Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Recent research re: amygdalin

Yobol you need to read the sources cited the updates I made to the article regarding the positive results of amygdalin. Quote: "Amygdalin, a naturally occurring substance, has been suggested to be efficacious as an anticancer substance. The effect of amygdalin on cervical cancer cells has never been studied. In this study, we found that the viability of human cervical cancer HeLa cell line was significantly inhibited by amygdalin." [1] Atsme☯^Consult 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues: 1) The material added do not conform to WP:MEDRS, specifically using primary in vitro experiments to contradict secondary sources.

2) The material is phrased in such a way to give much more credence to the notion that laetrile/amygdalin works and is gross violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It is considered the canonical example of cancer quackery.

3) The material uses wording that is prejudicial, such as calling it "vitamin B17" even though it is not and has never been a vitamin. This is what I would expect from a promoter of laetrile, not a neutral explanation of what it is. (Note that calling it "vitamin B17" was a marketing ploy and has absolutely nothing to do with it as a chemical; that you would parrot this nonsense is concerning to me, and suggests you either are here to push a POV about laetrile/amygdalin or have not done the requisite basic research on the subject to write about it neutrally).

4) This material creates a WP:POVFORK for the laetrile material; the amygdalin page is clear about the lack of human clinical research supporting it the general lack of support in the medical community regarding this. Yobol (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have specific BLP issues you wish to address, I suggest you separate them out from the laetrile material; you appear to be using BLP as a bludgeon to push a specific POV about laetrile here, which is completely unacceptable. Yobol (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) very unhappy to see the edit warring going on here. Atsme, as far as I can see you made a huge bunch of changes, many of which violate WP:MEDRS, and have been edit warring to keep them in. One more revert and you are blockable per 3RR so please just stop. Drama boards are a big waste of time. In general it is better to make small edits rather than one big one, and you should never edit war to keep big changes you have made to existing content. If you are not familiar with WP:MEDRS, please do read it, and carefully, if you feel strongly about including content about health in WP. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is full of BLP violations, as well as NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues. Based on the comments I've read above, along with the edit history associated with this article, the POV pushing is quite obvious as is your refusal to acknowledge the advancements in scientific research. My only purpose here is to make an outdated article current, and eliminate BLP violations. See you at the BLPN. 186.159.98.72 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Was using a public computer and forgot to sign-in. My actual signed-in sig Atsme☯^Consult 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

Atsme☯^Consult 10:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thread closed per request of OP. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI

Srich32977 made this edit, with edit note, "remove sources which discuss laetrile in general and not Griffin or specific claims by Griffin – WP:SYN prohibits their use unless they explicitly discuss Griffin; AIDS denial is not a proper noun". I reverted, per WP:PSCI - this is policy. We do not discuss pseudoscience in WP without calling it such; we cannot WP:COATRACK it in under BLP or any other policy - they do not contradict each other. Srich I don't know how much work you have done on WP:FRINGE-y topics but this is how we handle it, across the board. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ideally the ineffective nature of this treatment should be clearer in the body, then we can just summarize in the lede. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

yes that should absolutely be the case. the lead should just summarize the body, oy. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The ineffectiveness of laetrile is properly discussed. 1. It is described as unscientific in the lede ("scientifically-unsupported view"). 2. The ineffectiveness of laetrile is discussed in the laetrile article. Griffin also has comments about AIDS, Noahs Ark, and the Federal Reserve – we do not and cannot debunk those ideas in the BLP. PSCI says "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." This has to be followed in conjunction with WP:SYN which requires explicit mention of Griffin's own material, not the ideas he holds. The topic of the article is Griffin and not the various ideas he expounds upon. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Srich, thanks for talking! Again I don't know how much you have worked on pseudoscience-type stuff. This kind of thing has been to Arbcom, so please be careful and consider. Would you please let me know if you are familiar with PSCI-related matters here in WP? (if not, please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases as a good starting place.) Sorry for asking but I just want to be sure we are working from the same foundation. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

and i do agree that we have to cautious in applying labels to Griffin per se; but to the extent that his notability depends on his advocacy for his ideas, and to the extent that we discuss his ideas, and to the extent that those are pseudoscience or FRINGE, the actual science does need to be brought to bear, there, via reliable sources of course. If we do not do that, we have WP:COATRACKed fringe material into WP, which we cannot do. Agreed? Or maybe not.. please do tell. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree that his ideas are nonsense. But the place for debunking them is in the particular topic-articles, not this BLP. We cannot say "Griffin says the moon is made of green cheese.^[A] Armstrong walked on the moon and determined it was made of rock.^[B] Therefore Griffin is wrong about the moon. [Which is the conclusion that is synthesized.]" Now if Armstrong had said "Tell Griffin the moon is made of rock!" then the Armstrong quote could be used in the article. BTW, I'm pretty good at spotting the issues in these policy discussions. In this case the overriding policy is SYN. (I removed the material because it does not talk about Griffin, and I'd like to continue to tone down Griffin's own material to avoid UNDUE.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for talking, and in this nice way. I do hear what you are saying about SYN. I've not had pushback on this kind of thing before. I went looking in BLPN and WP:BLP for consensus of the community on this and there is a lot to go through. I will need some time which I will have tomorrow.... (but maybe Yobol or Alexbrn is aware of some place where the intersection between SYN/PSCI and maybe also with those two and BLP are discussed, that we can all stand on) I wonder if you would be OK, if we found sources that specifically address the pseudoscience nature of the relevant ideas he advocates - specifically addressing his advocacy of them. Would that resolve your concerns with SYN? I would be interested to see what the article would like if you had a free hand with it (and am very curious about what you would take out under UNDUE). How about making all your edits, and self reverting, so we can all see? Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

His advocacy of the different topics is the issue of concern. As for UNDUE, the lede has two paragraphs that contain the same info. It can be pared down. – S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

interested to see what you will do. thx. not sure i will agree, but interested to see! also please let me know if you hear my concern about PSCI (although the proof will be in the pudding) Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977 you done? Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. – S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is synthesis to use one source that says Griffin "promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment" and another that says the laetrile treatment is quackery and say that Griffin's view is quackery. Are they talking about the same thing? Was it considered quackery at the time? Don't ask editors to spend considerable time researching and discussing these issues, just stick with what relevant sources about Griffin say.

Then there is neutrality. Do we say in the leads of every person who believes in the Bible that the claims made about creation, the flood, the resurrection, etc., are not accepted by the scientific community?

This is an article about a main who promotes views outside the mainstream. We don't need to hammer away that they are not generally accepted. Ironically, that strident tone elicits sympathy for these views.

