact that he is in the category must be in the article and, if controversial, sourced. Hence the article must state that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a "trivial mention" is acceptable for a fact, such as that he is a conspiracy theorist. It's difficult for me to check references on such a small screen, so I have not confirmed that any references state that he is a conspiracy theorist. I suppose the reference stating that he supports conspiracy theories would be adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin i listed the sources at the top of this subsection and provided the relevant quotes there - no need to even click off this page. Jytdog (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please find a good computer connection Arthur because what you just stated will change the face of BLPs all over WP. Editors who are well-qualified in writing BLPs also need to be made aware, including Newyorkbrad who gave a keynote address on this subject, and Carrite who already posted here. The numbers of editors who have weighed in so far also dispute what you're saying. Such a bold statement needs verification because it does does not represent strict adherence to any of the policy I quoted above, including WP BLP policy, FRINGEBLP, NPOV, VERIFIABILITY, RS, and SYNTH. It will also make a huge difference in the conspiracy theorist "statement of fact" in WP's voice on hundreds of other BLPs, including the ones Srich32977 stated above and many, many more. Also, please quote the policy wherein it states "trivial mention" that uses pejorative terminology is acceptable as fact to repeat in WP's voice. Atsme☯^Consult 13:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Conspiracy theories category states: this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. For example, the article Area 51 appears under Category:Conspiracy theories (C:CT), so anyone who actively defends conspiracy theories mentioned in that article would be classified here as a Conspiracy theorist. Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. G. Edward Griffin does not fit this profile, therefore his BLP should not be listed in the Category. It doesn't appear that compromise is proving helpful. A rough consensus shows there are more against the statement of fact, he IS a conspiracy theorists, and more who agree that it should be stated as the opinion it is...he HAS BEEN REFERRED TO as a conspiracy theorist. Atsme☯^Consult 13:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, your perspective on this issue is not in line with policy. The sources above document the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist. There is no source for the notion that various people "believe" he is a conspiracy theorist, or that it is someone's "opinion" that he is a conspiracy theorist. If those words (believe, opinion) are in a reliable source of some sort, you are invited to produce those sources. If not, you would run afoul of core policies such as WP:V if you used that language. This would be highly inappropriate on a BLP. You might want to leave these issues to more neutral editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, I have asked you politely to please refrain from making spurious comments about me on my TP, and that includes everywhere else, too. Your innuendo that I am not a neutral editor are unfounded as are your requests for me to recuse myself for no other reason than my ability to cite policy that disputes your claims. If you disagree with the policy I've cited, then please cite the policy that disputes what I've said. Atsme☯^Consult 14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Following are quotes from the relative policies that confirm why contentious material cannot be written as a statement of fact per BLP, including why Griffin should not be categorized as a Conspiracy theorist according to Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Perhaps we can find a compromise that more closely adheres to BLP policy.

• WP:Trivial mentions The guideline states that these sources need to provide "significant coverage" of the topic, and this coverage must consist of more than a "trivial mention". The guideline has long stated that a one sentence mention is plainly trivial. I confer that a parenthetical comment in an article that is not in anyway related to the BLP is trivial mention, does not even meet the least of the notability requirements, and does not belong in a BLP. Several of the named references are not RS according to BLP policy and its requirements to follow the 3 core content policies.
• Wikipedia:Categorization of people Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes:
• standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality
• the reason(s) for the person's notability, a.k.a. the characteristics the person is best known for.
• For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right and/or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly, none of the celebrities commercializing a fragrance are listed in the perfumers category: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.

Categorize by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article: The most common mistake of this type is adding an article to Category:Biography. That category may legitimately contain articles about biographical films or biographical books, but should not contain articles about individual people. The article is a biography; the person is not.

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable_sources also in WP:Verifiability (shortcut WP:QS) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Atsme☯^Consult 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on this question, but note the above wall of text refers to "BLP policy", and then starts with a user essay which is in fact about establishing notability in relation to WP:GNG, so is not in truth relevant to the question at hand. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In regards "trivial mention": A trivial mention may notice support notability, but can support a fact; in this case, that he supports conspiracy theories. The sources need not explicitly state that he is a "conspiracy theorist", but that he supports (and, in fact, invented one) conspiracy theories.

In regard being an experienced editor, I recently got my 100,000 edit badge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Arthur! What a wonderful accomplishment and an excellent way to start off the New Year.

I do hope the editors here know that it is not my intention or desire to be argumentative but because this issue involves a BLP, and the high sensitivity of the imposed sanctions, I feel obligated to adhere strictly to policy, and believe doing so should be the basis on which we proceed. Arthur, per your statement above, "It is true that everything he is known for is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, or pseudohistory. However, we can't say that unless a reliable source explicitly says that, which I doubt." While I don't agree 100% with the pejorative terminology, I do agree that critics have used it to express their opinions about Griffin which is unequivocally POV and unreliably sourced. Opinions are not "fact", regardless of whether or not such opinions made Griffin notable. A fact is not disputed, but here we are now in a dispute over what some are trying to portray as facts. Griffin himself has also disputed the contentious labels and pejorative terms as have many others. I provided the RS necessary to validate my position. If I may please remind editors of the following:

• Wikipedia:Describing points of view which is to be used as a supplement to the WP:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTOPINION pages, and to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between the pages. At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.

In Thought du Jour Harold Geneen has stated: The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions.

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

I believe my position is mirrored above as well as in the comments of other editors, some of whom have substantial experience writing biographies - myself included, only in the real world during a 35+ year career as a publisher, writer, producer. I have provided more than enough validation to confirm such a position while the validation that opposes it has been weak at best. Griffin should not remain a WP:COATRACK, and the BLP violations which have been pointed out repeatedly by several editors must be corrected. Atsme☯^Consult 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 00:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Precedents

not citing these as binding us (not doing WP:OSE - we have to make our own decision based on sources relevant to our subject), only to show that other articles about conspiracy theorists actually call them that in the first line of the lead (these are just from the 1st 20 results in an advanced search for "conspiracy theorist" (without quotes even) (here):

• John Todd (conspiracy theorist)
• Alex Jones (radio host)
• Bart Sibrel
• Mark Dice
• James H. Fetzer
• Michael Collins Piper (found by Srich going through the category of conspiracy theorists)

I can find more if anybody likes.... not hard to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The above is a defamatory categorization of this BLP. Did you even bother to check the sources in the articles you listed above? I consult you to spend less time hunting spurious references and more time reading the policy quotes above which some have contentiously referred to as a "wall of text". They explain why you cannot label Griffin a conspiracy theorist as a statement of fact. Spend your time finding RS to validate your position as was previously suggested to you. RS should state matter-of-factly that he is a conspiracy theorist, and such sources should not include the very unreliable sources you already provided, including opinion pieces, trivial mention, and/or partisan sources. The fact that you lumped Griffin into the same category with the names you mentioned above is all the more reason to exclude the Conspiracy theorist category on this BLP and speedily delete it as a statement of fact per Srich's proposal, particularly because of its defamatory nature. Atsme☯^Consult 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources amply substantiate it as a fact. What they do not do is to verify that he is "considered" or "referred to" as a conspiracy theorist. I made this latter point to you above; it's unfortunate and tendentious that you have ignored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing more I can say to convince those of you who support a very contentious POV that what you are attempting to do to this BLP is in direct conflict with policy. Editors who are far more experinced than I have also tried to show you the correct way. The rough consensus is that the "statement of fact" you support is a BLP violation, but it appears you simply WP:DONTGETIT. I have asked Callanecc for advice regarding the next plausible step of DR to expedite review and hopefully removal of the violations, and put an end to this very frustrating debate. The sensitivity of a BLP and the sanctions in place seem to require a review by neutral eyes that are also notably experienced with BLP matters. Atsme☯^Consult 18:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources make it clear that he supports, and probably invented, his Federal Reserve conspiracy theory. That should be adequate for the category, and for it to be explicitly mentioned in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, please refer to Category: Conspiracy theorists which I previously stated above: Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. The Federal Reserve is not in the list of Conspiracy theories which is required in order to list the BLP. Further, several sections in the BLP are being disputed because of poor sourcing, pejorative terminology and the like. Don't you think it would be best to wait until those issues are resolved first? Thank you for your collaboration. Atsme☯^Consult 01:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP policy concerns

I have noticed that commentaries regarding WP:BLP policy, have not been properly addressed. Why? In my read of the policies, it's a violation to describe Griffin as a conspiracy theorist in WP voice. The contentious label "conspiracy theorist" in this BLP can not be used as a statement of fact when such terminology is always a matter of opinion. I agree with Carrite, Atsme, S. Rich, TheSwitzerdude, and Cullen that the correct use of the term would be "Griffin has been referred to as..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not certain that our existing sources are adequate to establish 7

unequivocally that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist; however it is absolutely false that no such source could exist, even if Griffin doesn't agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: "conspiracy theorist" in first sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as we dothe article currently does? (based on the sourcing provided here (and in the article if you like), and WP:policies and guidelines (including of course WP:BLP and WP:PSCI))

The lead of the article currently reads (note: quotes add to citations to make this more efficient for editors, and ref 1 removed b/c it was redundant):

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist, filmmaker, and author. He is perhaps best known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System. He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer is a metabolic disease that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin, and for his promotion of the conspiracy theory that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure.

Starting as a child actor for radio, he became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began a career of producing documentaries and books on topics like cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, and the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community. He has also promoted the Durupınar site as hosting the original Noah's Ark. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.

Other sources for "conspiracy theorist" not cited in our article:

• Griffin spoke at Conspiracy Con in 2007 on "THE QUIGLY FORMULA (A Conspiratorial View of History)" . Conspiracy Con is what it sounds like.
• Dana Milbank for the Washington Post. April 6, 2011 Why Glenn Beck lost it quote: quote: "To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order.”"
• Griffin is featured as the key example in the chapter on Fed conspiracy theories here, in a book called "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, the Illmuniati, Skull & Bones, Black Helicopters, the New World Order, and Many, Many More".
• and Griffin himself talks about the "conspiracy theory" he is advocating - in that language - in his own book here

thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (changed "we do" to "article currently does" which was my intention. Meaning is not changed but apparently there were objections to 'we" Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Survey

• Yes, it is correct. (proposer)Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No. See discussion ad mausoleum above. A suitable compromise in on the table. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No. Statement of fact - poorly sourced - should be stated as opinion - referred to as a conspiracy theorist. The compromise is the way to go. Atsme☯^Consult 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No Not in the first sentence, and not in Wikipedia's voice. We are far more effective if we don't hit our readers (and the subject) over the head with a hammer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, of course -- there is ample sourcing for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral on first sentence, Hell Yes on first paragraph in Wikipedia's voice. Refs 1 and 2 are each adequate, and he does say his theory on the Fed is a conspiracy theory in his own book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes it seems reasonable to mention this somewhere in the lede (reflecting something in the body of course). The sources seem strong and he is a self-avowed conspiracist, so omitting it would seem to violate the requirement to get BLPs "right" as well as our fundamental need to be neutral. I am not convinced by the counter arguments here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - self-avowed conspiracist? Provide a reliable source and I will strike through my response above. Atsme☯^Consult 13:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• He himself characterizes his own "theory" as a "conspiracy theory" in the source Jytdog provides, his own book. I find it amazing editors here are so keen to act as an apologist for this person in the face of plain textual evidence. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - quote the statement, please. Atsme☯^Consult 14:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• How about not being so lazy, just click on the link provided by Jytdog above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from the personal attacks, Nomo - I am not lazy. None of the above links are RS per WP:RS and more importantly, per WP:BLP. There is nothing in any of them that validates the contentious label of conspiracy theorist in the lede. Atsme☯^Consult 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So Griffin's own book does not, in your opinion, meet WP:RS for establishing his own view as to whether he is engaging in conspiracy theory. Very curious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. When the author describes their own theory using those terms, we can certain use it too. Yobol (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - Ridiculous POV phrasing, complete with multiple stacked footnotes attesting to the impropriety of the allegation. It is fine to use this word in the body, with documentation, but not the first job descriptive of the lead. Amazing that we're even having this conversation... Carrite (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

as mentioned above, Carrite there is tons of support for it, include the subject's own description. In the face of opposition, sources were brought. I'll agree it does look goofy, but that happens to articles when editors argue. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably nobody is proposing to keep the overciting in the lede? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from making spurious and/or unsourced comments such as tons of support and subject's own description, and include reliable sources and/or a precise quote from WP policy? Considering the NOs and the one neutral opinion of editors whose aggregate edits exceed 225,000, (one of whom has collaborated on over 500 biographies), I can't help but consider their input valuable to this discussion. Griffin does not consider his occupation to be conspiracy theorist, and neither do other highly reliable sources as noted above. Remember BLP requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies Atsme☯^Consult 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

