Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Lede: conspiracy theories

The lede currently states:

In the 1960s he began a career of producing documentaries and books on conspiracy theories related to cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, and the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States,

This is misleading. Aaronovich's Voodoo Histories is a book on conspiracy theories, Griffin's books are not books on conspiracy theories, they are books promoting conspiracy theories. Griffin explicitly rejects the mainstream view that the New World Order is a conspiracy theory, instead asserting that it is a genuine conspiracy.

I propose that this sentence be changed to:

In the 1960s he began producing documentaries and books promulgating conspiracy theories related to a range of subjects including cancer, ...

This is well established by the existing sources and is a much more accurate statement. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Given Callenecc's post just above, I think this is a desirable change. The timing here is excellent, for other reasons as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Any specific text to propose? Guy (Help!) 16:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

that's a reasonable change. a similar change should be made to the last sentence of "early career"Jytdog (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this change. jps (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Disagree - it is violative of consensus and unsourced. Some of his books dissect evidence of a conspiracy, some don't even mention conspiracy, so you can't lump sum his entire career and all of his literary works using the same contentious label. Atsme☯^Consult 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We have already disposed of your false claim that any mention of conspiracy theories violates consensus. Drmies' review of the RfC contradicts you unambiguously. I have asked several times for examples of works of his that are not conspiracist. You've failed to identify any. All I find when I go looking is more and wilder conspiracy theories, most especially on his website. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say "any mention" so yours is actually the false claim, not mine. My concern is over it being used in Wiki voice and unsourced or poorly sourced, like citing 35 year old OR. Callan still supports consensus and a few other qualifications for using it. Don't forget, the term is still a contentious label in a BLP, so unless you plan to rewrite policy, please adhere to it. PS: I struck through Disagree and made it Oppose. Atsme☯^Consult 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in Atsme. Guy, we don't have to argue with each other. And we don't need unanimity. We just need consensus; so far everybody who has commented here but one, has been in favor of this. let is stand it a bit longer, and if there is no more opposition we can add it. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right that we do not have to argue with each other. I would argue, however, that stating a claim that is agreed by everyone else to be refuted, is arguing, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to boot. To be clear, I have no problem at all with someone saying "in my opinion X" even if X is wrong (I will challenge it if wrong, of course), but stating X as fact when it is not, in fact, fact, is problematic. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, i hear you. i don't think you and atsme are going to convince each other of anything... my wish is that we all untangle ours horns - we are all getting "locked-into-wikipedia-conflict syndrome". we can just simply acknowledge that we disagree on a given point, and move on to the next point. when there is a lack of consensus (substantial disagreement, not just one or two editors) that cannot be resolved by concretely-proposed tweaks to proposals, we can resolve that through RfCs.

I am hoping that we can decide if the article is good enough, or start proposing content to add or remove, and stop debating general points. Proposed content changes will either get consensus, or they won't. We may be able to have some discussion around how to improve proposed content that might be productive... but this kind of butting heads over general points goes no where (no one is convincing anyone) and is kind of forum-y. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

and so far, on your proposed content change, consensus so far is with it. like i said, maybe give it a day more, then you can implement it on solid ground. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• No surprise -- I agree with the proposed change as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as "promulgating" has a distinct meaning not quite warranted here. He is not the person who made the theories "publicly known" - "supporting" is, in fact, accurate here. Noah's Ark stuff should be separated from the others as not actually involving a "conspiracy theory" as such but a Creationist Weltanschauung. OK? Collect (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Promulgate: "promote or make widely known" (as per Google result searching on the word). This is exactly what he has done. "Support" is ambiguous and vague in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, et al, would you accept the verb "promote" instead of "promulgate" and the more vague "support"? thx. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "promote" in may proposal. Collect (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nobody is willing (or able) to make a strong case to show that Griffin's main idea in his book is a conspiracy theory. Until this changes, I would strongly oppose this proposal. See also: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#My_increasing_skepticism_of_this_article.27s_factual_accuracy. -A1candidate 14:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view, A1's opposition is based on not having read the sources provided and is not valid; you cannot continue to demand sources after you have been provided citations (and even provided citations yourself); not having access to them is not an excuse to demand more. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC) striking Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

note - link in A1's comment is now here: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin/Archive_7#My_increasing_skepticism_of_this_article.27s_factual_accuracy Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say that his main ideas are conspiracy theories, it says that his books promote conspiracy theories, which is unarguably true. World Without Cancer, for example, posits a conspiracy of doctors and pharmaceutical companies suppressing the "truth" that cancer is caused by a deficiency of vitamin B17, when in reality there is no such thing as vitamin B17 and no evidence that cancer is caused by a deficiency of amygdalin. Krebs only called it a vitamin to get around the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, by all accounts. His books may also promote being kind to your mother, for all I know, but that's not what they are known for.