TFD (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say WP:PSCI is pretty straightforward here, "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." This either means calling the the view out as fringe directly, or at the very least immediately mentioning that it is a view not accepted by the scientific community. If someone is notable for something that's factually incorrect, etc. then it's undue weight to not include that additional qualifier on what is considered the mainstream view. That follows no matter what article you go to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

so far the edits are OK with PSCI as far as I am concerned. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, looks good to me, nice work. others? Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We need to remove "a view considered quackery by the medical community.^[3][4]" from the lede because it is SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not giving undue weight to pseudoscience to say Griffin "has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment...." If we elaborated on his views by saying why he thinks that would be effective, then of course we would present the mainstream explanation why it is not. But then a reliable source that explained his theory would do that anyway so we would not need to be medical experts. TFD (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Also read WP:NPOV and WP:Coatrack. Griffin is an author, not a promoter, or a conspiracy theorist. Don King is a promoter. The label of "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term, and considered contentious labeling in a BLP. Stop treating it like it is Griffin's profession, or career. Griffin has written books on the highly debated topic of laetrile. He has written factual information, much of which has been the topic of controversy. If you want to include the opinions of critics, the sources have to be high quality, reliable sources, and the prose has to be written NEUTRALLY which includes correctly stating opinion as it applies; i.e., it is the opinion of, or that he has been referred to as, or that he has been described as...etc. Do not make factual statements which appear to be the views of Wikipedia. I consult editors to please read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and also pay close attention to the sanctions on this article - see the notice above - and stop reverting the BLP corrections. Atsme☯^Consult 14:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that User:Atsme has not gained consensus at the BLP noticeboard, and that the editor has now breached 3RR- under the faux guise of reverting vandalism. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that Atsme not go further down this road. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that Roxy not go further down this road because this BLP involves pseudoscience, and Roxy was recently warned about editing such topics. As for consensus, what some of you don't seem to understand is WP:BLP policy - 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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. I have exercised GF by allowing my edits to be reverted in order to discuss these issues. Comments like you made above were not made in GF. If you are familiar with BLP policy, then you know The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. I have not seen anything in response to the removal of the BLP violations that satisfies the burden of evidence. I closed the BLPN because I thought we were making progress, but I may have been premature in that decision. Atsme☯^Consult 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

John A. Richardson as RS?

The book cited in the lede is problematic, especially as has been presented ("independent research"). The co-author is Griffin's spouse and the publisher is Griffin's own company (American Media of Los Angeles). – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't rely on selfpublished, self-serving sources for controversial claims like that - especially medical claims. bobrayner (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep; better get rid of it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is why collaboration is a good thing. Thanks, Srich32977 If used, it would probably be best to cite the first edition which was published by Bantom Books (June 1977): [2]. The following newspaper article will provide a secondary source - [3]. With regards to WP:BLP issues, there are none. The book isn't about Griffin, therefore it isn't self-published, and I don't see any COI. Question for you - you stated above that Griffin owns American Media of Los Angeles. The book publisher of the July 2005 edition is American Media. Where is the information that points to Griffin's ownership of that company? Atsme☯^Consult 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the book is not about Griffin the point is moot. But his wife is a co-author. As for American Media, I did not say he owns it. Per the PRWeb he is "President of American Media". Even so, this is not the American Media which you linked. I looked at their website and Griffin was not listed by them. He is president of some other American Media. In looking at the California Secretary of State [4] business entity filings I saw numerous "American Media xyz/abc" corporations listed, but no "American Media" or "American Media of Los Angeles" listed. The LA County FBN [5] search produced 3 similar names: American Media Artists, American Media Enterprises LLC, and American Media LLC. In comparing the results I see "American Media Artists" listed both with LA County and the Secretary. (The company is in Encino.) So the results are inconclusive. We do not have Verification/RS that says Griffin is the President of a California-based company called American Media. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: the American Media referred to in the above strike through is not the same publishing company owned by Griffin. See the reference to Griffin's American Media here: [6]. Atsme☯^Consult 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin as a CFP

Griffin has been described as a Certified Financial Planner at times. This description is problematic. The latest source posted was radio.goldseek.com, which is not RS. (I'm guessing that the source simply accepted Griffin's self-description without independent checking.) Griffin's own listing with Who's Who does not list him as a CFP and the CFP organizational website does not list him. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I just ran my own search on the last name "Griffin." The official web site of the CFP Board (www.cfp.net) shows seventeen persons with that last name who currently hold the CFP designation. G. Edward Griffin is not one of them. I then ran another search on the same web site for "disciplinary" proceedings for anyone named "G Griffin." I found that while he had no disciplinary proceedings against him, "G. Edward Griffin" at "American Media" in Thousand Oaks, California is now listed as "not certified." The explanatory material indicates that this part of the official web site lists those persons who used to be certified but who are not certified at this time. My guess is that he is retired and, like many people with professional designations, stopped renewing at some point. Famspear (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the additional step of the discipline search. If Griffin is not certified, then we cannot say he is. If he was certified, I think we need reliable independent sourcing that says so clearly. – S. Rich (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to get anything more reliable or independent than the CFP Board itself. According to their web site, he is a former CFP. Famspear (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, since the article at present does not mention his former CFP certification (unless I missed it), one thing to consider is: is that topic material to the article, anyway? I would just as soon leave the article "as is," but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Famspear (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't know why he is a former CFP. It could be that he let his membership lapse, or he didn't keep up with (possible) continuing education requirements, or he resigned (with or without some sort of discipline pending), or something else. As his financial expertise is pertinent only to the extent that he knows something about macroeconomics (the Fed), I don't think the CFP designation rises to a level of WP:NOTEWORTHY. Thus I would keep it out. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, I have to differ with your position on this one for the following reasons:

1. It is not our responsibility to research the status or full extent of his credentials because that would be considered OR.
2. The information is perfectly acceptable, and in accordance with WP:BLP. Griffin publicly stated his academic credentials, and it is verifiable in published material, which in Griffin's case includes not only published book reviews, but it was also stated in several radio interviews, as well as printed in various press releases such as PR Web, [7], and on numerous websites which are probably considered minority views, but they qualify nonetheless.
3. It is not only included in numerous secondary and third party sources, it is also verifiable based on what Famspear pointed out.