in my view there is tons of support and i provided the link to Griffin's own words above. Not spurious and I took pains to actually provide sources. you may not find them reliable but that is a different thing from just making shit up, which i am very much not doing. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your notation does not establish Griffin as a self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist; rather he is talking about the topic of distinguishing conspiracy theory from actual conspiracies. By stating that conspiracy theories are laughed at, he is establishing the term as pejorative. --Pekay2 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• No - BLP violation and not neutral. --Pekay2 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - It's abundantly clear to anyone who reads this BLP that the man is a conspiracy theorist. Using that phrase front-and-center turns this from an encyclopedia article into an advocacy piece. DOCUMENT★ERROR 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes This reflects RS and self-description by Mr. Griffin. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• comment - References cited so far are not a self-description; They are definitions of the pejorative term conspiracy theory. Provide your source.--Pekay2 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pekay2 you have made it clear that you don't think the sources are sufficient. This is for the survey; please discuss below. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• No per ""Constentious labels". Furthermore, this appears to be a case of wanting to call him a conspiracy theorist then looking for sources that use the term, when a neutral approach would be to examine biographies of him and see if they use the label. Using labels makes the writing appear biased, which ironically detracts from the message that you want to put across. TFD (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, per WP:FRINGE/PS: " Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification".“WarKosign” 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, Agree with WarKosign. Edward Griffin's theories are clearly conspiratorial based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - please read the question posed for this RfC. Conspiracy theorist is a contentious label, therefore the question posed is if Griffin should be labeled as an American conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice. Atsme☯^Consult 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• No - per WP:LABEL; brought here by bot BlueSalix (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:LABEL if reliable sources describe it as so, especially since it appears as a self-description. I'd also consider being a conspiracy theorist a fact and not an opinion since it's only a matter of documenting if the person has tried to advance conspiracy theory ideas. Seems in line with NPOV to call him as such, but not a huge deal as long as his views are described as fringe, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes: Well sourced with multiple reliable independent secondary sources, and given the correct weight reflecting coverage in those sources. It's by far the main thing he is notable for. And with the solid sourcing we have, including self-identification, we can put that in WP's voice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes: Reliable secondary sources note as such and should be required to not give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe theorist. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes of course it's correct—even disregarding the sources, reading the lead makes "conspiracy theorist" abundantly clear as an accurate description. It might be argued that despite the term being obviously and verifiably correct as an objective fact, an article at Wikipedia should still not use the term. I don't see why not—an article should provide accurate and verifiable information. At any rate, a policy should be updated to prohibit use of the term before trying to use such a policy in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. It is not only well supported by sources, but it is arguably the primary thing for which he is known. I'm British, so I don't get exposed to Glenn Beck very much, but seriously? Some of the conspiracy theories Griffin has publicly promoted:

HIV denialism

Fed conspiracy theories

Laetrile suppression conspiracy

Truther conspiracies

Birther conspiracies

Chemtrails

JFK not assassinated by Oswald

I can only find one conspiracy theory that he does not endorse, which is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He notes that this is a fraud, but only in the context of claiming that the protocols, in detailing a plot by Jews and freemasons to control the world and destroy Christianity, "accurately describe much of what is happening in the world today". Oh, and he's a life member of the John Birch Society.

He is pretty much Exhibit A for the existence of crank magnetism. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - NO if you agree the lede should read as opinion per BLP, that "he is referred to as a conspiracy theorist", and YES if you agree it should read as a statement of fact in Wiki's voice; i.e. he is a conspiracy theorist. Griffin considers himself an author of controversial topics, not a conspiracy theorist. Atsme☯^Consult 04:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, because self-proclaimed in his own book The book is even visible online for those who have any doubt. In the face of such an obvious source, written by the person in question, there is no matter of protecting him as a living person. None of BLP is applicable, unless he later renounced that section of his book. I don't even think the RfC system should even be used for such obvious situations. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the passage in his book denounces the contentious label of conspiracy theorist. Unbelievable. Atsme☯^Consult 01:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I must have overlooked the part where he does, Atsme. Did you already quote it somwhere in this rfc? All i read was him acknowledging that his theory is a conspiracy theory. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

PizzaMan, I did not structure this RfC or it would read differently. I attempted to include an alternate question, because I felt the original question was ambiguous, but was asked to express my thoughts down the page. Regardless, Griffin has always denied the claim as contentious. When you read that particular chapter in his book, he actually describes the reality of conspiracies as factual, not that they are laughable theories made by crackpots. For example, Griffin stated on his website: There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us. [29] So yes, "conspiracy theorist" is an insult used by his critics to discredit Griffin. Atsme☯^Consult 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. Griffin's view is that Federal Reserve is a cartel, founded in secret, that exists so that the rich could get richer and stay that way, that basically uses the government as muscle to enforce good-enough behavior among the members of the cartel. Conspiracy theory all the way, taken out of historical context. oy. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Griffin's view is unique to Griffin. Interesting read...[30] yo. Atsme☯^Consult 02:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't even find the word conspiracy theorist anywhere in his book, despite a helpful search function from Google. Let alone him denouncing it in the book. PizzaMan (♨♨ 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, PizzaMan, what you just said validates the fact that Griffin doesn't consider himself a "conspiracy theorist", and neither do a majority of others. Following is a link that may help you make a decision - pg 130 of Creature - A Second Look [31] The subsection is titled The Conspiracy Theory, wherein Griffin defines the context of an evidence-based conspiracy vs a theory so many in the general populace have been conditioned to ridicule. The latter being the basis for one's belief in "accidental occurrences" which lends credence to the belief that conspiracies are not real, and are just theories. There is still time to change your comment by simply editing a strike-thru. Atsme☯^Consult 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• No. Several respondents have pertinently, even succinctly, explained WHY not, but the opposition insist on irrelevantly (FAIK correctly) arguing that after all, he IS a conspiracy theorist. Well, so what? That does not affect our responsibilities; the article might well be bound to mention the claims and evidence, but it also is constrained by strictures on POV, synthesis and so on, as already repeatedly remarked in this discussion. It is not as though the disputed text is necessary anyway; shorn of the abhorred Synthesis the undisputed truths in the opening paragraph remain equally damning in some such form as, say: "... an American filmmaker and author. He has promoted various conspiracy theories; The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994) for example, asserts that there are conspiracies behind the Federal Reserve System. He also has publicly insisted that consumption of amygdalin can prevent and cure cancer (which he represented as a metabolic disease). Scientific evidence directly contradicts such ideas, but Griffin claims that there is a conspiracy of scientists and politicians to discredit the evidence that establishes its truth." (citations etc omitted) JonRichfield (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Given that the term "conspiracy theory" itself has taken on a Conspiracy theory#Acquired derogatory meaning, it is unfair (and POV) to use Griffin's usage of the term in his 1993 book to justify a current derogatory usage in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

that link says the term became derogatory starting in the late 1960's. The first edition of the Federal Reserve book was published in 1994, and in that section he talks about it being a derogatory term. Not a valid "defense". Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: the compromise offered by Srich32977 here is as follows: "Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox." And otherwise leave the lead alone. I thought about this long and hard and it is in some ways fine. But in my view Griffin's notability is his promotion of conspiracy theories - he is one of America's leading conspiracy theorists - and I am baffled that there is opposition to naming him as such per WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGEBLP, which in my view doesn't conflict with BLP - we call a spade a spade. The opposition is fierce and heartfelt. Hence the RfC to get wider community judgement. I appreciate the compromise being offered and would be happy to revisit the compromise after the RfC, which will affect what we do with the article otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC){strike per note from Srich below, not sure this is supportable - not sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC))

He wrote one book about amygdalin, which appears to be what you are basing your entire objections on. Griffin is a BLP about an author, filmmaker and lecturer who has written many different books on controversial topics. His life is not 100% focused on PS or Fringe, so why are you trying to make it so? WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NPOV. Griffin's notability is clearly the result of Creature, a book that explains the mechanics of the highly controversial Federal Reserve System. What I can't understand is why we are seeing such adamant objections to correctly stating what Griffin's critics have said about him; i.e., "that he has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist"...? The latter is what NPOV and BLP policy requires of us. S. Rich has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now. Atsme☯^Consult 17:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated reference to other editors' disagreements with you as "disruption" is improper, and I would kindly request you to stop. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The term controversial topics is a blatant violation of WP:WEASEL. The controversy is not the topics themselves, since the conspiracy theories he advocates are well known to be entirely without merit, what is controversial is the continued advocacy of these conspiracy theories despite the absence of any credible supporting evidence. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the discussion about article improvement, I cannot understand the justification for using WP's voice to describe Griffin with a derogatory term. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it is, what it is. WP stands in the mainstream, and in the mainstream, the Fed is a key part of our monetary system (not controversial per se - some of its decisions, sure) and the idea that laetrile treats cancer is quackery. Griffin is a conspiracy theorist, away outside the mainstream. So we name him as such, in my view. I do understand that you and Atsme have strongly disagreed. Hence the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, to satisfy WP:NPOV, he must be called a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice in the first paragraph, or it be stated (in Wikipedia's voice) that he supports/promotes/creates conspiracy theories as the first thought in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following this article that closely, and I don't have a specific opinion, pro or con, about whether the article should refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist." I just want to point out that the use of a derogatory term (or a term that happens to have negative connotations) in an article is not, in and of itself, a violation of the rule on Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur - what happened to the need for RS in order to make such a contentious statement in WP voice? You stated earlier that there were no RS, but now you are saying the contentious label must be included. I'm confused. Atsme☯^Consult 18:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Refs 1 and 2 in Jytdog's list are reliable sources; many more are reliable for the fact that he promotes conspiracy theories, without explicitly saying he is a "conspiracy theorist". However, we are allowed to use the definition of "conspiracy theorist" if the sources unequivocally meet that definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Arthur, even though what you are stating now contradicts what you said above. With regards to Ref 1 - Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group that is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". When did WP accept self-proclaimed "politically progressive media" as a reliable source for inclusion of a contentious and pejorative statement in WP's own voice? Ref 2 - when did an article about a totally unrelated subject, "Skyjacker of the Day", with a parenthetical opinionated reference become a reliable source? With all due respect, none of the aforementioned sources pass the smell-test for WP:RS as required by BLP policy. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but If consensus disagrees with you, and editors are expecting strict adherence to WP BLP policy, is it wrong for me to question sources that clearly contradict policy? Atsme☯^Consult 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Atsme. Underlying the high level question I posed in the RfC is exactly the question of whether there is sufficient sources for it. Some of us are going to view the sources as sufficient and some are not. It will be for the closer to decide the community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. Your clarification was helpful. Atsme☯^Consult 22:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why reliable sources matter and why BLP policy takes precedence

The following is quoted from Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - which may have been overlooked in the policies I quoted above. (my bold and/or underline for emphasis)

1. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
2. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
3. In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

You cannot use WP:SYNTH, especially to make an opinion a statement of fact.

WP:NPOV - Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, and why RS must be compliant with the above. The best we can hope to use while remaining in compliance with policy is, for example: "he has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist" and provide a brief explanation for why he is referred to as such. We could write that he has offered various reasons (and include verifiable facts if they exist) for why he believes a certain event or incident took place, and/or that he has written about certain conspiracies he believes are real, but so-and-so considers it to be nothing more than a groundless conspiracy theory....and so forth. Atsme☯^Consult 23:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I wonder why you think he is one of America's leading conspiracy theorists. (What sourcing do we have to that idea?) Is your insistence on using the term in the first sentence based on that notion? If so, then perhaps you are over-motivated (as is Atsme). Also, has the derogatory nature of the term deepened since Griffin first used it? If so, we must avoid it because he would not (presumably) use it today. Next, to use the decisive Adolf Hitler comparison argument, I see that Adolf avoids the use of "dictator" in the first sentence of the lede. (Kim Jong-un's article does not use the term "dictator" at all in the text. Have his efforts to suppress Wikipedia's usage of the derogatory term succeeded?) I do not object to calling Griffin a CT. My compromise serves to do so in the "known for" portion of the infobox and later on in the lede. I do object to using the term in the first sentence. And the objection is solidly based on the fact that sources calling him a CT have their own biases. So, please embrace the compromise. Feel the force of the compromise. Use the force of the compromise. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that his being a conspiracy theorist is an opinion, while I believe it to be a fact. Derogatory facts in reliable sources can and (absent undue weight concerns) should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977 comment on content, not contributors. And really, Hitler? With regard to the rest of your comments, my thoughts on the compromise are here - briefly - we are now in an RfC and we can reconsider the compromise when the RfC is done, in light of community consensus, to which I will happily bow - I am just one guy and my view may not reflect the community's. This is what we do when editors disagree; we use the WP:DR process to bring in more voices and listen to them. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin has put the central point in a nutshell. Nearly every RS that discusses Griffin refers to him as a "conspiracy theorist." It's not up to WP editors to exclude that from the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO the place to !vote and give your argument for it, is above. thanks for weighing in. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

btw SRich thanks for calling my attention to that statement I made. Not sure that is supportable (i think it may be am not sure) so I struck it. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

According to sources, Griffin describes a conspiratorial view vs happenstance relative to how matters will be viewed by history. What he presents, and the way he presents it can be viewed as (a) a conspiracy "theory", (b) actual belief that a conspiracy exists based on factual evidence which eliminates "theory", (c) happenstance. <----- pick one, and you have established your POV. POV is not in compliance with NPOV, thus the crux of this argument. Griffin has not professed to being a conspiracy theorist rather he considers it a pejorative term. Atsme☯^Consult 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, I forgot to add the following quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: [32] You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 22:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope that we can come up with better sources on monetary policy than Sen. Bunning. Really. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite. You know, if Atsme had advocated a change to "American blah blah known for advocacy of conspiracy theories" he might have achieved some support. Instead, he tries to pretend that because this is a BLP, we must treat these mad ideas as if they are defensible. We have years of precedent for absolutely rejecting that idea. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close requested

The RfC expired today. I have requested a close here. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