This is not a "may contain traces of nuts", the nuts are a key ingredient. You will be aware of the well-known problem of anaphylaxis and the fact that it is the most widely identified allergen; the label "may contain nuts" is placed on products that very often will contain no trace at all, simply as a hedge against lawsuits. With Griffin's writing conspiracy theories are not a nuance that may inadvertently creep in, as he argues is the case for the allegations of antisemitism, but a core premise.

Please do not fixate on the alternative meaning of nuts, it is emphatically not intended in this case, the point is the difference between a precautionary flag warning and an intended component. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I think "promulgating" might be my fault; I thought it more precise than "promoting", but it appears I may not have been using the primary definition of "promulgating", although some of the theories really are his. We might need some more sources in the body, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - No accusations or opinions in Wiki voice. This is a BLP not an indictment.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually the statement that he writes books on conspiracy theories is an opinion stated in Wikipedia voice. The sources divide into those who believe him and portray him as writing books on conspiracies, and those who accept the mainstream view of these things and describe him as advocating conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Guy's change is an improvement, although the word "promoting" might be better than "promulgating". Cardamon (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Guy two questions. I assume you are OK with using "promotes" instead of "promulgates", yes? Also, would you please present the full sentence, with sources? (reach for the best ones you can...since this is clearly contested.) thx Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(a) yes and (b) the sources are in the body already. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I probably shouldn't bother posting here seeing that Atsme is here, but why not. There's a whole lot of emphasis that there is a conspiracy theory in this case as related to the Federal Reserve but there's little on the conspiracy theory. The question of weight should probably be asked. I'd call it lopsided myself, but that could be fixed by clearly describing the conspiracy theory. I think it probably be easier fixing some of the body problems in relation to the lede before fixing the lede. Side suggestion, I'd also ask if the subtitle "Pseudoscience promotion and conspiracy theories" could simply be changed to "Fringe views".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

it's the New World Order conspiracy theory. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, however again the article really does little in the way of making that clear.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the fray, Serialjoepsycho. I'm looking forward to fresh input. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 12:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Guy. Per WP:LEADCITE and per all the discussion here, the sentence is going to need citations. Which citations would you prefer be used? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For Creature from Jekyll Island and Fed conspiracy theories: [3], [4].

For World withouc cancer and laetrile conspiracy theories: Media Matters again, plus Steve Novella (a very widely cited source on alternative medicine claims), plus the rather obvious fact that Griffin himself has [ reviews on his own website] that explicitly document the conspiracist nature of his claims.

As usual with Griffin there are oons.blogspot.ie/2013/09/723-g-edward-griffin.html a gazillion non-RS sources] that state his books are about the conspiracy by the Illuminati / New World Order, a tiny handful of reliable sources that point out that they are about this, and a resounding silence form the majority of mainstream sources, because largely self-published conspiracists are not credible enough to be worth bothering with.

If whale.to says that there is a conspiracy and cited a Griffin book as a source (which ti does several times), then it's a conspiracy theory. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you are proposing is:

In the 1960s he began a career producing documentaries and books on conspiracy theories related to cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States. and "chemtrails".

References

i added chemtrails and some sources from the body of the article to fully cite this sentence. and some new sources. there are a few unsourced things there. do we have sources that he supports conspiracy theories per se about Noah's Ark? Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@JzG:, I'm not suggesting there are no conspiracy theory. Posting links on the talk page does not address the issues I've pointed out. The article as written and from a readers perspective does not cover the conspiracy theories, specifically I pointed out above. It says that there are conspiracy theories but as written the reader can walk away without knowing exactly what those conspiracy theories are. It's a question of weight and balance. Is it more important to read conspiracy theory or is it more important to walk away knowing what is exactly going on. I refer you to wp:label, specifically the explanation it provides with the usage the word controversial. I think that's what is happening here. It sounds opinionated but not informative all of the mention in the article related to the fed conspiracy theory, without mentioning what it is. I've not read thru the other conspiracy theories to see if they have similar issues, but I'm not discussing them either. As is there should probably be little mention of the Fed conspiracy theory in the lead. This likely can easily be fixed. Perhaps for the moment we should stop focusing on the lead and focus on the body. To me the lead ATM actually contains more information on the actual conspiracy.