We cannot single out Griffin by requiring higher standards for him than what BLP allows regarding academic accreditation. His CFP designation is quite relevant because he obtained it specifically for the purpose of writing The Creature...., and that is what makes it noteworthy. This is a biography, and educational background is biographical material. Review the following GA [8], which demonstrates how a controversial issue was handled in the biography, and also FA [9] as a model for layout, section titles, and content. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, I was more concerned about RS to support the info. Given that we have evidence from the CFP board and the source you've provided I think we can add that he received his CFP in 1989. The source you provided (and Griffin's own webpages) also mentions a Telly Award. Is this [www.tellyawards.com]? The Telly Award website does not provide search capacity, so I wonder how else we might confirm the award. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In taking a closer look at PRWeb, I see that people can create accounts for themselves. I presume they can then publish press releases. If this is the case, then the PRWeb material we see likely came from Griffin or an associate. Accordingly, PRWeb would not be stand-alone RS. – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think perhaps you misunderstood Avoid self-published sources in WP:BLP which states: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The policy further states: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Hypothetical example: Sen Harry Reid publishes his own book - 113th Congress - and includes a chapter on Sen Mitch McConnell. You're writing a Wiki article about McConnell, and want to use something Reid said in his book about things McConnell had done. Nope, you can't use it in the WP BLP on McConnell because Reid's book is a self-published source. However, if the book had been published by Time Life, different story. Therefore you can cite Griffin's books, press releases, and information from his website about himself in Griffin's WP bio. Atsme☯^Consult 19:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The on-point policy is at WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSELFPUB. (Interestingly these two policies vary a bit from one another.) Also, we have WP:PRIMARY source concerns. I am not saying we should keep the CFP info out, only that we use it with care. I do not think saying "I was a CFP." is an extraordinary claim or unduly self-serving. But if said "I was a CFP and therefore I know everything there is to know about the Fed," we could not use this tid-bit. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here goes one of those Famspear essays. Merely using the CFP Board as a source for the fact that Griffin is a former CFP would not be "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Using the CFP Board would be using a primary source -- which is a separate concept.

Primary sources should be used with care. However, on something like this, there is virtually no risk of "getting it wrong" by using a primary source in this way.

Griffin's former credential as a CFP is perhaps logically relevant to his status as a pontificator about the Federal Reserve System, but I would argue that it is not very material to that status. What do I mean by that? Well (and I am not a Certified Financial Planner by the way) the study that it takes to become a CFP requires a certain level of rigor and implies the attainment of a certain level of understanding of economics and finance. People who attain that level knowledge are at least more likely to know about topics (such as the Federal Reserve System) that are not necessarily germane to what a CFP needs to know.

However, the mere fact that a person has or used to have the CFP designation does not necessarily mean that the individual possesses expertise about the Federal Reserve System. That's what I mean when I say that possession of the CFP credential (or having held the credential in the past) is not particularly "material" to knowledge of the Federal Reserve System.

So, on balance, in terms of mentioning his former CFP credential in the article: In my view it might be "OK", but I can take it or leave it.

Nothing like straddling the fence, eh?? Famspear (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And excellent job of mugwumping! When we get out of PP let's put CFP in the infobox under education. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and when you combine someone with my personality ("INTP" in Myers-Briggs world) with my training (lawyer), you get heavy duty, major mugwump-ossity-tivity-ness. Famspear (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

---

From the edit request below, does Barisheff say "an education he [Griffin] sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets." If so, what page? (The page=320 in the citation gives the total number of pages in the book, not where we can find the info." – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

UNDUE tag by Srich32977

Srich32977 please explain, precisely and calmly (as I know you will :) ) the reason for the UNDUE tag you placed here and which I reverted, as I don't understand what the issue is. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)

As you predicted correctly, I have explained the tag below. And I have restored the tag. And I requested PP some time ago, but some else [Atsme] had already beaten me to the punch [four hours ago]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks, we will discuss below. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

page protection request by Atsme

just a heads up, Atsme requested page protection here. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A "heads up"? Are you calling the "troops", or what? PP is just a first step. I actually believe sanctions should be placed on this article, as well as on those editors who have a COI, and/or have been warned about BLP violations, NPOV, and the like in pseudoscience articles. I am acting in GF by giving this discussion an opportunity to correct the BLP violations, but the fact that my edits are being reverted when the burden of proof should be on those who restore/revert them is not setting too well with me right now. Such actions are clearly not being done in GF. Atsme☯^Consult 21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

it is just a courtesy to notify folks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue -- discussion of problems

Different problems have arisen of late (and edit warring makes it difficult to track what problems exist at any particular time). First, too much of the article (particularly the lede) goes into the evils of laetrile. Necessary debunking of laetrile is properly done in the laetrile article. I submit that debunking should be placed in a short footnote. Next, too much of the article (particularly the lede, which uses the term 3 times) mentions conspiracy theory without sufficient explanation. As the term is derogatory, it should be used with more caution. These problems are evidenced by the section headings. For example "Fringe" is used as a heading without explanation. "Conspiracy theories" (plural) is used in a section heading when only two of the four topics have a conspiracy bent to them. – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

above I asked you to be precise. you raise a bunch of issues here which are difficult to discuss en masse. May i suggest that you create separate sections for each issue, so we can discuss each of them clearly? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments unrelated to specific article problems. Please post in the subsections below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead uses pejorative terminology and contentious labeling that is clearly a violation of BLP, and in no way demonstrates strict adherence to NPOV: 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. It also states the following which is another blatant BLP violation: Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community. Both of these statements in the lead ignore the 3 core principals of BLP as follows: WP:BLP ...a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research), and WP:VERIFIABILITY - NEUTRALITY - Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view., and WP:BLP - it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. It doesn't get any more precise than that Jytdog. This was explained to you numerous times, and you still WP:DONTGETIT. It appears to me that this is not a matter of you not understanding, rather it is a matter of WP:COI and WP:POV from a biotech. Please consider voluntarily recusing yourself from further editing of this article. Your disruptive edits are prohibiting GF, neutral editors from improving and expanding this article. Atsme☯Consult 15:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) The real question, Atsme, is whether you will be able to edit this article collaboratively with other editors, some of whom are likely to disagree with you as to whether the points you make about BLP violations are valid. You've made your view know, as have others -- no need to repeat. I came to this article via the BLPN discussion and am not "a biotech", btw. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I work quite well collaborating with neutral minded, GF editors who are not advocating a cause, and are truly interested in getting the article right. My contributions to WP speak for me and my goals as an editor here. You might also want to look back at the reverted edits in the article's edit history for examples of neutrality when writing about controversial topics in a BLP. My initial goal was to eliminate the BLP violations which has yet to be accomplished. I am not the problem here - the neutrality issues and COI are what prevents this article from improvement and expansion. Atsme☯Consult 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Remember article talk pages are places to discuss content not contributors. Behavior issues belong on user talk pages. Tossing around accusations of COI like above is problematic and doesn't belong here as it only distracts from getting anything done at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC) What about tossing around accusations of sanction breaking against GF editors? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC) That too from what I've seen of it. I can see a few comments here in general that would best be struck and folks should work on getting back on track. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Fringe" as section heading – discussion