He's still a Conspiracy Theorist, and should be labelled as such. It is his "raison d'etre" and the only thing that makes him really notable by our rules. AfD anybody, now that he is such a minor author? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a vote. As a close it shows no consideration of the views of the significantly larger number of people who said it should be included. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend - thanks for taking the time to do the close. This question arose at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (the intersection is discussed in the WP:FRINGE guideline that fleshes out PSCI, at WP:FRINGEBLP ) and your close didn't address the PSCI side of the issue. Would you please add something to your close about what the community said here about that intersection? That is the crux of the issue here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it's needed. Conspiracies and pseudoscience are two different concepts, and while of course they can be interrelated, the fundamental RFC question asked only whether he should be introduced as a conspiracy theorist. I see that PSCI (an abbreviation I've never before encountered) was raised at the beginning, one sentence after the original question, but it's not enough relevant that I saw (or see, at the moment) a reason to bring that into a closing rationale. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend closure was obviously done after considering the arguments and policy, determining "a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." And Nyttend's edits to the lede were presumably done to comply with the determination. If editors think that Nyttend overlooked the "first sentence" context, they should discuss this in accordance with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, you could simply start a new discussion. Pseudoscience wasn't the focus of this one, so I basically meant that it wouldn't be appropriate to derive anything from it on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend You can see from the history of this article, that it has been protected twice now for edit warring. We need to move very conservatively in this article. The RfC was carefully framed to ask a question about the first sentence only. Please acknowledge that your edit implementing your close exceeded the question asked in the RfC - you can see it is being used to press for advantage without discussion, and that is not the way to go in a highly contested article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion of the implementing edit at Nyytend's talk page, here User_talk:Nyttend#Edit_implementing_close_at_Griffin_article. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I understand and respect your freedom to question the closer considering his decision conflicted with your position, but it should be done in a calm and respectable manner. You are making spurious claims against the closer, and appear to have become emotionally involved. The only editor who is edit warring is you, [33] [34]. Nyttend followed WP:Consensus, and made his decision based on his evaluation of the RfC discussion, and apparently determined the contentious material was a violation of BLP policy, (derogatory characterization). As a result, the closer was obliged to act as he did and remove it immediately. Please calm down. Atsme☯^Consult 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the recent edit went beyond any current consensus, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Only the first sentence was the subject of the RfC. Whether Nyytend was correct in their closing is one thing (WP:PSCI is a pretty important policy in this topic in addition to BLP), but the additional edits later on in the lede can just simply be partially reverted tomorrow when protection ends if they don't make the change themselves. If someone wants to discuss new topics such as mentions of Griffin promoting conspiracy theories rather than actually being a conspiracy theorist, that's something to gain consensus on first before any new changes in that area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

While the thread title referenced the first sentence, it opened by quoting the entire lede. Editors who commented provided commentary about NPOV and BLP issues in an overall context. They did not say "Yes, the first sentence is great." or "No, the first sentence is not great." Our closer, undertaking it seems, a thankless task, addressed the NPOV problem brought up in the RFC and re-wrote the first paragraph to comply with NPOV. This issue is ripe for compromise. We see an entire section about fringe and CT in the article. We see CT in the infobox as a "known for" parameter. We see CT in the categories. Still, I'll suggest we add the following as a second sentence to the second paragraph of the lede: "He has written about the "Capitalist Conspiracy" (discussing international banking) and been described as a conspiracy theorist." – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of close requested

I have requested review of the close here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

archiving

this selection of hand-picked Talk sections to archive confused me, so I reverted. I don't understand why some were left and some not. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit request

What do you say we ask an admin to fix the infobox as follows:

• Occupation: "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker"
• Known for: "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion and conspiracy theories"

This is what Srich32977 proposed - I added conspiracy theories for laetrile, since he does that too, per the content in the article. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I object to the second usage of "CT" as overkill. I would agree to "Noah's Arch searching, and conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and Laetrile" – S. Rich (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

trying to work with you here, so how about

• Known for: Conspiracy theories concerning the Federal Reserve and Laetrile, and Noah's Ark search" Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

K. – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

:) yay. now let's see what others say... Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Works for me - I'm willing to move forward, even if it's at a snail's pace. Let's hope the lifespan of the remaining debates aren't longer than our own. Atsme☯^Consult 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is not the place for undue detail. It should simply read "Known for: Conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search." The article will detail the conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

K x2. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with that shorter version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Specifico re: shortened version. Actually, just say Known for: Conspiracy theories - that's enough. Noah's Ark search isn't what he is known for at all. Atsme☯^Consult 13:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree on occupation line. Disagree on Known for. Alternative Known for: controversial topics.

--Pekay2 (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I accept Atsme's point. The ark bit clutters up the infobox. Conspiracy theories is fine at that level. The article can present whatever content is well-sourced in appropriate detail. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request for infobox

Per the discussion above, would an admin please change the Occupation field in the infobox, and add a "known for" field, as follows?

• Occupation: Author, lecturer, and filmmaker
• Known for: Conspiracy theories

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Onward to NPOV and UNDUE in the article

I will not belabor the discussion we've already had on the lede. Let's focus on the article sections to achieve NPOV and consistency with other biographies in WP. Suggested section titles:

1. Early life and education - needs to be expanded to include more biographical information. See the biography of Murray Rothbard; a GA which I think is very well written.
2. Career - should include more information about his early days in radio, and what led him to writing, producing and lecturing.
3. Literary Work - see Julia Alvarez for consistency - another GA that is very well written. This section should include his top 2 or 3 best selling books, and some mention of the DVDs (films) he produced.
4. Activism - neutral, dispassionate summary of his views on politics, and various other activities he is/was involved in.

A few suggestions for RS to help with UNDUE and NPOV issues:

• [35] Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island.
• [36] RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act.
• [37] NPR.org - (129 US Alexa) - quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you.
• [38] Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
• [39] GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System.
• [40], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
• [41], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
• [42] Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island.
• [43] Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa)

Who else besides me will actually be writing prose and collaborating to expand the article? We need prose writers far more than we need copy editors at this point in time. I would consider it a special treat to collaborate with Carrite because of his experience with biographies. Atsme☯^Consult 16:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that "activism" is a better section heading, one that should replace the existing headings in the middle of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is really bad. Natural News is not a reliable source for any health-related information in WP. And RT should be used as a source only for noncontroversial facts as has been discussed to death at RSN:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Is_Russia_Today_a_valid_source
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Russia_Today
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article

Most of the other sources are from inside the "bubble" of Griffin's fellow travellers and really fail WP:INDY. The Forbes and NPR sources are passing mentions and not useful for building content. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the above RS assessment, and find it rather curious that the sources currently in use and the sources you suggested in your list for this RfC seem to be exempt from similar scrutiny. With regards to the RSN/Archive regarding RT, the international community clearly disagrees:

• RT is the winner of the 2013 Monte Carlo TV Festival Award for the best 24-hour newscast. In 2010, RT became the first Russian TV channel to be nominated for the prestigious International Emmy award in the News category. In 2012 they received a 2nd News nomination, and a 3rd in 2014. [44] Based on WP:RS, RT easily passes the smell test, and their Alexa numbers prove it.
• The Alexa results for the sources I cited above returned far better results than all but a few of the sources currently being used. They are also known for their reliable fact-checking which may explain the higher Alexa results. I can't remember if any of the sources you suggested even registered a number, and if they did, they were pretty far down the line. You might want to reexamine some of them because unlike the sources I listed, yours really do fail.
• Media Matters for America is a self-admitted partisan source = major bias. You can cite them, but the passage must be written to achieve a neutral tone. Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening in Griffin. NPOV also states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
• You do agree that self-published sources by the BLP are considered RS, right?
• As for passing mention, I'll just quote what Arthur wrote above: By the way, a "trivial mention" is acceptable for a fact, such as that he is a conspiracy theorist. Ok, so based on your assessment, how much more of what Arthur stated above are you planning to dismiss?

The sources I cited are indeed acceptable as RS based on WP guidelines and the Alexa results. I consult you to reexamine the sources that are currently cited in the article along with the sources you listed above. Most of the problems with Griffin now are the poorly sourced passages that use contentious labels and pejorative terms, all of which are POV and UNDUE. Atsme☯^Consult 20:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

in my view, and in the view of the community, you are not going to get far with Natural News for anything medical (take that to any board you like) and i gave you the links for RT. my views are very "founded". Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Natural News and Russia Today are rarely, if ever, reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of links Jytdog provided:

• 1st Archive 39# - "Well... RT as a whole is a reliable source under our rules..."
• 2nd Archive 71# - "In this case, having taken a quick look, I don't see why RT should not be considered an RS."
• 3rd Archive 140# - "To give a short answer as requested, RT is not banned in principle. It should be used with a fair amount of caution and in general Al Jazeera, BBC or CNN will be more accurate. It definitely is advocacy journalism and its accuracy on specific issues is open to question. If no equivalent coverage can be found the facts that make up the story should be checked."

Quite frankly, the 3 discussions at RSN were nothing more than the exchange of opinions. Much of what was said applies to ALL sources these days including the NY Times and FOX News which makes it all the more important to corroborate the stories with other 2nd and 3rd party sources as dictated by guideline policies. Based on the discussions at RSN, as well as the known biases of sources these days, RT's International Emmy nominations, and its ranking on Alexa, the obvious answer is that RT does indeed meet the criteria for RS. Jytdog, since you're checking sources, please scrutinize the sources you listed as closely as you did the ones I listed, including the sources already used in the article. Our prior discussions revealed several that failed the smell test as RS. A dated citation template can be added to the passages that were poorly sourced, provided the PP ever comes down. Atsme☯^Consult 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Does RT have a reputation for fact-checking? If so, it potentially could be used, except that it seems to duplicate Forbes. I don't think it has a reputation for fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes piece is an opinion column by an individual who has no reputation for expertise in the subjects of history, monetary institutions, or economics. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Upon review, none of the other sources is usable either. SPECIFICO talk 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, about RT -- nice cherry-picking. If you read the whole discussions, you will see that the overall sentiment was that RT will withstand challenges only for basic facts; not for anything controversial. If you actually propose content based on RT in WP's voice, and the content is anything other than a basic fact you can find anywhere, the content and its sourcing will be challenged at RSN and the likelihood of its standing will be tiny. You can try of course. BWOT, but you are surely free to try. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Since your RS argument conflicts with policy and WP:RS guidelines, I disagree with your assessment. Please scrutinize the list of sources currently in use, as well as those you added above, most of which clearly fail WP:RS. BLP states: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. The offending passages still exist and now it appears you are attempting to discredit reliable sources in an effort to maintain the SQ while preventing the inclusion of prevailing respectable information. The likelihood of prevention is zero to none based strictly on WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. I also wanted to add for comparison purposes your distinction of what is and isn't a reliable source. You support Media Matters (described by the NYT as "the nonprofit, highly partisan research organization") which ranks 18,796 in Alexa Global but dismiss RT's 384 in Alexa Global. Read the following: [45], and be sure to read what the Times wrote, paying particular attention to their correction at the bottom....whoa, wait...did I say their correction at the bottom? You mean to tell me they didn't fact check? Some of the other sources I cited above are in the top ranks of Alexa, and on par with other outlets as far as known for fact-checking, at the very least equal in reliability to the sources used to establish Griffin as being known for conspiracy theories. We are not adhering to NPOV if the only sources we cite are those critical of the subject while we ignore and/or discredit numerous other RS that are not.

In further response to Arthur's question about fact-checking, RT is consistently under scrutiny by its competitors and critics. Their nominations for an International Emmy as a top News Source is a recognition given by "a membership-based organization comprised of leading media and entertainment figures from over 50 countries and 500 companies from all sectors of television including Internet, mobile and technology." We can certainly cite RT as being peer reviewed and known for fact-checking, perhaps more so than US media which sadly has been the focus of controversies and complaints by numerous media outlets and journalists, some of whom have blown the whistle regarding excessive government control and suppression of important facts. My retirement couldn't have come at a better time. [46] [47] [48] Atsme☯^Consult 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

oh for pete's sake another wall of text. TLDR. Please stop filling this page with walls of text. Please. More to the point - this is not the place to discuss whether RT is a RS generally. Please propose some content that you want to source from some specific RT article, and you can see if it will fly. It is unlikely to fly, but you are certainly free to try. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• RT??? Hahahaha! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to Arthur Rubin's opinion re: Natural News and RT, I disagree on the former--please document these personal opinions on both using RS.--Pekay2 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pekay and Atsme, both of you. Please read WP:MEDRS which is our guideline for sourcing for health related content, and WP:RS the guideline for general content. See if Natural News fits, in your judgement, for whatever content you wish to support, using it. If you find it OK, please try proposing specific content about Griffin sourced to some specific article at Natural News and post it here. Others will give feedback if it complies with our sourcing guidelines or not. If after discussion there is lack of consensus, we can take it to the relevant board. (there is not a chance in hell that anything health-related, sourced to Natural News, will fly in Wikipedia, but you are surely free to try). Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If only you would follow your own advice, this article would already be in line for DYK review. Atsme☯^Consult 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

nothing there about improving the article; please discuss content, not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything there about improving the article. You either haven't read it, or you are ignoring it. You also need to scrutinize the sources you claim are reliable. They are do not improve the article - all are negative - there is no balance. Atsme☯^Consult 00:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