In my view, the section header accurately reflects the section contents. I honestly don't understand your objection. Please explain. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Section headings must follow guidelines for article titles and article titles must be NPOV (see: WP:POVTITLE). While Griffin's laetrile promotion is based on WP:FRINGE, we do not have RS in the article that says so explicitly. Even so, we cannot use the term Fringe in the section heading. I had revised the headings in this edit. I propose to do so again. Perhaps we can use the section heading "Views" rather than "Advocacy". Subsections should read "Political advocacy", "Creature", "Cancer and Laetrile", "HIV/AIDS", and "Noah's Ark search". – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Conspiracy theories" (plural) in section header – discussion

As you acknowledge, two of the four paragraphs are about conspiracy theories. This accurately reflects the contents. So what is the issue? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment above, section headings must be NPOV. As "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term, we can't use in the heading. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory, is NPOV. PSCI is part of the NPOV. Right? (sorry to ask but you have read PSCI, haven't you?) Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we can say Griffin promotes the idea that the Fed is result of some sort of conspiracy, but when we use the derogatory terms "Conspiracy_theory#Term_of_ridicule" and "conspiracy theorist" we are violating policy by letting WP become a platform for those who wish to criticize him. We need RS that says "According to 'author X', Griffin is a conspiracy theorist." At that point we can use it in the text, but not the section heading. (You've read WP:POVTITLE, haven't you?) – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not inclusion of what reliable sources have said about him, the problem is in the way it is stated. You cannot simply call it a conspiracy theory because that is NOT NPOV, that is the opinion of someone else. If Griffin said, "I have a conspiracy theory I'd like to share..." then you can use it. If Joe Blow said, "He is a conspiracy theorist...", then you have to say something to the effect of "Joe Blow contends..., or Joe Blow alleged..., or Joe Blow believes...." Wikipedia cannot express a view, or opinion as stated fact. Atsme☯^Consult 20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per PSCI we can just call a spade a spade and say, something like, "In the book, Griffin lays out conspiracy theories regarding the Federal Reserve System. It is not a genre he invented. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple. (And the link you provide does not mention Griffin.) We can say "in the book Griffin lays out his version of the History of the Federal Reserve System.^{[citation needed]} According to ... his view of the origin presents a conspiratorial view of the history.^{[citation needed]} We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to say what you propose because NPOV and BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Conspiracy theory" in lead – discussion

This we could maybe reduce to one. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment immediately above, we need RS that says "according to so-and-so ...." Then we can use the term in the text, and once would be enough. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

about this dif, that was a great catch that the quote was about Rand, not Griffin. But the source is very clear that Griffin is "standard-issue" conspiracy stuff, and the author actually uses Rand's citing of Griffin as evidence that Rand is also a conspiracy theorist. In my view it really validates the label. I reverted the deletion and removed the quote. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (WP:SYN) McLeod is not making any statement about Griffin, much less an explicit one. Including McLeod as a reference to assert the derogatory statement that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist violates policy. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a great example of a specific issue that we can (after we hear from more participants on here) take through a dispute resolution process. We have a very specific question - is McLeod a good enough source for a statement, either in WP's voice or attributed to McLeod, that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist"? In my view it is. Let's see what others see. We have to really try to talk this out here before we can go to any DR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll bite specifically on the source, but I'm mainly lurking from afar on this one for now. Jytdog, if this were a source from a scientist stating one specific view of Griffin's is fringy, etc. it would be pretty clear cut. This source though is from a communications professor. If you summarize what he said about Griffin (based on your post below), Griffin is adored by conspiracy theorists as sort of role model and expounds conspiracy theory/fringe ideas. That latter part is a textbook definition of a conspiracy theorist and it would be almost impossible to argue otherwise. However, what exactly elevates the source above the opinion of just some random person (just being a professor doesn't always cut it)? If that question is satisfied, seems like we'd have a decent source in this context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That said, srich let me ask you. Here is the quote: "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—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 of Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschilds, 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. ...However, when this congressman ... endorses Bircher books about a Federal Reserve conspiracy... it shows how the fringe ideas discussed throughout this book have infilitrated substantial parts of the political mainstream." And i note that McLeod discusses the fringey/conspiracy theory nature of all the ideas he mentions about Griffin's book, elsewhere in his own book. It is clear as day to me that he is calling Griffin's ideas both "fringe" and "conspiracy theories". But it seems that you are unhappy that he doesn't directly say "Griffin's ideas are conspiracy theories." Which is a bit too narrow of a reading to be reasonable, to me. But let me ask you this. - "standard-issue" is an adjective. McLeod elided something in the phrase "standard-issue references". What do you reckon he elided? To me it is pretty obvious that it is "conspiracy theory". What do you say? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

To say he is a conspiracy theorist in the same manner you say he is an author is contentious labeling and a BLP violation. I'm not quite sure why you WP:DONTGETIT. The opinions of others should not be the opinion of Wikipedia, and that is exactly what you're doing. Critics consider him a conspiracy theorist, others consider him an author who presents facts. I've explained how the term can be included without violating BLP. Please read my comments. Atsme☯^Consult 20:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McLeod doesn't even say Paul is a conspiracy theorist, only that he's an icon for them. (And he does not say Griffin thinks of Paul as an icon.) At most we can say "According to McLeod, Griffin writes about the 'nutty' idea that the Fed is the result of a conspiracy."^[cite] (Going beyond to what else Paul has done goes off-topic.) As this is a BLP "pretty obvious" is not enough because SYN policy uses the term "explicit". And as conspiracy theory is a term of ridicule we must "adhere strictly" to BLP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If the characterisation of conspiracy theorist is widespread enough, then it should be presented not as (mere) opinion but as fact. If there is a significant minority view disputing it, then things might be different. But the fact that some call him an "author" does not amount to disputing the view that he is a conspiracy theorist; one can be a conspiracy theorist *and* an author. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

^^Are you proposing to rewrite BLP policy, NPOV, and MOS? Atsme☯^Consult 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If & when I become interested in doing that, I'll be sure to post to the appropriate talk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the event you've lost your way, this is not the appropriate talk page for discussing policy changes. To even suggest that Wikipedia is positioned to accept opinion as fact is ludicrous at best. Whose opinion do you propose makes it fact, or are you proposing WP:SYNTH to make it so? The most his critics can hope for is to include in the prose that a reliable source referred to him as a conspiracy theorist. Atsme☯^Consult 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

debunking of laetrile in article body – discussion

Don't agree, per WP:PSCI. Looks like I am going to have go find the precedental discussions I mentioned earlier. I will go do that. I will say that doing it in a footnote is an interesting compromise, though. Thoughts on that by others? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