was addressing ":If only you would follow your own advice, this article would already be in line for DYK review. ". i have no more to say here, til you propose some content. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion - collaborate, don't elaborate. Instead of directing other editors on what to do or not do, why don't you propose content instead of WP:SQS....as in write some prose...improve the problematic passages...expand the article...exert some positive effort into making it better, and collaborating to get it DYK ready?? Atsme☯^Consult 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with the article as it is. You have stated very clearly that in your view it is deeply flawed and you want to dramatically revise it. I suggested a way you could work toward doing that. You can follow that advice or not. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, unless you have specific content and associated reference citations to propose here, your further statements will not improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Specifico, do you also like the article as it is? Atsme☯^Consult 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am looking at Jytdog's 10 January 2015 comment: “Pekay and Atsme, both of you. Please read WP:MEDRS, which is our guideline for sourcing for health related content, and WP:RS the guideline for general content.” WP:MEDRS is referenced repeatedly following conversation about amending Griffin’s article. Griffin’s unifying focus is tyranny of all types, and thus less about healthcare, although medical industry tyranny is highlighted in "World Without Cancer". In that book Griffin says the question often asked by organized opposition usually is stated somewhat like “ Are you suggesting that people in government, in business or in medicine could be so base as to place their own financial or political interests above the health and wellbeing of their fellow citizens? That they actually would stoop so low as to hold back a cure for cancer?” (p. 211, chapter 16 titled Conspiracy). This is answered by a case in point article at CBS Detroit online, which while not MEDRS is RS. It details a U.S Dept. of Justice’s prosecution of a mainstream oncologist named Dr. Fata for 13 counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy and two counts of money laundering.” http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/09/16/oakland-county-cancer-doctor-pleads-guilty-to-treatment-fraud/ This is far from an isolated case; here’s another: "An indictment was unsealed today charging Dr. Hussein “Sam” Awada, 43, and Dr. Luis Collazo, 53, with the illegal distribution of prescription drugs and health care fraud, United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade announced today." http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/news/2013/2013_6_21_dawada.html. With reference to conspiracy--An actual conspiracy can not be called a theory. --Pekay2 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• content about health {e.g. about whether or not laetrile is a safe and effective treatment for cancer) needs to be sourced per MEDRS. Otherwise, things need to be sourced per RS. So content about the indictment of Awada and Collazo would be sourced per RS; MEDRS doesn't "read" on the fact that they were indicted. MEDRS and RS are not that different - everything in WP should be sourced from secondary sources, and should be from a source competent to discuss the matter; MEDRS just specifies what those things mean in the field of health. for this article, please also see Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality.

• With respect to your last sentence, this is an interesting problem. In general, Wikipedia strives to express the mainstream view on things, and give the most WP:WEIGHT to the mainstream view. This is the essence of the WP:NPOV policy. We determine the "mainstream view" by looking at what reliable sources (per WP:RS) say. It is very true that conspiracies happen in the real world, and they are described as such by mainstream sources (e.g. Watergate scandal). There are also people who have ideas that "X was a conspiracy" (like John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories) - these ideas are not mainstream in the relevant field of study, and are labelled "conspiracy theories" in reliable sources. The same line of reasoning goes to any WP:FRINGE notion. Please do read WP:FRINGE. It all comes down to figuring out what the mainstream view is in the given field, and what are fringe views. (there are also "substantial minority" views that are not fringe, but that is complicating things) To determine where some idea falls in its field, you have to do a lot of reading. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (note, that was a bit long, sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC))

Right on re: "a lot of reading"! Been there, done that, still doing it!--Pekay2 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Alternative medicine claims are now covered by discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. This will apply to Griffin's claims about laetrile, in particular. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

hatting thread that has also gone astray. please focus on content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please explain how Griffin's BLP relates to acupuncture and/or discretionary sanctions, and what it entails. Atsme☯Consult 02:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC) The decision places all alt-med claims under sanctions. That includes laetrile, a quack cancer treatment with no respectable evidential basis. You already know this, so stop playing innocent. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I see from perusing through various non-allopathic medicine websites and alternative medicine disciplines that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin appears to be only one of various articles being hijacked by folks lacking WP:NPOV. Note this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy: "Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience.[2][3][4][5] It is not effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo.[6][7][8]." The following self defines why it is appropriate to this conversation: www.naturalnews.com/047630_Wikipedia_academic_bias_homeopathic_medicine.html--Pekay2 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC). Some may prefer to read Dana Ullman's 'Extreme bias at WP' Natural News article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html--Pekay2 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC) This comment is off topic. If you want to address the way Wikipedia addresses alt med, you can open a discussion at WP:NPOVN or WT:MEDRS. You would not be the first - this conversation has occurred many, many many times. It has been to Arbcom several times, per the notice above.Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that "Natural News" and Dana Ullman as sources for anything at all are probably as reliable as the writing on the back wall of Stall 6 in the mens room at Victoria Station, London. I can't believe I read that above. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC) please, let's not continue the general discussion of sources and other things. This Talk page is to discuss sources and content for this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) The Ullman article has already been rebutted in full and comprehensively rejected at Talk:Homeopathy. The mere use of the word "allopathic" is in and of itself an acknowledgement of a POV out of line with reality. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I'm still waiting for a response to my question. Atsme☯Consult 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, I think you would agree that the use of laetrile to treat cancer is not mainstream medicine, and I hope you would agree that the use of laetrile to treat cancer would be classified as "alternative medicine". What JzG/Guy was giving notice of , is that in the above-linked discussion, the acupuncture arbcom decision was... clarified/broadened to specifically include "alternative and complementary medicine". See the Remedies section in particular. So to the extent that the article makes claims about laetrile as a cancer treatment, or anybody edits the article to include or remove such content, discretionary sanctions are in play regarding those edits. Discretionary sanctions are explained here: WP:AC/DS - you should read that, for sure, as should everybody else here. Everyone has been formally notified on their Talk pages, and by the notice above. (basically DS means that an uninvolved administrator can come down on editors quite hard. An editor can get a block under 1RR not just 3RR, for example, although generally the acting admin gives notice of such extra restrictions before acting on them. DS are meant to promote very good behavior on particularly contentious topics. it all starts with everyone being notified) Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Thx, Jytdog. Ok, to confirm - the notice basically advises editors to not attempt to skirt policy and guidelines when editing articles involving PS-FRINGE. In retrospect, I wrote the following lede, G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, researcher, historian, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. He considers himself a controversial writer, and is best known for his research on controversial topics which have given rise to conspiracy theories involving, for example, alternative medicine, politics, foreign policy, and banking. Critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist because of his unorthodox views, the latter of which he defends as being fact-based rather than opinions. The first book he authored, The Fearful Master, published in 1964, focuses on the United Nations, and what Griffin theorizes as a socialistic push for the creation of a new world government. He has since accumulated many successful titles to his credit with the most notable being, The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller that 20 years later is in its 38th printing, fifth edition. The book focuses on the Federal Reserve System which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. Prior to writing the book, Griffin attended the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and received designation as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) in 1989, an education he sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets. <----There is nothing I said that should be considered problematic according to any of the sanctions. Para 2 is actually the only part that is related to PS-Fringe for which the PS-Fringe sanctions would apply, correct? I wrote: Griffin also authored, World Without Cancer (1974), which was inspired by information he received on a fishing trip with John Richardson, a physician from San Francisco, who claimed success treating his cancer patients with Laetrile, a highly debated alternative treatment for cancer that has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Laetrile is a chemically modified form of vitamin B17 (amygdalin), a plant compound that produces cyanide, and is found in the pits of apricots and many other fruits and raw nuts, as well as in lima beans, clover, and sorghum. Laetrile is sometimes referred to as amygdalin, although the two are not the same. There are also modified, or fake versions of laetrile believed to be from Mexico that are being sold on the black market. Laetrile was patented in 1953 by biochemist, Ernst T. Krebs, who was quoted as saying, "I know Laetrile is the anti-cancer, antineoplastic vitamin and I want it put to the test." Several tests have been conducted over the years, most of which were either inconclusive or they determined Laetrile to be ineffective in the treatment of cancer. Proponents of orthodox medicine consider its use quackery. However, recent scientific research and the results of various laboratory tests using different types of human cancer cells indicate amygdalin to be successful as an anticancer substance. <----What part, if any, would actually be considered in violation of the sanctions and why? Are you saying that what I wrote is improper for inclusion in this BLP? Atsme☯Consult 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Let me first correct something I wrote earlier. The DS can only be applied if an uninvolved admin starts to oversee the page, and which point he or she would give warnings of the specific sanctions/restrictions they would put in place. What can also happen, is that one of us (or an observing third party) gets so fed up with someones' behavior here, that an Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (AE) is filed. That is the other thing that is now at play here. DS/AE are last resorts. We still have all the typical dispute resolution resorts to work with, on many issues. About the content you propose above, it is mostly impossible to respond to content that is not sourced, so I won't comment much on the content. In my understanding, DS are first and foremost about behavior. So if you replaced the existing content with that content in one fell swoop (very aggressively edited an article you know is controversial) that would be very likely to bring down DS or AE on your head. If you edit warred to keep it in, that would very very likely bring down DS/AE on your head. The other thing to keep in mind, is that our behavior, across WP, related to the contested subject matter, can be brought to play, especially in an AE. So the discussions on this stuff that have already taken place here, at BLPN, and at FringeN, and each others' Talk pages, can be brought in. This is part of how DS is meant to "put the fear of god" (as it were) into editors, to promote best behavior (like listening to consensus and yielding to it when it goes against you). I for one hope we never end up at AE nor having an admin impose restrictions on us. It is a huge time suck, and I take no joy from people getting sanctioned. But sometimes it is necessary; sometimes on issues like those that go to Arbcom, people will not listen to the consensus, and people get too emotional. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Those are my perspectives. Other editors definitely have more experience with Arbcom and could give you a more accurate description of what the notice "means". Guy, anything I got wrong or that you would elaborate on? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Ok, thx. BTW, I wrote the above paragraphs back on Dec 10th. [49] They were well sourced, but reverted without discussion which I suppose is the type of behavior that would attract the attention of AE. In retrospect, and out of respect for the sanctions, I see where the 2nd paragraph could have been substantially reduced, so I just did a strike thru. I still like the section title style/layout I suggested above because it follows WP:MOS regarding the established precedent for section naming and order in similar BLPs. Question: Don't BLP and PS-Fringe sanctions only allow 1 revert before you're handcuffed? Atsme☯Consult 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Oh shit i had forgotten about you adding that to the article and then edit warring to keep it in. oy. Not what you wanna do and especially not now. WP:CONSENSUS remains the foundation of WP and the fact that you edit warred and that you didn't open a discussion on Talk after the first reversion, will look bad on you. Arbcom will look at each person's behavior - AE's often end with lots of people getting dinged, based on what each of them did. i'm sorry. like i said i hope it never comes to AE. With regard to BLP and PS-Fringe, the 1RR thing isn't magical - someone has to act on it and initiate an AE action or go to the edit-warring board, if there is not an uninvolved admin overseeing things. i gotta say that because this article has been locked down twice now due to edit warring, we are likely to end up with someone sitting on us. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC) last comment. I have urged you a few times to propose bits of content here on Talk for discussion. Doing that would not only reflect awareness that the edits may be controversial and show that you are aware of the importance of CONSENSUS, just for the Arbcom brownie points, it actually is the best way to go when you have controversial edits in mind; it is what lockdowns are really for -- working out content issues on the Talk page. It also makes use of the time. If, that is, you still intend to try to remake this article. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I guess you've forgotten about the suggestions I already made above which included proposed changes to the layout and section titles to more closely follow MOS/Layout and Section Names and Orders. I also provided a sample GA and FA to model after for consistency. I like the first paragraph I wrote and included above. I did a struck-thru the peacock words, and there's a link to the diff which shows what sources I used. The lede paragraph has a nice biographical feel, and meets the criteria for NPOV. The second paragraph still needs polish. Atsme☯Consult 06:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I guess you've forgotten that you are in a minority of one, and clearly obsessed with this particular article. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I have said nothing to warrant your personal attacks or disrespect toward me, Guy. An admin who is charged with enforcing policy should not be breaking it or bending the rules to give them an unfair advantage. Atsme☯Consult 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC) fwiw I suggest the two of you knock it off and discuss content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Guy, would you please comment briefly, on how DS work in practice? I gave my understanding above, but I have never been in a situation where they come into play. Am I right, that they actually come into play by a) making editors subject to AE (which someone has to bring) (in other words, opens a new final venue other than ANI) b) an uninvolved admin gets involved and actually declares DS restrictions and then monitors and enforces them. Is that right? I am asking to clarify this for myself too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC) The high level overview is that it reduces the bar to restriction of editors advocating fringe claims. Persistent advocacy of fringe claims, leads to a fast-track process to a topic ban. Any editor can alert any other editor by substing {{Ds/alert}} on their Talk page. That does not, as has been pointed out to me, require an uninvolved editor or admin, but abuse of process will certainly be viewed dimly. It is worth asking for support in the first instance at WP:FTN, and then at WP:AE. Basically, the idea is that we don't have to constantly relegislate the user conduct issues around tendentious editing, advocacy and NPOV. Policy is absolutely clear: NPOV means we follow the scientific consensus view, where relevant. So for example NPOV requires that we correctly represent evolution as fact, and discuss creationism as a belief system not as a fact. The article on homeopathy is a good example: we discuss the belief system and history at length, but without ever giving the misleading impression that it is scientifically supported or factual. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks, that makes sense. I believe that everybody here has been alerted, so that step is done already. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, you seem not to understand why your edits are considered problematic. Let me see if I can explain. G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. Many of his films are not documentaries, they are conspiracist claptrap. That is what the reliable sources say. Filmmaker is fine, but documentary is a value judgment and begs the question; we had similar discusisons about Zeitgeist and What The Bleep as documentaries, both of which we accurately describe as documentary-style; filmmaker in the documentary style would be fine. Critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist because of his unorthodox views, the latter of which he defends as being fact-based rather than opinions. That diminiushes the criticism (in fact, the ideas he proposes are almost universally dismissed), gives him the last word, and implies that his books are factual, which in several cases they are not. His book on laetrile, for example, is anything but. The first book he authored, The Fearful Master, published in 1964, focuses on the United Nations, and what Griffin theorizes as a socialistic push for the creation of a new world government. Theorizes is a value judgment. He believes it to be so, but again there is no good evidence. 44 He has since accumulated many successful titles to his credit Successful and credit are both value laden. They are not books with any objective value. Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision sold many copies, but it was complete bollocks from beginning to end. We should not use these kinds of words when the subject freely admits them to be controversial. the most notable being, The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller that 20 years later is in its 38th printing, fifth edition. The book focuses on the Federal Reserve System which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. This implicitly endorses Griffin's assertions and supports the conspiracist whackloonery around the Fed. The Fed is in reality only controversial to nutters. Prior to writing the book, Griffin attended the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and received designation as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) in 1989, an education he sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets. This takes a low-level commercial qualification and attempts to establish it as a valid credential for talking about fiscal policy, something which, in reality, requires at the very least a degree in economics. So, when you say your edits are not controversial, you state a belief, not a fact. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Completely disagree with you. Amazing that you don't see your own bias. Pathetic really!--Pekay2 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Laetrile, a highly debated alternative treatment for cancer that has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not an NPOV way of describing a quack cure which has been repeatedly scientifically demonstrated to not be an effective treatment for cancer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Well, arguably it does shorten the duration of cancer, since the patient is likely to die much sooner (of untreated cancer, if not form cyanide poisoning). Guy (Help!) 00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Guy, you are drinking the Kool-aid as a naive believer of lies re: Laetrile/cyanide deaths.--Pekay2 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC) This is Wikipedia. We are a reality-based project. The reality is that laetrile is quackery. This is the scientific consensus. We are not here to change that, still less pretend otherwise. If you want laetriel accepted, do it in the sicnetific arena, becuase we do not fix the realworld and we do not change Wikipedia to reflect the world as people wish it to be, rather than as it actually is.. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Please read WP:NPOV because some of the interpretations I've read don't coincide with the applicable parts of the policy...(my bold) Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. The criticisms are unsubstantiated POV, and the disparaging remarks are a violation of BLP on this TP. Atsme☯Consult 03:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC) So you keep saying, but your arguments are consistently unpersuasive. Now would be a good time to drop it. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

hatting thread that is not focusing on improving actual content. please knock it off Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Courtesy break Atsme, Frankly, I have had enough. You refuse to take no for an answer, and you constantly portray your own biases as neutrality. Now would be a great time to find another article to edit, because your proposed edits are not going to happene here for reaosns that have been explained numerous times in realy quite tedious detail. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Ooh -- maybe another great big wall of text will do the trick!! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Well, here comes the wall of text! Guy, I am a new editor here watching with great interest and concern for this WP editing process. Prior to observing this BLP I believed WP to be a decent source of reasonably neutral quality information. It is with great sadness that I have to face that neutral source information is lacking in controversial topics precisely where it is most vital. You have consistently failed to give reasons why the policies Atsme has introduced are not relevant. Where is Atsme's bias? Yours is very clear. You make bizarre and disparaging remarks that appear to have no place in a BLP. Even if G. Edward Griffin were, as your inappropriate template states, "an uninformed wing nut producer of drivel" this is a characterization with which I, and legions of others, do not agree. "The Creature From Jekyll Island" is the #1 best seller in books on banks and banking on Amazon.com. Out of 452 reviews on Amazon Griffin has 4.5 of 5 stars, hardly support for your disparaging remarks. Further, his "World Without Cancer" is the #1 best seller of oncology nursing books. Of 147 reviews he yeilds 4.5 of 5 stars again! In my opinion, you are an anachronist (a word I've just coined in your honor) for your totally discredited 'quack-attacker' nonsense. I am beyond horrified at your unprofessional insulting remarks like your edit summary "now would be a good time to shut up". You have resorted to bullying and ad hominum attacks against both Griffin and Atsme. You have failed to address reliable source citations raised by Atsme or any diffs to support your statements. Looks to me like you should be the one to depart from any further commentary on this page.--Pekay2 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources—we don't vote on cures for cancer, and we don't believe everything we read on the Internet, particularly when it concerns "reader ratings" which, apart from a host of other problems, are routinely manipulated. As there is no actionable and plausible proposal for a change to the article, there is nothing more to say. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC) We write about people who write books. That's why it is called a BLP. No editor has stated any of the things being claimed by the WP:BULLY who has had enough. Enough of what? Reading policy and understanding his own bias? Try reading the discussions and you will see the proposal. And while you're at it, tell us what RS were used in the section contentiously titled Cancer and AIDS denial, and how that section title even relates. Oy. Atsme☯Consult 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is the more appropriate way to put things. It does sound like a fair thought to take a step back away for awhile and drop the stick on some items a few editors haven't gained traction for and pay attention to other items such as the RfC that are ongoing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Pekay: You claim to be a new editor. Comments like this [50] suggest otherwise. In any case you advocate for quackery [51] and you trust manifestly unreliable sources [52],[53], and thus you are, I am afraid, not helping. This happens all the time and it generally ends in one of two ways: the brand new editor finds another area of interestr, or the "brand new editor" gets banned. Advocating fdor quackery and pseudoscience on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Wikipedia is an unashamedly reality-based project. Creationists, free energy conspiracists, Truthers and homeopaths don't get along here, and the problem is theirs, not ours. We do not care how many people believe a thing, if it is contradicted by science, then we don't pretend they are right. Griffin is a conspiracy theorist, he writes conspiracist books. He advocates laetrile, once described as the most lucrative health fraud ever perpetrated in the United States. And many of those associated with the original laetrile fraud, have gone on to advocate another fraudulent and dangerous treatment, chelation therapy for conditions other than a cute heavy metal poisoning (good read on this sort of thing: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5061.html). The internet is awash with sites where you can freely advocate for refuted ideas. Wikipedia is different. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC) And while we're on a break, read Charles Manson - his article was written with more respect for a BLP than Griffin. Atsme☯Consult 05:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Just glanced at it, and Charles Manson gets a more dispassionate NPOV in WP than G. Edward Griffin!--Pekay2 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Work on content

Let's try to focus on actual article content, shall we? Atsme, you've indicated that you want a rewrite. I've asked you a few times to propose content so we can work on it. Would you please propose content for the body of the article if you still intend to revise the article? (I'm asking about the body, since the lead is subject to the ongoing RfC and there is no point working on that, til the RfC ends). If you have changed your mind, please let us know. Pekay2 and Srich32977 same to you. Let's use this time while the article is locked to try to resolve our differences so we don't end up arguing again, when the article is unlocked. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme already proposed content that was in blatant violation of policy. Wholesale rewrite is not really an option here, we need specific requested changes, backed by sources. "Change X to Y based on Z source". And it needs to be incremental and we need debate to run before the next one is proposed, because we already know that what Atsme wants is virtually the entire article refactored into a presentation of Griffin's ideas without reference to the fact that they are conspiracy theories, and wrong.

So: Specific, small, actionable, supported by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the approach Guy suggests of proposing "specific requested changes, backed by sources. "Change X to Y based on Z source"." one at a time, would be the most productive way to go. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In principle, sounds good -- but we need to keep the big picture in mind as well. It's possible to add properly sourced snippets that end up conveying an unscientific perspective here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, but as Jytdog points out the article is protected, and the consensus process should sort that out I hope.

I have possibly erred on the side of stridency above, in order to make it absolutely crystal clearer that any attempt to portray these views as anything other than false, will fail, per canonical policy. This is not negotiable. No consensus of a group of concurring editors of a single article could ever override policy, and in this case there is very clearly no such consensus.

I fear that Atsme believes at least some of the things that Griffin espouses. That should not be a barrier to progress and participation, but Atsme needs to be (and I think now is) aware that it may lead to sanctions if pursued to excess - and i this case excess basically means any further advocacy of laetrile in particular, since that has already been done to death here. Laetrile is health fraud. In fact every claim made by laetrile advocates would be illegal in the UK, where I live.

Please note that I am absolutely committed to WP:BLP. I was made an admin largely because of work on a BLP before the policy even existed, which got me savagely attacked on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I wrote the standard guidance to article subjects at OTRS. It offends me that I am implicitly accused of violating this policy. One may opine that laetrile advocacy, say, should not be portrayed as fringe, per WP:BLP, but to assert that belief as fact is extremely rude, to say nothing of arrogant. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

the main thing is that we get to work, while the page is locked down per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy, please provide the diffs that validate your statement, Atsme already proposed content that was in blatant violation of policy. I am unaware of having made such a proposal. Also, please tell me what policy you're referring to with the following: any attempt to portray these views as anything other than false, will fail, per canonical policy. This is not negotiable. No consensus of a group of concurring editors of a single article could ever override policy, and in this case there is very clearly no such consensus. While I don't believe the latter is at issue here, and my intention has never been anything but strict adherence to BLP policy, I don't understand the relevance of your statement. It also appears to conflict with WP:BLP: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections. I want to be very clear about what you're saying because it appears that you are telling us we can't write anything about what Griffin wrote about amygdalin (laetrile, B17), or what reliable secondary sources have published about it. Is that what you're saying?

Meanwhile, all of the editors who have spent so much time criticizing my work can get busy doing some of their own. Make a list of things that need to be done to correct the existing problems plaguing this article so we don't repeat the same mistakes. I recommend either replacing the poorly sourced material with policy compliant passages, or find the reliable, published sources WP:VERIFIABILITY to replace them. We can get a lot of work done in a reasonable amount of time if we work together. That means no more armchair coaching. If you want to talk the talk, walk the walk. Perhaps we could list Griffin at WP:CLEANUP, and get some of those editors involved as well.

Following is the layout suggestion I mentioned before...

Griffin needs a better WP:MOS/layout including section titles that are policy compliant, and consistent with the layouts of other BLPs, like Julia Alvarez and Murray Rothbard, both GAs:

• Early life and education - expand to include more biographical information - Jytdog and Peekay2 can start writing to expand this section;
• Career - include information about his early days in radio, what led him to writing, producing and lecturing. Subsection titles could be used to separate the progression of his career, perhaps by year - Roxy and Nomo would be a good team for this one - maybe split his career into two segments - half for each to work on;
• Literary Work - this section can include a brief summary of his top 3 best selling books with some mention of the DVDs (films) he produced; JzG would be perfect to write the prose and expand this section since he is so well versed about Griffin's writings;
• Activism - neutral, dispassionate summary of topics including his views on politics, and the most notable things he was actively involved in - I can work on this section with S. Rich and whoever else wants to collaborate and help writing prose. Atsme☯^Consult 07:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, thanks for this, but please provide concrete, sourced content proposals. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, see diff. Now please stop trying to rewrite reality in line with Griffin's delusions and instead focus on actionable edit requests, as noted above. Also read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, we first need to resolve the WP:Coatrack and RS/Verifiability issues that were brought up in December. The way Griffin reads right now, his BLP is a coatrack, and policy ironically states: A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing - Amanda Pubilchep is a journalist. One day she wrote an article about Conspiracy Theory X. The main points of Conspiracy Theory X are as follows... followed by paragraph after paragraph about the conspiracy theory. There just simply isn't anything more telling than what is stated in the policy itself. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed. The latter brings us back to the issue that the contentious material in the article is not reliably sourced as was pointed out by S. Rich and I back in December. See the section break above titled sources for 'conspiracy theorist'. The sources do not pass the acid test, and only a few pass as questionable. WP:Verifiability states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Under Questionable_sources it states: They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. London is a RS, but then there were only 2 trivial mentions of Griffin; one is a list of names showing "G. Edward Griffin, Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker", and the other is a brief sentence that states, "Conspiracy-theorist G. Edward Griffin also asserts that doctors aren’t taught about “natural cures” or nutrition in medical school." Circle back to coatrack. Atsme☯^Consult 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, so please suggest content and sources to replace the content and sources in the body of the article you feel are bad. Like Guy suggested above, please make suggestions along the lines of "Change X to Y based on Z source"." one at a time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I say follow WP:PAG, and remove the contentious material. Let whoever wants it restored find the RS that support it. I'm going to be working on MOS/layout and the section Activism. Atsme☯^Consult 01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that all you want to do - remove existing material, or do you want to add material? Either way, you will need consensus when you go to do it, so please offer concrete suggestions now. That is what this time is for. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