PSCI pertains to pseudoscience topics. Griffin is not such a topic. Per PSCI, see: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, Category:Pseudoscience, and WP:FRINGE/PS. Individuals are not listed in these resources. Accordingly, we cannot use stand-alone RS in the article to debunk what Griffin is promoting. By stand-alone, I mean material which does not mention Griffin. Per comments from other editors above, adding in stand-alone RS to debunk Griffin is improper SYN. That said, a one-line footnote to explain what laetrile is would be pushing the envelope. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Srich32977 for the most part, but at the same time, if we are looking to include an overview of Griffin's book, it is perfectly acceptable as well as expected to write about the key elements which have been noted by RS on both sides. Perhaps a quick review of some GAs and FAs will provide a basis to model after for those of you who have lost direction with regards to what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like. The tabloid sensationalism needs to disappear. The way this article is currently written, it wouldn't pass scrutiny in a DYK review. Atsme☯^Consult 21:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

quick note here. of course Griffin himself is not pseudoscience. that makes no sense. The ideas are. The content needs to be very careful to discuss the ideas, not him, as FRINGE or pseudoscience. Still looking for the precedental discussions on the intersection of BLP and PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

While your efforts are noble, Jytdog, they are not necessary to correct the BLP violations which still exists in the lead. There is no possible explanation to justify the contentious labeling of conspiracy theorist as fact other than to describe it as a BLP violation. Further, if prior discussions actually failed to recognize it as a BLP violation, the latter is surely cause for concern, but not cause to repeat the same mistake again. I do hope you understand what I'm trying to relay. Atsme☯^Consult 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

this subsection is about laetrile, not conspiracy theories. Please comment in appropriate sections so the discussion can stay on track. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

debunking of laetrile in article lead – discussion

Not sure what you mean by "too much". Do you mean "at all"? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think my comments immediately above address the question. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McLeod source

McLeod mentions Griffin once in the text. He says "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists." It is clear that McLeod is referring to Ron Paul. That said, McLeod is not a proper source for this article. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I had already commented on this above, in the "conspiracy theory in lead" section, please do reply here or there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich, we are not limited to such literalistic use of secondary sources. When a passage admits of only one reasonable interpretation--that is the case here, as it is implausible to infer from the context that McLeod does not think Griffin promotes conspiracy theories--we are free to use this interpretation, even if it is not drawn literally from the text. For example, if a secondary source says that "Tom's scientific ideas were on the fringe of academia and contradicted by overwhelming evidence," it is acceptable to label those ideas as "fringe science," even though that was not literally stated by the secondary source, because it is not reasonable to interpret the primary source in any other way. Steeletrap (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC) If you think that one could come away from the passage and reasonably believe that the author does not think Griffin is promoting conspiracy theories, let's hear your argument for that. If not we need to revert your changes. Steeletrap (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs we must remember that SYN policy uses the term "explicit". And since conspiracy theory is a term of ridicule we must "adhere strictly" to BLP policy. These mandates compel us to avoid "beliefs" and "interpretations" [paraphrasing]. In other words, we are limited to what the sources say, not what we read into them or what we think or hope they say. The sources do not say "Griffin's ... ideas were on the fringe ... and contradicted by overwhelming evidence...." If they did, we could use them with proper citations. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart as RS – for an opinion

Before the page got protection, we had (and lost) a citation to Breitbart.com that used the term "conspiracy theory" when commenting on Griffin's book. I submit that the citation is a proper source (for the opinion) and actually supports the contention that Griffin engages in conspiracy theory. Editors will please note that Breitbart.com is "notable" in Wikipedia, and that the source was not being used for factual contentions. (Also, they might note that Breitbart.com has been brought up on the WP:RSN at times.) Comments are welcome: 1. Is the particular citation RS? and 2. Is the particular citation WP:NOTEWORTHY? – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Breitbart editor holds WP:Fringe economic views. He favors the gold standard, for example. We don't want to devote Griffin's precious article space to fringe theorists (other than, of course, Griffin). Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGENOT may be helpful to you. Also, please consider that Breitbart has a current (global/US) Alexa rank of 1,481/498. Another source in the article is Media Matters for America. Their Alexa rank is currently 18,204/4,723. In terms of significance Breitbart is much more important and noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: Publiceye.org/Political Research Associates (which is Flaherty's organization) has an Alexa ranking of 414,892/114,633. – S. Rich (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See my reverted edits for proper use of the term "conspiracy theory" without it being contentious labeling. It has already been established that he has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist, and that some of his writings have been referred to as conspiracy theories whereas other RS have suggested otherwise. WP:DEADHORSE. It's okay to summarize his most notable books and use reference to conspiracy theories properly sourced as long as BOTH SIDES of the prevailing views are being presented without ignoring WP:UNDUE. Breitbart is a RS, and perhaps closer to being neutral, or at least as neutral as Media Matters for America which is considered to be a politically progressive media watchdog group that is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation. Unfortunately, the days of Walter Cronkite's fair and balanced reporting are long gone, so we use what we have to use. Regardless, a contentious label is a contentious label regardless of RS, and it's still an opinion, not a statement of fact. FACT: The man writes books about controversial topics that are highly debated. FACT: He has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist. FACT: His profession is not "American conspiracy theorist". He is an author, researcher, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. There is no such profession as "American conspiracy theorist", which sounds more like the title to a book than a career designation. To what length should each book in his biography be reviewed, and labeled conspiracy theories while still maintaining NPOV? In other words, each claim of conspiracy theory must be balanced with the facts that were presented in the book as well as RS references to opposing views. Keep in mind, Wikipedia already has separate articles for most of the controversial topics Griffin has written about, including the History of the Federal Reserve System, Laetrile, etc. Atsme☯^Consult 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"other RS have suggested otherwise" -- @Atsme: which sources dispute the view that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've already surmised, Griffin disputes it, so that clarifies any confusion there may have been about him being an "American conspiracy theorist". The dispute is realized by the fact such contentious labeling is missing from the articles and interviews in nearly all of the other sources. You can start here.... [10], [11] [12] [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] Atsme☯^Consult 03:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So the term is absent from some sources. Okay, but do any of those sources dispute it? I gather not -- otherwise you'd have said... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some actually do condemn the labeling. You obviously haven't read any of the references, or you would not have asked that question, and that appears to be part of the problem rather than a solution. Regardless, disputes are not required to justify or dispel contentious labels and/or pejorative terminology. Responsible writers avoid qualifying their use by simply not mentioning them. GF editors adhere strictly to BLP policy, and avoid them all together. I consult you to read what the Encyclopedia Britannica has written on a few of these highly debated topics. It appears some editors have lost their way with regards to neutrality, fact, and opinion. Atsme☯^Consult 14:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme I will caution you again to limit your comments to content and sources, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog Please stop the unnecessary posts of caution because you are actually doing what you are cautioning me to not do. Atsme☯^Consult 14:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