way, way far gone from discussing content and sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, get started, Jytdog. Fix it. Atsme☯Consult 03:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC) As I have written to you before, more than once (but here is one), I am OK with the article is as it is. You want to change it, but we don't know exactly what you want. Now is the time to work that out, per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes. I won't respond again here until you propose specific content. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Well, the problem as pointed out by experienced editors is indisputably the RS that were used to justify the contentious material. If you don't see a problem with them, common sense tells me you are neither going to be agreeable to removing the contentious material nor replacing the poorly sourced material with reliable sources. Therefore, before I resume work to expand the prose to prepare this article for a GA review, we need to resolve the core issues. The fact that you and the other critics of my work have made no attempt to correct the problems or expand the prose indicates WP:SQS. As I stated before, your RfC was not neutrally presented, and did not address the RS issues. I don't see any reason for me to not initiate a discussion at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, do you? Atsme☯Consult 14:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC) generally you want to go to RSN with a specific issue - some specific content and its sourcing. You generally want to have discussed that specific content and its sourcing here first. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I'm curious...do you actually read my comments? I'm beginning to feel neglected and ignored, but that couldn't be happening, right? The RS issue is what started this entire debate, and there are mountains of discussion about it on this TP. What you are doing now is WP:SQS, which is actually sad for this article because it prevents a GA review from occurring. Oh, but wait - that appears to be your intent based on your comment, I am OK with the article as is. So are you saying you think it's ready for a GA review right now, because if so, I will nominate it today? The RS problems were pointed out to you one by one by S. Rich and I last month. How about reading the article and looking at the citation templates? The citations in the first sentence of the lead do not pass the RS test, either, and that was pointed out to you numerous times. Atsme☯Consult 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I am not saying the article is perfect - of course it can be improved. It is OK. That is a different perspective from what you have been saying, which is that it is very flawed and needs to be rewritten. In any case, I'll be happy to respond to specific content proposals. If you do decide to go to RSN please provide notification here. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, you are still banging on about the issue that is currently being addressed by an RfC. So, contrary to what Jytdog has suggested, I'll suggest that you leave it alone for now, until the RfC is closed -- as a matter of process, there is absolutely no chance that the changes you want will be adopted via discussion in this particular section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Nomo, the RfC doesn't address the RS issues, and as Jytdog suggested, I will place a notification here when done. Atsme☯Consult 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Ah, so you think there is a way to achieve what you want regardless of the RfC? I don't think that will go well... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC) What I want is for the article to be policy compliant. Apparently we don't want the same things since my concerns regarding the RS issues remain unanswered. Instead, you choose to criticize me which I have asked you repeatedly to stop doing. Atsme☯Consult 17:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) See, it won't be hard for other editors to perceive that your post is a criticism of me as well: "I want the article to be 'policy compliant'. You don't ('we don't want the same things')." Perhaps you have a hard time perceiving this? I do hope not. It's perfectly evident to any reasonable editor here that we have different understandings about whether the article is currently 'policy compliant' and indeed what 'policy compliant' might mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Please stop, Nomo. You are not helping. Please focus on making this article better. Atsme☯Consult 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Please stop yourself. My point was quite incisive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, it is possible to talk about what you want, without talking negatively about others. I don't appreciate your accusations of bad faith on my part either. Please discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Oh, and Atsme, if you go to RSN, please make sure the issues you raise there are distinct from the ongoing RfC, the posting at BLPN, and the posting at the Fringe noticeboard. I am just saying that, because if the issues you raise at RSN are not distinct, you will be forum shopping. I'm just saying this now, so that you don't accuse me later, of not having said it when you mentioned the possibility of posting at RSN (...you are already accusing me of acting in bad faith). I do not understand why you are not proceeding simply, and just proposing content that you want here. But as you will. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) You are once again casting aspersions and making spurious claims without providing any diffs. Your behavior is well noted. Atsme☯Consult 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) perhaps I took it wrongly, but I took your comment starting with "do you actually read my comments? " and continuing with saying "What you are doing now is WP:SQS," and implying that I don't even know what the article says and how it is sourced, with "How about reading the article and looking at the citation templates? " as accusing me of acting in bad faith. Sorry if I took that wrongly. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Jytdog I don't see the claim of bad faith by Atsme even in this last posting. I must say I don't understand and am weary of the blocking of this article from moving forward.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) sorry to ask this, but have you read WP:SQS? If not, please do so and notice it is meant to supplement Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system, and as you read imagine that someone is saying you are doing that. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I'm confused because this policy WP:SQS is exactly describing your behavior. You have stated the article is okay as it is. Others don't agree, and you are constantly stonewalling change over tiny edits for which you seek consensus. I'm sure its not what you meant, but I see your behavior as the disruptive one.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) All this talk is still not moving this article forward.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) There is a difference between differences of opinion about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines differently, and acting in bad faith. And with that, I am going to do what I said earlier. I'll respond here again when there is something concrete to respond to. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Why even respond? As a GF editor, what exactly would you like to achieve here? To expand the article? Well, let's see - you already said you think it's OK as is, and you haven't made any attempt to collaborate by writing any of the prose. It took us over 30 days to get a simple occupation corrected in the info box because of your stonewalling. If it's not SQS, it's WP:OWN, and it doesn't require scientific research with an inline citation per WP:MEDRS to figure that out. Sorry, but I have to agree with Pekay2, and I don't see how that's not being disruptive. We'll see what the RS-N produces because I'm in no hurry. Atsme☯Consult 03:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I will take your second question as authentic - the rest appear rhetorical to me. You have made it very clear where you want the article to go. I have told you several times, probably in the most detail on your talk page ]here, that I do not share your view that the article is wildly out of compliance with PAG, nor your vision of where you want the article to go, nor even epistemologies (by which I meant your selection of sources for what is true in the world - I am still blown away that you would even bring naturalnews as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article). And I told you it is unlikely that you and I would pull in the same direction on any content. But I remain open to being surprised that content you suggest on this article would be acceptable, or - I'll add now - workable into mutually acceptable content and sourcing. So I - and others - have asked you to suggest specific changes. With regard to RSN, I advised you above to suggest some specific content to be supported by specific sources, first here (and if we run into issues over sourcing) then there at RSN. Instead, you posted a wall of text and a laundry list of sources, and the responses you are getting reflect that. (e.g Ten of All Trade's remark: "A second common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes." here) You are not going to get any useful feedback on sources from that posting... although you did at least strike some of the "obvious dross" (as Short Brigade Harvester Boris called it), so that was useful. So really - you are the one who wants dramatic changes - the burden is in on you to propose them. It is unreasonable to assign tasks to me and others to realize your vision, as you did above, and to demand that I suggest content to realize your vision, as you are doing now. Pekay2, you are also free to suggest specific content, with its sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Just want to add, with regard to the Infobox. Srich said "conspiracy theorist" should come out of the infobox as "occupation" on Dec 28; you very much agreed. I wrote on Dec 29: "with regard to "conspiracy theorist" in the infobox. I think this is not precedented and should go.". I cannot explain why neither you nor Srich, nor anybody else, took action on that area of agreement. I finally did that by suggesting a draft edit request, and then a real one based on the discussion, on Jan 8, and we got the infobox changed that day. Accusing me of stonewalling, when you didn't take action to suggest a change on something you apparently cared a lot about and had a clear opportunity to reach consensus about, and i did take action, is just ugly.Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, sorry but I almost overlooked your question. The guideline for WP:SQS also states: someone engaged in what may even seem like blatant stonewalling might not be fully aware of it. so I will AGF, and explain why your behavior fits the profile. Following is a brief chronological order of events (diffs) to demonstrate: [54] - Atsme's first edit (12/10/2014). The article was inactive since 11/17/2014. Yobol reverted Atsme twice, then left the scene. [55] - Jytdog took over and reverted Atsme Four days of back and forth editing, reverts, and discussion followed. Srich32977 patiently endured the criticisms and reverts to no avail. [56] - Atsme requested PP on 12/14/2014 More discussion, arguments, mountains of rhetorical questions and advice from Jytdog with no end, like this [57], this [58], and this [59] Infobox issue begins [60] - Steeletrap added a contentious label in the infobox without any discussion first - 12/23/2014 [61] - Atsme reverted Steeletrap's contentious label [62] - Jytdog reverted Atsme, with edit summary, typical of textbook stonewalling. [63] - S. Rich reverted Jytdog [64] - Jytdog reverted S. Rich and tried to make it look like Atsme & S. Rich were edit warring when it was Jytdog causing the problem [65] - Roxy removed Atsme's unbalanced tag [66] - Atsme reverted and asked that it not be removed [67] - Nomo reverted Atsme [68] - S. Rich reverted Nomo [69] - Steeletrap reverted S. Rich [70] - Callan's 2nd PP and stopped the nonsense - 12/28/2014 [71] - Jytdog agrees the infobox should change, then asks for more discussion, and specific requests - 12/28/2014 <---the answer to your question above along with the diffs that follow [72] - Jytdog starts yet another Let's Talk section <---textbook WP:SQS - read the policy if you don't believe me. [73] - S. Rich's futile attempts to bypass SQS [74] - S. Rich suggests a compromise to change the infobox 01/01/2015 [75] - Jysdog hats what he calls wall of text by Atsme <---more textbook SQS 01/04/2015 - ask questions, then criticize for walls of text when you get the answers [76] - Jytdog adds more walls of text and that continues for days.... [77] - Jytdog still arguing to keep contentious material in infobox <--- another answer to your question above; [78] - Compromise reached, Jytdog requests minor change to infobox - 01/08/2015 [79] - MSGJ made adjustments to occupation and "known for" in infobox - 01/08/2015 The infobox fiasco was just a tiny spike in a month long flatline of zero activity to improve/expand the article. I find it rather ironic that you would criticize S. Rich and I for not taking action after what you put us through, and now want credit for advising MSGJ to make the change. Priceless. Atsme☯Consult 02:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC) ::So actually fixing the problem, doesn't matter. Writing walls of text does. Ok. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC) adding a bit. Steeletrap added "conspiracy theorist" to occupation here, on Dec 23. You didn't revert it until 4 days later, here, on the 27th, and there was lots of other stuff going as well. There was a day of discussion on Talk, and the next fucking day i agreed it should come out. Why you took no action, I cannot explain. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Is the profanity really necessary? I really do wish you would read the diffs I provide because the reason no one took any action is because you were still discussing it. Read the diff and you see that when you finally agreed to the compromise the infobox was changed. Take an aspirin, get a good night's sleep. You'll feel better in the morning. (Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, and am not licensed to prescribe medicine - just one human being trying to help another - and I suggested conventional over-the-counter medicine, not a quack remedy). Done with this. We are far from discussing content now. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_issues_at_G._Edward_Griffin

Thx, Jytdog. I am not forum shopping. I presented the notice to address RS only which is more of an issue to me now because of the criticism I've received over the sources I've listed. Atsme☯^Consult 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: There is no current discussion going on at the RSN. This thread should be archived as unhelpful/resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What will happen when protection expires?

Protection expires in less than a week. @Atsme: what are your intentions? Do you plan to pick up where you left off, making edits to the lead similar to those you were performing before the article was protected? It's plain that such edits would not have consensus here on the talk page (nor at the discussion you started at RSN), so they would surely be reverted. Do you plan to do it anyway? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

He's already asked for PP to be lifted - "What do you think about removing PP so those editors who actually want to improve the article can be productive again?" imho shtf. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is such concern over my editing, but it appears as though a few editors are determined to prevent this article from advancing to GA. I have done nothing wrong to create such concern, and it certainly is not my intention to do so. I consult you to examine your own purpose and intent, and worry less about mine. My work clearly demonstrates what my goals are which includes improving/expanding stubs, starters and C-class articles for DYK and on to GAs, or vice versa. If you are here to prevent such an effort for the purpose of SQS and maintaining Griffin as a WP:COATRACK, it won't be me who attracts unwanted attention. I didn't quite understand why I was met with such resistance at first, but I do now, and I am confident WP:PAG will prevail. I will continue to AGF and look forward to collaborating with GF editors. Atsme☯^Consult 13:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But does that mean you intend to make edits to the lead similar to those you were making before the article was protected? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Folks, this is not a fruitful discussion. Atsme is going to do what she will do. We've warned her and Pekay2 that if they start making controversial edits to the article when it is unlocked, and have not used this time to actually try to work out concrete proposed changes, that will not go well. This thread re-iterates that warning. I would suggest letting this go, and we'll see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you're not sure why there is concern, is the major reason why there is concern. Has it really not sunk in yet that you are playing the role of Ken Ham to our Bill Nye? Guy (Help!) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket - I had to look up Ken Ham. Atsme☯^Consult 01:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha! You're new to the world of pseudoscience, then, I guess. You have much to learn, Padawan. And some of it is hilarious. Google Ray Comfort and the banana. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am new to the concept. My Mother is 90, and my Father is 92 (Brown alumni). Neither of them have ever had surgery, nor have they been seriously ill. They both still work, drive, and live active lives. They call it good nutrition. You call it pseudoscience. Atsme☯^Consult 03:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I call it healthy lifestyle and a dollop of good luck. This is the problem with the supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) industry. They claim that good nutrition is their unique realm, but actually all the evidence we have that shows what nutrition is good, comes from science (and many of the crank and fad diets come from the "nutritionists"). It wasn't quacks who discovered vitamins, for example. Good nutrition and healthy lifestyle are not remotely alternative. The claim that arbitrarily selected supplements, herbs or whatever can cure disease, is alternative, in that it is an alternative to an evidentially supported view.

Opposition to laetrile has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is drawn from nature - virtually all new drugs start with a naturally occurring compound - the problem is that the claims persist after the evidence has shown them to be wrong. And cranks and quacks actually inflate the claims and claim suppression based on that finding. The justification for the claim is, in essence, that science has shown it to be wrong, therefore science is a conspiracy, and that means it must work really well. And that is not an exaggeration, or at least not much of one. This thinking is irrational. Virtually all alternative cancer "cure claims are irrational, and virtually all of them rely on the "pharma shill gambit" as a pretence of validity.