please just follow WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Atsme, let's try again. Which sources dispute the characterisation of conspiracy theory? I asked that question above and you provided 10 references -- and it's apparent that not all of them dispute the characterization. I'm not going to consult all of them to determine which ones do dispute it; if you're interested in answering my question, then you can indicate the ones that do dispute it -- which after all is the question I actually asked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

They all do, which is the answer I actually provided. Atsme☯^Consult 23:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I clicked on this one. It doesn't include the term "conspiracy theorist" (or theory) -- so in what respect does it dispute the view that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist? Next I tried this one -- same story. I'm not sure what impact you're trying to have here, but whatever it is the impact you're actually achieving is not in keeping with your stated goal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:DONTGETIT, and I mean that in GF. The absence of contentious labeling is testament to the fact that Griffin is actually highly respected, and not considered a CT by all. Contentious labels and pejorative statements are symbolic of the kind of sensationalism that is prevalent in tabloids. I will further surmise that the majority of GF editors, highly qualified journalists, historians, researchers, and reputable documentarians who understand and respect neutrality will confirm same. If you are still dissatisfied with my response, and need to read something in black and white, then read: [20]. I apologize for not providing more detail, but the tips of my fingers are hoarse from typing. Atsme☯^Consult 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked which sources dispute the characterization. Failing to say anything about the characterization is not disputing the characterisation. You said that all the sources you provided dispute the characterisation. It's now quite evident that this statement was untrue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a divergence from what I asked at the top of the section. (Is the source RS for an opinion and is it noteworthy.) Asking for sources which explicitly deny that Griffin is a "conspiracy theorist" doesn't help build consensus. We can assume that those sources which praise or cite Griffin endorse him to a greater or lesser extent do not endorse a conspiracy theory characterization. What is proper for us is to provide sources which balance the article. Some may present their explicit opinion that he is a conspiracy theorist (Easter), some may be less explicit (Breitbart.com), some may be neutral or simply descriptive in describing him (Who's Who), some may praise him. A variety of sources can be used so long as they are presented in accordance with guidelines and policy. I submit that Breitbart is one of those sources that can be and should be used. And what is BLP-improper is the description in the lead that says he is a conspiracy theorist (because of the very negative nature of the term). – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's untrue that negative terms are "BLP-improper". David Irving is a Holocaust denier; he isn't "considered by some to be a Holocaust denier" -- he just is one. David Duke is -- wait for it -- a conspiracy theorist. Care to try to argue otherwise? Why? As for Breitbart: my view is that it doesn't meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin: Council on Foreign Relations trying exterminate the elderly

On page 528 of The Creature From Jekyll Island, Griffin claims that the Council of Foreign Relations advocates "the deliberate killing of the old, the weak, and . . . the uncooperative." He provides no source for this remarkable claim, other than a paper by Bertrand Russell advocating reductions in population by *voluntary* use of contraception. I think it should be added to the article since so much of the book is devoted to rantings about the CFR, and because it illustrates the sort of CTs the book propounds. Is there any doubt that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist? Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article needs secondary sources which comment on the book, not WP:CHERRYPICKING by editors who do not like Griffin. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. I have no personal problem with Griffin. I just want his views to be portrayed neutrally and accurately. Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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....but only if it does not involve claims about third parties, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Your comment that "it illustrates the sort of CTs the book propounds" clearly indicates that you are not neutral. Atsme☯^Consult 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

note on intersection of FRINGE and BLP

I knew this was somewhere. There is a paragraph in WP:FRINGE specifically dealing with WP:BLP. For those who are not aware, the policy NPOV has a section on pseudoscience - the shortcut is WP:PSCI. Over the years, there have been lots of discussions about what that short section means and how to use it, a guideline called WP:FRINGE has grown up to provide guidance.

Here is the relevant section in FRINGE discussing the intersection of PSCI and BLP: WP:FRINGEBLP.

That language was hashed out here WT:Fringe_theories/Archive_19#Fringe_Biographies_of_Living_Persons.