The important thing to remember here is Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. Advocates of alternative medicine assume that the claims of proponents can be taken on trust, though, curiously, they almost never apply the same rationale to the validity of real medicines. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - posted notice of RfC at RSN

Here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_related_to_reliable_sourcing_at_G._Edward_Griffin Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: There is no current discussion going on at the RSN. This thread should be archived as unhelpful/resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

archiving

Srich32977 has been manually and selectively archiving things. I have been reverting. Srich32977 added an "archive me" tag, which I just removed. This page has an archiving bot. It also has had a very active set of discussions. I would be fine with changing the bot settings so that things archive more regularly. The current settings are:

• minthreadsleft = 7
• minthreadstoarchive = 5
• algo = old(90d)

I would be OK with changing them to:

• minthreadsleft = 5
• minthreadstoarchive = 1
• algo = old(90d)

Other thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TALKCOND suggests archiving at 75kb This page is now at 355kb. My archiving edits were extremely modest, removing obviously closed and OBE discussions. Per section 27 above Jytdog was confused and did not understand the rationale for archiving old discussions which unnecessarily clutter this much too long page. Still, I will suggest:

• minthreadsleft = 5
• minthreadstoarchive = 1
• algo = old(45d)

– S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

done. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed lead

Following is a modification of the lead I wrote in early December. I'm sincerely trying to reach a fair compromise while still being policy compliant.

• G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. Critics have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist because His writings focus on a diverse range of controversial topics, such as alternative medicine, politics, foreign policy, and banking. He has published several books but his most notable is The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller. The book focuses on the Federal Reserve System which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. Prior to writing the book, Griffin attended the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and in 1989 received designation as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). an education he sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets. Griffin has been interviewed on several radio programs, internet pod casts, and television news programs. In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who recommended Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island calling it a "fascinating read." However, Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a review that was critical of Beck's interview, stating "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories."

• Griffin began his media career as a child actor and announcer for radio broadcast. Before age 20, he became an assistant station director. Griffin holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Michigan where he graduated in 1953. After college he served in the US Army from 1954 to 1956, and was honorably discharged as a sergeant. Griffin worked as a writer for the George Wallace 1968 presidential campaign, and then began writing and producing documentary-style videos about the same controversial topics covered in his books, such as cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. In the 1970s, he authored World Without Cancer (1974) a book that was inspired by his friend John A. Richardson, a physician from San Francisco, CA. The book focuses on the highly controversial use of Laetrile (amygdalin) for the treatment of cancer; a treatment that is not scientifically supported or FDA approved. Griffin is the founder and president of American Media, a publishing and video production company located in Southern California. He has also been a contributing editor for The New American magazine. He served on the board of directors of the National Health Federation, a lobbying group that promotes alternative medicine. NHF has been criticized for their promotion of what mainstream medical organizations consider dubious treatments and claims. Griffin has been interviewed on numerous radio shows, podcasts, and various other streaming video talk shows on the internet.

References

Ok - what dost thou think? Atsme☯^Consult 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - My strikes in paragraphs above. Atsme☯^Consult 06:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Needed changes:

1. Sentence about CT should go to the end of the first paragraph. (Avoids UNDUE.) ✅
2. No commas before & after Creature & World Without Cancer book mentions ✅
3. Omit the "why" he obtained the CFP ("an education he sought...") ✅
4. He was an assistant station director, not managing a radio station. ✅
5. American Media published his stuff, in researching this I don't recall seeing anything that indicates he founded American Media. (Actually there is more than one American Media, but I found nothing to indicate that he had founded any company called American Media. See talk page Archives 1, 2, 3 & 4.) ✅
6. Say "After college he served in the US Army from 1954 to 1956, and was discharged as a sergeant." (Less flowery.) ✅
7. Convert "pursued a career writing" to "began writing and producing..." (Less flowery.) ✅
8. Remove "inspired by friend" stuff. (Less flowery.)
9. The present sentence "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." Should be retained.
10. Remove the sentence "NHF has been criticized for their promotion of what mainstream medical organizations consider dubious treatments and claims." This is tangential info not related to Griffin. ✅
11. There may be more, but the effort is appreciated.

– S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)00:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it should say "He is best known for ... Jekyll Island, which promotes conspiracy theories about the US Federal Reserve Bank and the individuals associated with its formation." SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[inserted comment] I'll suggest "He is best known for ... Jekyll Island, which presents a conspiracy theory about the formation of the US Federal Reserve Bank and its founders." – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The "reason" "critics" call him a conspiracy theorist is because he supports conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and "suppression" of his claims about Laetrile, among others. We need to leave the "reason" out entirely, unless we can source a specific reason. I believe we can source my statement, but it may be unnecessary. In any case, Atsme's "reason" statement is a WP:BLP violation, if the critics are living. I think the sentence needs to be left out entirely, with SPECIFICO's suggestion placed as the second sentence. I appreciate Atsme's attempt, but it still has far to go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

((ec}} this is premature. we need to see the resolution of the review of the RfC. Commenting on the proposal, In general there are some good things here, but again in general there is soft-pedalling of things that are truly FRINGE here, and per PSCI we don't do that. More specifically, the Fed is not controversial in mainstream economics in the way that Griffin portrays it (there are often controversies about decisions it makes, but Griffins' view on it as a conspiracy of the rich and it should be abolished, is not mainstream). Ditto the description of laetrile - Srich's comment there is on target. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Explain why I have to go through this screening process before I can make an edit, but other editors who support your POV can edit away disrespecting the RfC? Why aren't those edits reverted like you consistently revert mine? Ricky, you've got some splainin' to do. Atsme☯^Consult 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

are you talkin to me? (said like robert deniro) Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A very dynamic (demonic?) process is underway in 3 areas. One, on this talk page. Two on the AN. And three on the article page itself. It will all work out. – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Another very troubling edit, only this time by Arthur - (there is absolutely no doubt that Nyttend's edit was improper, clearly violating WP:NPOV. Whether or not the close is overturned, the edit was wrong) Really - "absolutely no doubt" - is that all one has to say to justify an edit without discussion, or does it require admin tools to be able to totally disregard another admin's RfC close while it's still under discussion? Atsme☯^Consult 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The question of whether the whitewashing of the lead was part of the close is still open. I think it clearly inconsistent with the close, so it might be considered other than an admin action. However, until consensus Is reached that he's wrong, I'm treating the absurd lead as locked until consensus can be established. I am on a smartphone now; more details late4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Discussion about whitewashing the lede? That issue was not raised in the RFC. Well, perhaps it was – we have some editors saying the RFC was confined to the first sentence, but other editors who contend the CT issue was an NPOV violation throughout the lede. But what whitewashing is going on? The proposed edit above included CT; the infobox includes CT; the categories include CT. We do need to include more about quackery/dubious treatments, but the process of getting consensus for particular language will continue. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme's proposed changes make sense, but the suggestions by S. Rich should be taken into account. Although the use of amygdalin in cancer treatment is not currently supported by any scientific evidence, Griffin's view that cancer is a metabolic disease (or at least involves some degree of metabolic dysfunction) appears to be fairly reasonable. After all, the growth of a tumor tissues obviously requires several anabolic metabolism pathways, so I would be most interested to know who are these people in "the medical community" claiming that metabolic dysfunction is not involved in cancer. According to review article PMID 24139946 in The American Journal of Pathology, recent evidence has suggested that cancer "should also be considered a metabolic disease". This seems to partly support Griffin's claims about cancer and metabolism, regardless of the effectiveness of amygdalin or laetrile. -A1candidate 23:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin is not a scientist or doctor, so his views/claims about cancer are irrelevant (unencyclopedic) in terms of characterizing the disease. The AJP article/description cannot be used in connection with any description of Griffin (unless the article specifically mentions him.) Griffin has been a popular promoter of certain "cures" and quackery, and that is one of the things he's known for. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what profession Griffin is, but his claim that "cancer is a metabolic disease" is clearly and demonstrably supported by some scientific evidence per PMID 24139946. -A1candidate 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Since a description of cancer as a metabolic disease is not in Atsme's proposed version, the AJP support for the theory is a moot point. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A1 made a good point, and I see no issue with it as long as it's properly worded using WP:Inline citation#in-text attribution. Griffin is an author, and that's how we need to treat this BLP. Also, any contentious statements, like "promoter of conspiracy theories" must also be RS using an in-text attribution per policy. It appears the public actually does have something to be concerned about: [80] [81] [82] [83], [84] [85] [86] This article needs collaboration among editors who actually want to write prose and it's certainly a plus if they have some familiarity writing BLPs. Rich - I responded to your list above using superscript. Atsme☯^Consult 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Removed my comments to Rich's list above, and added my input below. Will checkmark the list above when completed.

(1) ok, (2) ok,

(3) Omit the "why" he obtained the CFP ("an education he sought...") He did it in preparation of writing his book. Has BLP importance. Also see Murray Rothbard for style and consistency of content. [87],

(4) ok,

(5) American Media published his stuff, in researching this I don't recall seeing anything that indicates he founded American Media. (Actually there is more than one American Media, but I found nothing to indicate that he had founded any company called American Media. See talk page Archives 1, 2, 3 & 4.) It states at his own website, last sentence in blue box, that he's the creator [88],

(6) ok, (7) ok,

(8) Remove "inspired by friend" stuff. (Less flowery.) It's about why he became interested in the topic - important to BLP. Again see Rothbard BLP.,

(9) The present sentence "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." Should be retained. No, you're calling him a quack the way it's worded. Source it with inline text attribution, because in his book, he promotes research on B17 (amygdalin). See book title, and synopsis. [89],

(10) ok Atsme☯^Consult 05:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does he promote research on B17, or use of B17? (I'm writing B17 because I'm still on my smartphone. ) What we say in the lead depends on the answer. I thought it was the latter. We need sources, in either case. His word or the publisher's word is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Arthur - more research, more comparative studies and evaluations - you can actually turn the pages and read his book at this link: [90] Atsme☯^Consult 06:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, his word and the publisher's word (if different) are not good enough. If he doesn't promote B17 use, then why do all the user reviews on Amazon say that he does. That may not be sufficient to us to say that he promotes B17 use, but it requires explanation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

comments - in general there is a lot of stuff here that is not in the body of the article. per WP:LEAD, the lead is just a summary of the body and there should be nothing in the lead that is not in the body. Also the WP:WEIGHT given to anything in the lead needs to reflect the weight in the body. The proposed lead does not reflect the current body of the article. If this is the first step of a proposed rewrite of the article, it is backwards. The lead can be rewritten only after the body is rewritten.

• there is no support in the body of the article that Creature is a business best seller. The body says it was a business best seller, and the body should say for what time periods.
• the Fed is not controversial in mainstream economics in the way that Griffin portrays it (there are often controversies about decisions it makes, but Griffins' view on it as a conspiracy of the rich and it should be abolished, is not mainstream). The reference provided does not support the claim. More importantly, the body of the article does not say this.
• the discussion of financial planning certification is not discussed in the body and so doesn't belong in the lead, at least not at this time.
• the idea that becoming a CFP is adequate preparation for writing about the Fed is WP:SYN. The purpose of that certification is to ensure that people who want to help people do things like prepare for retirement, deal with transition of wealth from one generation to the next, etc., are competent to do that. The certification is not about monetary policy or Monetary economics which is what the Fed does. You'll need a reliable source to make the claim you are trying to make, or put separation between the book and certification.
• there is no support in the body of the article for "Griffin has been interviewed on several radio programs, internet pod casts, and television news programs. In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who recommended Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island calling it a "fascinating read." However, Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a review that was critical of Beck's interview, stating "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories.".
• the body of the article says that Griffin worked as a writer for George Wallace's running mate, Curtis LeMay, not for Wallace,
• the use of laetrile to treat cancer is not "highly controversial", just like the notion that humans were actually put here by aliens is not highly controversial. There are people who believe both things, but it is just charlatan lunacy. In the world of medicine, the DSM V is very controversial; the expanded use of statins is very controversial. The use of laetrile to treat cancer is not very controversial; it is quackery. Trying to actually sell laetrile to treat cancer is actually illegal in the US.
• since the "cancer is a metabolic disease" thing is not in the proposed content, I won't comment on that.
• we all agreed above to change the infobox to say that Griffin is "known for" conspiracy theories. That is in WP's voice. The body talks about that a lot. the proposed lead doesn't reflect that, burying the only reference to "Conspiracy theories" in a quote that is just commenting on another quote. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Jytdog. I would also add that the material about his "friend" John Richardson does not belong in the lead, and that any discussion of laetrile needs to go beyond "unsupported" (which could apply to those things that have not been studied); it has been studied, and found to be not useful for cancer. It is a disproven therapy, and widely considered quackery, and that needs to be spelled as such per WP:PSCI. Yobol (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(I just want to note here that I agree with [91]. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC))

Arbitrary break, cont Proposed lead

1. in general there is a lot of stuff here that is not in the body of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Article_development#Writing (my bold) Start your article with a concise lead section or introduction defining the topic and mentioning the most important points. Also see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section in the event you've never actually created, or expanded an article to GA. The most important points will be added to the article when the editors who are actually writing the prose are given half a chance to do so without the hurdles indicative of WP:SQS such as RfCs, ANs, RSNs, BLPNs, and criticism over every single sentence that's added or modified to make this BLP policy compliant.
2. the Fed is not controversial in mainstream economics I cited a source that disputes your claim. Show me RS, please.
3. the body of the article says that Griffin worked as a writer for George Wallace's running mate, Curtis LeMay, not for Wallace - uhm...the lead is a summary - "a writer for the George Wallace 1968 presidential campaign" (each candidate for President runs together with a candidate for Vice-President on a "ticket." which equates into a presidential campaign) The political advocacy section further defines who Griffin wrote for during the campaign, but I suppose if redundancy isn't an issue, we could include it twice.
4. the use of laetrile to treat cancer is not "highly controversial", just like the notion that humans were actually put here by aliens is not highly controversial. Nope, it's highly controversial but our job is to maintain NPOV in a BLP, and not try to act like big pharma, the FDA, or NCI. We are writing about a guy who wrote a book about a controversial topic. [92] ...the laetrile controversy as a scientific dispute,; [93] ...of the laetrile controversy avoided espousing the orthodox cause. [94] Chapter 14 - Quasi Libertarianism and the Laetrile Controversy (page 343). [95] Vitamin B17 / Laetrile is probably one of the most controversial medical topics in the last 30 years. [96] newspaper headline [97] page 1119 (two book set);
5. Refer to No. 1 regarding the rest of your comments.
6. the discussion of financial planning certification is not discussed in the body See No. 1 above.
7. Re: the contentious statement we agreed to add in the info box prior to the close of the RfC needs better wording because Griffin is not known for conspiracy theories, and such a contentious statement in the infobox flies in the face of NPOV. He is known as an author, documentary filmmaker and lecturer. Since the infobox isn't the place to include inline text attributions for contentious statements, and I seriously doubt you will find a RS to support such a claim anywhere else in the article, it is better to simply delete it. Remember UNDUE. Atsme☯^Consult 20:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

on 1) i will not support any content being added to the lead, that is not in the body of the article. If you want to expand the article, please work on the body. Thanks.

on 2) you cited an entire book and I didn't find anyplace in that book (which covers a limited amount of time) that said that the very existence of the Fed has always been and is controversial. Please say where in the book where the content you propose is supported.

on 7) everybody here, including you, changed the infobox. That has consensus. Arguments about UNDUE that i have mentioned were about the use of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, in light of the rest of the lead. Not relevant outside that context. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog and Atsme — just an FYI: Jytdog expressed a concern that information was being proposed for the lead without first being covered in the body of the article. WP:LEAD, which is a Wikipedia Guideline, states "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." That concern was dismissed by Atsme, who cites two Essays. Please note those essays caution editors to defer to Guidelines and Policies: (This essay) is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; where something is inconsistent with this page, please defer to those, which seems to have been inadvertently overlooked in this situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the point.... The second sentence clearly should read ""He is best known for The Creature From Jekyll Island, which presents a conspiracy theory about the formation of the US Federal Reserve Bank and its founders." The sentence "His writings focus on a diverse range of controversial topics, such as alternative medicine, politics, foreign policy, and banking. " requires a single source (other than himself or his publishers), and is, at best, synthesis. We could add "He is considered a conspiracy theorist.^{[source describing him as a conspiracy theorist because of Jekyll Island] [source describing him as a conspiracy theorist because of Laetril][source describing him as a conspiracy theorist because of Noah's Ark][source descibing him as a conspiracy theorist because of ...]...}, if we can find such sources. I agree that we cannot call him a conspiracy theorist just because all his theories are conspiracy theories; we need reliable sources calling him a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, consensus can change, and so it should based on the RfC that just closed; i.e., the one you requested to be reviewed by your handpicked closer. Fortunately for the project, editors cannot pick and choose where we want to include a contentious label that was determined to be non-compliant. If it's non-compliant in one place, it's non-compliant throughout the entire article. It fails NPOV, Jytdog - we've been over this a hundred times, and now you're just being disruptive. I included a RS inline text attribution in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs in the lead to satisfy both NPOV and UNDUE with the following: Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories. and also The book focuses on the highly controversial use of Laetrile (amygdalin) for the treatment of cancer; a treatment that is not scientifically supported or FDA approved. Done - it's over. You can't have your quack and eat it, too. We are not going to keep this article a WP:COATRACK. It is going to be expanded according to WP:PAG and I ask that you please stop the WP:SQS behavior with comments like you made above; i.e. i will not support any content being added to the lead, that is not in the body of the article. It is not helpful and certainly not a show of GF when you combine it with everything else you've done to prevent improvement/expansion of this article.

• Arthur Rubin I'm sure you are quite familiar with David Barstow (NYTimes, 3 Pulitzers): You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this.[98] And book reviewer, Michael J. Ross: In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. [99] and Argentinian author, Adrian Salbuchi: In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the “FED” – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. [100] Atsme☯^Consult 01:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  Those three references are worthless; the first doesn't mention Griffin favorably, the second is self-published, and the third is just a fringe op-ed. Barstow may have said something favorable about Griffin, but that isn't it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  "A fascinating read" and "Everyone should read ...." do not imply accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

List of ineffective cancer treatments

I don't think it should be in the "See also" section. It is too indirect. That B17 is an ineffective cancer treatment might be in the body, but it seems inappropriate in "See also". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits today

Steeletrap, i really meant what I wrote in this dif: "with the dug-in state of the article, please do not be bold. this is going to lead to edit warring and page protection and discretionary sanctions being imposed on us. please let the close review finish. there is no deadline. Thanks.". There are very strong perspectives on this article, and so far editors have shown restraint in directly editing the article and are discussing things first instead. That is the right way to go in a situation like this. The edits made by Nyttend are under discussion at AN. Please let that take its course. Really. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and if we get locked down for edit warring for a third time, it is very likely that an admin is going to come sit and actual impose DS, with 1RR restrictions and the like. That is what happens when editors cannot control themselves. Please self-revert and be patient. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are free to revert. And if you--or anyone else--reverts, I won't re-revert again without extensive discussion and the passage of (at least) several days. (I also am committed to avoiding EW.) But at this point, I'm not going to take back my single revert, which does not constitute EW. My position is that my edits fall outside the scope of the RfC. Steeletrap (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that edit warring is simply restoring your content after a revert. You get blocked for it after you do that three times - that is what 3RR is about. But you already edit warred here. I don't think you understand how very, very close we are to discretionary sanctions/arbcom. I understand your position on the issues. The place to state your position is at the review at AN. Talking, not edit warring. Do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey dog. Please provide a citation for your claim that undoing a revert a single time is edit warring. If you can do that, I will revert my revert. In the meantime: stop making assertion without evidence. This community is plagued by baseless assertions, which are often taken as statements of fact. Steeletrap (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on context and the status of an article, but one edit (not necessarily a revert) can be edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap please read WP:3RR, especially the last sentence in the lead, which I will quote here: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In this context, where there is a discussion ongoing at AN and I reverted specifically citing that, and where it is obvious that there is not consensus here for the edit you are making, yes.. your restoration of the content you added is clearly edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If that's true (and it may well be, then it applies equally to SRich, Collect, etc. for their repeated edits restoring a version of the page that does not have consensus. It was similarly unwise, perhaps, for you to revert earlier today yourself (though I realise you didn't do so in an attempt to get your real preference to stick). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Edit warring is clearly actionable if the 3RR rule is broken; edit warring (contentious reversions) is always actionable but my sense is that people don't bring edit warring actions for more vague cases - those generate more drama than action. But think about - there are what, 5 or 6 of us well engaged here - we could have (and have have) nasty edit wars with none of us breaking 3RR. And the 3RR is a sensible "line in the sand" for bringing action if you think about it - it gives people some breathing room to work things out. But the situation we are in here, is not one where bold edits - especially by one of us - are going to resolve anything. (it may of course happen that someone comes along with fresh ideas and threads the needle, making edits we can all live with. unlikely, but possible) We all just need to work DR. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The current version does not enjoy consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, nomo, that is true. the article has an NPOV tag reflecting that and discussion is underway here and at AN. I am telling you all, this is very likely going to end up at arbcom and everybody should keep their noses very clean - arbcom is infamous for taking action against parties on all sides of disputes in contested articles. Jytdog (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich has now reverted. I suggest that we now discuss the substantive merits of my edit. Steeletrap (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Specific content of edit

My edit made two claims that appear to be contentious. First, that Griffin is a promoter of fringe science and alternative medicine. SEcond, that the Creature from Jekyl Island Promotes Conspiracy Theories about the Federal Reserve system. Can the users who disagree with those characterizations of Griffin identify themselves? I have trouble believing anyone could deny that, given the other information in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with my computer, so I haven't verified the details of your edit. Although I agree that those should be in the article; per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH, we need specific reliable sources stating:

1. Griffin is a promoter of fringe science.
2. Griffin is a promoter of alternative medicine. (These two sources need not be the same, but must meet WP:BLP reliability standards; i.e., the self-published opinion of an expert may not be adequate)
3. Jekyl Island promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve system.

As an example of potential WP:SYNTHESIS problems; if source A says "Griffin promotes X", and source B says "X is pseudoscience", we could not say Griffin promotes pseudoscience. Now, these are obviously all true, but remember WP:Verifiability, not truth. Furthermore, "promoter" may be difficult to demonstrate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for the new lead, additions to sections to make them consistent with MOS and NPOV

FYI - Griffin's book World Without Cancer includes a disclaimer clearly stating that he does not promote laetrile as a cure for cancer, and it also mentions the allegations of fraud and quackery, so I included it in the lead to satisfy NPOV in accordance with the RfC close. His videos, books and podcasts on the topic also include the disclaimer. I have also included inline text attributions wherever contentious material or criticism was used representing it as the opinion of those it reflects. I am still working on expanding the body of the article for consistency using the GA BLP format I referred to previously. Please do not revert the work I've done here, however if your intent is to improve and/or expand this BLP in a GF collaborative effort while respecting the RfC, our prior discussions and proposals, and NPOV, BLP, and RS, your collaboration is most welcome. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on my smartphone, so I cannot verify

exactly what you are using, but his claim that he does not promote Laetrile is a self-published statement which is unduly self-serving, so has no place in a Wikipedia article. The NPOV tag applies to the "closing" edit, and is not resolved by your further addition of his own words. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, where do you come up with this stuff? Please read the close - Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". It goes both ways - positive and negative. Jiminy Cricket. Atsme☯^Consult 22:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please exercise restraint. I've reverted this. The close is still under review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

and Atsme just edit warred this back in. You all cannot control yourselves, and Arbcom is getting closer everyday. I want no part of this. Unwatching. Good luck all. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I followed the RfC, WP:PAG, and included everything necessary in the prose to satisfy the discussions we've had for over 60 days now. Your actions over the RfC, your Forumshopping at AN, and now your tendentious reverts here demonstrate the need for this to go to ARBCOM. You are being disruptive, unreasonable and demonstrating WP:OWN. Atsme☯^Consult 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Under review? Jytdog, you are WP:Forumshopping. You requested the RfC, and then you disrespected the closer and the result, ignored the responses at the AN you initiated, and loaded everybody down with even more time-wasting questions. You actually suggested hand picking a closer. You keep asking the same questions, getting the same responses from pretty much the same editors, and continue to behave with the same tendentious editing and SQS tactics over and over again. Do you really believe an uninvolved admin will suddenly appear to support your POV despite policy? Do you believe an ARBCOM is not going to see what is happening here? I have exercised GF and an overabundance of patience with you, hoping you would at least return the GF. I will ask you one more time....

1. What exactly do you expect from this BLP? You haven't offered ONE viable solution that is fundamentally policy compliant.
2. What did you not like about my modifications, RS citations, inline text attributions, and expansion of this BLP, all of which was based entirely on our discussions, the RfC, and WP:PAG?
3. What exactly is your purpose here considering you do not edit prose, and have expressed your opinion that the article is ok like it is?

I will wait to review your answers before initiating the next step. Atsme☯^Consult 01:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I reverted the hat, I should come back and really bow out. With the way you all are behaving, this will likely end up at AE, and I am not letting you all drag me into that pit. I really am not watching this article any longer. Good luck to you all. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank god. Maybe we have a shot at of making something meaningful out of this article since you've been the main reason for the WP:SQS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed Atsme has decided to try to edit war in their preferred version despite multiple objections in the relevant talk page regarding it. Get consensus first, then change it. Yobol (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring - your revert had no basis whatsoever. Where are your collaborative edits to help me expand this article for a GA review? What input have you provided except to criticize? Where is your respect for the RfC and policy compliance? I am disappointed in your tendentious editing, Yobol, and in your propensity for showing up here whenever your reverts are needed. You don't think it's obvious? You have contributed nothing to improve or expand this article. Everything you have done here has been to discredit the BLP - the closer even noticed the direction this BLP has been going. Can you explain what part of the prose you objected to that caused you to revert without discussion, or any effort to collaborate to improve the article? WP:DONTLIKEIT is not reason enough for reverting the work of another editor, and that's all I've been seeing here. If you think you can do a better job and are willing to collaborate to get this BLP ready for a GA review, then have at it. If not, then please go away because you are not helping. Atsme☯^Consult 04:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

One revert per seven days imposed on this article

I have imposed a one revert per seven days restriction on this article as an arbitration enforcement action for one month in the hope that it will at least slow down edit wars. I will also note that tag team edit warring is disruptive and may result in the editors involved being further restricted (such as with 0RR or an article ban). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)