Notice was given earlier by Atsme at BLPN about disputes on this article with regard to BLP. I just also posted a notice to the Fringe notice board, here: WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#G._Edward_Griffin. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we are making some progress. Per FRINGEBLP we don't give undue prominence to those views beyond what he is better known for. In this case Creature (a political opinion-based book, tinged with conspiracy theory), World w/o Cancer (fringe science), and Noah's Ark (fringe science) are the main "achievements or incidents". AIDS denial is certainly not prominent. The other topics are in between. For each topic we must take "care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." I submit that debunking laetrile or the criticism of the Fed or the existence/non-existence of the Ark are the main pitfalls and should not have much discussion in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI is policy though basically as a summary of WP:FRINGE, and it cites the guideline as further explanation. Just making sure to point out that the BLP and PSCI neither are are competing nor superseding the other. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Srich32977 for the most part, but I also believe we must avoid POV and UNDUE. If claims based on research dating back 20 to 35 years are included, then updated research must also be included in order to maintain NPOV. Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, is widely known for its promotion of alternative medicine. There are plenty of book reviews by reliable secondary sources we can draw from and properly include in the article. Griffin is not the place to advocate a cause for or against mainstream medicine or alternative medicine. It is not our job to establish opinion as Wikipedia's factual position about Griffin. The CT labels are still contentious, and the quackery claims are still pejorative for all of the reasons previously mentioned on this TP. I'm not saying we cannot quote a reliable source that considers him a conspiracy theorist rather I am saying we must strictly adhere to BLP and not label him a conspiracy theorist as was done in the lead. Atsme☯^Consult 13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Srrich, would you help me explain your stance? You say that World w/o Cancer (which if focused on laetrile) is one of the main "achievements or incidents" but then you say we should not debunk it. But BLPFRINGE says that is exactly when we should debunk. Would you please explain? Maybe you meant to say "should have discussion" instead of "should not have much discussion"? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this carefully: "...debunking laetrile ... should not have much discussion...." (I did not say "no discussion".) We can debunk Griffin's ideas about cancer, etc. when we use sources which criticize Griffin and/or the specific views he expounds. Per SYN we do not say "A: Griffin expounds on laetrile. B: Scientist X says laetrile is bunk. Therefore C (implicit or explicit): What Griffin expounds upon is bunk." We can only use the material from scientist X that says "The stuff that Griffin expounds upon is bunk." – S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have an issue with "debunking" all together based on the following: [21], and also Debunk. It is not our job as editors to debunk anything in an article - it's POV - and therein the problem lies. WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NPOV Atsme☯^Consult 14:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think laetrile is thoroughly debunked. And those who promote it are not the most admirable people in the world. I do not want the article to be a vehicle for those who like Griffin, nor a vehicle for those who condemn him. And WP policy says the article should summarize who he is and what he's known for. We say "Griffin is an author, lecturer, and film producer known for his description of early Fed history, promotion of laetrile as a cancer therapy, and for films depicting modern searches for Noah's Ark. He has been cited by .... who endorse is ideas about.... And he's been criticized by .... who condemn his ideas about ...." Those sources which criticize him will be the "debunking" element of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich I don't agree that in debunking laetrile, the sources we use need to explicitly refer to Griffin and I don't find basis for that anywhere in FRINGE nor in PSCI. We are debunking the claim about science tells us about laetrile, not Griffin per se. In my view, the current section on "Cancer and AIDS denial" is fine as is. (we can probably kill the brief 2nd paragraph). If you don't agree, I suggest that we post the current section to the Fringe notice board and get comments, to resolve that. We could point up the question, "does debunking of a fringe scientific claim of person X require that the source explicitly reference person X"? Jytdog (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile has been properly and explicitly debunked -- in the laetrile article. That is where PSCI & FRINGE apply. Here we must follow SYN and BLP. As for the cancer paragraph, the Nightingale citation violates SYN (and BLP) because Griffin is not explicitly mentioned. (The citation serves to imply a conclusion that Griffin is wrong about laetrile.) But it is not needed because Landau criticized the book and says the "scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it". (Perhaps a clearer quote from Landau can be had.) I am not going to post on the FNB as this is a BLP concern. When the page comes off PP someone will remove the Nightingale cite. Anyone who reinserts it does so with considerable risk because of the BLP sanctions. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

there is no need to repeat yourself, i understand where you are coming from and we disagree. There is "considerable risk" all around, with two policies at play and the AE sanctions about the economics issues, and the article already being protected once due to edit warring. So I suggest folks get consesnsus before making changes. I proposed a DR step to resolve our dispute and will go ahead and post there. Folks at FRINGE are very accustomed to dealing with the intersection issues, folks at BLP, not so much. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Cure Foundation

just FYI for when editing re-opens, Griffin was President of CCF as of 2012. See here which is linked from here. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another FYI - his publishing company is American Media which is noted in the front pages of his book as well as at the following website: The Reality Zone and American Media are the creations of G. Edward Griffin. [22] Atsme☯^Consult 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Griffin's American Media is not the American Media in Wikipedia. That company is a privately held corporation based in New York. See: [23]. – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I'll do a strike-through of my reference to it above, and make a notation to avoid confusion. I just felt it was important to validate what you originally stated about Griffin owning the publishing company by providing a link. and making note that it is also stated in the book. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2014

The lead contains the following BLP violations:

• G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist - contentious label represented as a statement of fact seemingly held by Wikipedia. Also, one of the cited sources, Pranksters... does not make such a claim, and the 2nd source, Media Matters for America, is clearly a partisan source that professes to be a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation".
• 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. - poorly written, not NPOV.
• Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community. Pejorative, supposition, and accusatory; presented as a statement of fact, and seemingly a view held by Wikipedia; poorly written, not NPOV.
• He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism. - the cited source, Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology, is not a RS.
• The entire lead violates WP:BLP and has major issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV.
• Section titles in the body of the article also violate WP:BLP. There are multiple BLP violations throughout the body that should also be addressed, but since the lead sets the tone for the entire article, I felt it should be addressed first.

Proposed change for the lead

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, researcher, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. In the 1960s, he authored several books about a diverse range of controversial topics, such as international banking, subversion, the history of taxation, the science and politics of cancer therapy, and the Supreme Court. His first published book was, The Fearful Master (1964), which describes the evolution of the United Nations, and what Griffin theorizes as a socialistic push for the creation of a new world government. He has since authored many successful book titles and documentary films. Critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist while proponents consider him a distinguished author.

Perhaps Griffin's most notable work is, The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller which describes the evolution of the Federal Reserve System, a monetary system which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. Prior to writing The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), 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.

Griffin's career in broadcast communication began with his role as a child actor on local radio from 1942 to 1947. He graduated with a bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1953, and served two years of military duty in the United States Army (1954 to 1956), attaining the rank of sergeant.

References

Atsme☯^Consult 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Atsme has made these claims many times, including above, where some discussion is occurring. We are still working on the body and it is premature to address the LEAD, as it will just summarize the body. Trying to do this via edit request while the article is protected is classic WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - please, such accusations are unfounded, unnecessary, and demonstrate WP:SQS, which your actions here closely resemble. Let's stay focused on the BLP violations. Atsme☯^Consult 20:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Prior to full protection, Atsme was edit-warring to make these changes. To implement them now would be to reward the edit-warring. The current version is in no respect a BLP violation; Atsme says it is, but one would want to review the discussions above addressing this claim, and there one will find entirely reasonable discussion including posts by multiple editors who disagree with Atsme in this respect. The page should be left as it is and then edited per consensus in the usual way when protection ends. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - See WP:NOT3RR 3RR exemptions The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). The BLP violations are blatant as I pointed out above. Atsme☯^Consult 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• To be fair, Atsme did not edit war on December 15. I was making various changes when Jytdog and Steeletrap reverted. Then the page was protected. Even so, Atsme's proposed lede needs discussion. For example, the Barisheff citation is problematic. The total page count is provided in the cite, not the specific page where Griffin is mentioned. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Not having the page number for Barisheff is a minor issue that can easily be corrected. It's use does not create a BLP violation, or try to justify one. Please, let's not lose sight of the violations. The arguments being provided are the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again. The BLP violations still exist. Atsme☯^Consult 16:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • PS - there are no page numbers. It's Chapter 2 under the heading Central Banks In The United States. Quoting from the book, Perhaps no author in modern times has made such a valiant and thorough effort to understand the Federal Reserve as G. Edward Griffin. The author then explains the accreditation of Griffin and his designation as a CFP. [24] Atsme☯^Consult 16:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Then say it is in chapter 2 and provide a quote about why he sought CFP. For the "page= " put down "np". Same problem with a specific page number applies with reference 5 ( D'Arista). Also, she's the editor. Who wrote the specific chapter? (IOW, please cross the i's and dot the t's.) Next, simply saying Steamshovel is non-RS does not give justification for an edit request. Instead of a shot-gum edit request I recommend that you be more specific, concise, correct and limited. If there is discussion (above) that shows consensus for a change, then refer to that discussion and make the request. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the two minor citation errors and omissions. FYI - D'Arista is credited as the author, so I changed the link for clarity. Details belong in the body of the article, not in the lead. I appreciate you wanting to hone the citations. Atsme☯^Consult 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • I don't have that much interest in the economic issues relating to Griffin, but I would hesitate to treat Barisheff as a reliable, maindtream source. I know that advocating for gold is part of the whole austrian school thing (per Gold_standard#Advocates) and that subject matter is directly subject to the AE sanctions. But again, I would stand back from relying on Barisheff too much for making claims about Griffin. It is the choir singing to itself and per WP:Controversial articles everybody should be reaching for the best, most neutral sources they can. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Barisheff's book serves as a reliable third-party source that further validates Griffin's accreditation in compliment to the self-published source(s) which will be cited in the body of the article. Standard protocol for verifiability without OR. Atsme☯^Consult 20:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I do understand that you think that. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Following is why I think that: WP:Verifiability Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, and then go to WP:3PARTY must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, and further Secondary does not mean third-party, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but they are not always third-party sources. Nick Barisheff - President and CEO of Bullion Management Group Inc. Widely recognized as an international bullion expert, Nick has written numerous articles on bullion and current market trends that are published on various news and business websites. Compared to the sources currently in use and the many BLP violations in this article, well....let's just say we probably aren't going to agree on what Wiki considers RS.

• If you're trying to argue that he's not a conspiracy theorist, then I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Quibbling about the strength of sourcing does not really help because the fact is that he is a prominent advocate of conspiracy theories. The existence of the article relies, to no small extent, on the profile he gets form people like Beck, and that means the controversies go right along with it.

Griffin advocates laetrile as a cancer cure. That marks him out as a dangerous crank. So does his entry in the Encylopaedia of American Loons. And the existence of a page on whale.to., And his promotion by Natural News. These are not good things. They are very bad things. They indicate that Mr. Objectivity left the building some time ago. It's hard to refer to The Capitalist Conspiracy without being, you know, a conspiracy theorist. Guy (Help!) 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• • JzG what part of the proposed lead made you draw such conclusions? On what premise are you calling opinions "facts"? I never disputed the fact that Griffin has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by his critics, but to flat-out call him an American conspiracy theorist as a statement of fact is pejorative in every sense of the word. I disagree that the strength of sources in a BLP do not help because your position conflicts with policy which calls for high quality reliable sources, and strict adherence to all applicable laws in the United States, to BLP policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies. That is not the position you just supported. Even if the sources refer to Griffin as a conspiracy theorist, it is still just an opinion, not a fact. Experienced editors should know full well that citing sources which make only trivial mention of the subject is unacceptable, which is what you just did with the following: [25], [26], and [27]. Two of the sources are POV, and one of them is clearly partisan - all have trivial mention and are unacceptable. There are just as many if not more RS that support completely opposite views and opinions from the POV you are advocating. You didn't even consider them. In fact, you did not come here with a NPOV as demonstrated here [28] The article needs balance and neutrality, not more of the same POV advocacy. Facts are indisputable, and opinions are not facts. Your conclusion was not based on NPOV. Just curious - did you consult with Callanecc before making your edits here? Atsme☯^Consult 04:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in the opinions of apologists, I am not American and have no dog in this fight but it is pretty clear that if he weren't a featured conspiracy theorist in popular media, we would not even have an article at all. More robust sourcing is always good, though. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep in the top three levels rather than contradiction please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." - Lewis Carroll. Atsme☯Consult 12:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Your argument is invalid. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC) You may not agree with my argument, but it is certainly not invalid. Unlike you, I have maintained NPOV, and have based my argument on strict adherence to WP:BLP policy. I admittedly am not well-versed in BLP sanctions, or how the process actually applies, but based on what I've gleaned so far, the BLP violations in the article as well as the reverts after the violations were removed appear to be highly inappropriate, much like the childish template you just added. I certainly hope you will act responsibly and remove it. Your ridicule is disruptive. Atsme☯Consult 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Popular Paranoia as RS

I have a copy of Popular Paranoia: Pop Culture Conspiracies on my Kindle (a title a bit different than that cited as reference 5). My copy does not mention Griffin or Creature. With this in mind, a page number or/and quote would be nice. Also, my copy does not have references or footnotes. Is Kenn RS? – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

RS? Maybe after the notability tag on his Wiki page is removed. If you get a chance, listen to the opening segment at the following link [29], at least up to the point the interviewer talks about how he dislikes Wikipedia just before he reads Kenn's bio. Interesting take on how he handles the contentious label of "conspiracy theorist". Keep listening if you're into UFOs. Perhaps Kenn's encounter with Timothy Leary in 1992 is what gave him a leg-up on the notability bandwagon, yes? I did appreciate the way Leary's Wiki page was written. Perhaps Griffin lacks the respect of neutrality because he's been writing about the wrong drug. Atsme☯^Consult 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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. [30]

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 [31].

Further validation relative to the above is further evidenced here: [32]...(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, [33]. 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 [34], which is unlike what I've tried to do. In June 2014 the contentious label was added back, [35], 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. [36].

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, [37], 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 - [38] - (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. [39]. 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). [40] 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).[41]. 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." [42], 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: [43]
• 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, [44], 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 - [45] 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 - [46] 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. [47] 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: [48]. 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...", [49], and "Mr. Griffin is a distinguished film producer, author, editor and political lecturer." [50], and "American scholar G. Edward Griffin wrote, 'To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.'" [51]. 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. [52]. 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 [53]: 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 [54] Quote: "Watch his conversation with noted conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin."
• ref 4 [55] (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: [56] 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.
  • [57]] 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

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)

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)

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: [58] 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)

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:

• [59] 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.
• [60] 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.
• [61] 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.
• [62] Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
• [63] 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.
• [64], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
• [65], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
• [66] 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.
• [67] 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. [68] 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: [69], 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. [70] [71] [72] 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)

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)

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)

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: http://www.naturalnews.com/047630_Wikipedia_academic_bias_homeopathic_medicine.html--Pekay2 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)