Side note, Atsme and I are not friends, we had a long editorial dispute in the past. I wouldn't want to be accused of following her is why I mentioned her name in my opening.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The ideas he proposes in his books are conspiracy theories. One does not say that a peanut butter sandwich may contain traces of nuts: nuts are the defining ingredient. Jekyll Island is the story of a grand secret conspiracy. Word without cancer is the story of a "breakthrough" stressed by a conspiracy. Without the essential element of the conspiracy, the narrative is robbed of its essential power, the entire thesis makes no sense in the absence of it. The landscape in which all his ideas exist is that of the paranoid libertarian anti-government conspiracy theory where no action by government is taken for the stated reason, but instead to advance the goal of global collectivisation and control. That this is the intended meaning is abundantly clear from his website.

The only real question is whether he is actually notable. His ideas are in the main so outlandish that they are entirely ignored by reputable sources. That is the core of the problem. Sites like whale.to and David Icke's site, unquestionably cite griffin as a source corroborating conspiracy theories, but we can't cite them. Reality-based sources rarely address self-published conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be a good question to ask that question, whether he is actually notable. At a distant glance it seems he is but I didn't honestly think to question that. No credible book reviews or anything reliable to at least neutrally describe the book?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much none. The only book that gets any significant coverage at all is Jekyll Island, which might be notable, but if you try to find articles discussing Griffin the man, you find very little. The reality-based media have no real time for him. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

proposal

First proposal:

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker. His works supportpromote some conspiracy theories and a Creationist view of history.

He started as a child actor in radio. He then became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began writing books and films on a range of topics including a Creationist view of Noah's Ark, conspiracy theories about the banking system and government in general, and a fringe view on cancer treatment.

He has said that the original Noah's Ark is located in the Durupınar site.

He is well-known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes his views about the Federal Reserve System. He opposes the Federal Reserve, as constituting a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.

He has supported an empirically unsupported view that cancer is a nutritional deficiency. He also believes that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a treatment. It is considered a form of quackery.

second proposal (trying to make changes clearer)

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker. His works supportpromote somecertain conspiracy theories and a Creationist view of historyyoung Earth creationism.

He started as a child actor in radio. He then became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began writing books and films on a range of topics including a Creationist view of Noah's Ark, conspiracy theories about the banking system and government in general, and an ineffective and dangerous fringe view on cancer treatment promoted by Ernst T. Krebs.

He has said that the original Noah's Ark is located in the Durupınar site.

He is well-known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes his views about the Federal Reserve System. He opposes the Federal Reserve, as constituting a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.

He has supported an empirically unsupported view that cancer is a nutritional deficiency. He also believes that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a treatment. It is considered a form of quackery.

References

This is what I rather think would fit all the concerns, and how would others tweak it? (all the government stuff is covered in the body of the BLP - the aim here is to be in summary style for the lead). Collect (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Word change as suggested above. Collect (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your efforts are much appreciated but the lead is too short and mostly negative with a splattering of POV. Sorry, but I object to "Creationist view of history" because that is labeling with an opinion. He and others see it as historic which makes it noncompliant with NPOV. Also, without trying to mince words, he actually doesn't promote conspiracy theories, the latter of which is considered to be a contentious label, therefore it requires high quality sources with inline text attribution. Leaving POV at the login, we are writing a biography. His books actually dissect factual information which he disseminates from a conspiratorial view with the perception that such conspiracies are a threat to personal freedom. We can disagree with his perception, but it is not our place to hang labels on him. In his words (after all, we are writing his biography): There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. He also further explains that conspiracies are common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us. [5] I also strongly object to citing Popular Paranoia as a RS. It is neither reliable nor acceptable for hanging a contentious label on anyone, especially with its Mad Magazine style compilation disguised as a book authored by self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist, Kenn Thomas. Also, Griffin's book Creature is a presentation of factual information regarding the structure of the Fed, it is highly regarded as such, and I don't think we should hang a conspiracy theory label on it. Controversial topic is much better suited. I have no problem at all with the classification of fringe cancer treatment and how the amygdalin references are written. I have provided a plethora of RS for the lead with good information, not all of which is derogatory or negative as the lead appears now. Atsme☯^Consult 16:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The aim is to present a short summary of the most important parts of the BLP. Searches for Noah's Ark pretty much ices it ... I suggest ascribing to the Creationism (where it frankly belongs) is a lot better and more accurate than the category of that article as a "religious hoax". I know of and could find no group which believes in the Ark which is not Creationist. I removed "Popular Paranoia" as being a poor source - but leads do not need sources where the needed sourcing must be in the body in any event.

• I think it's not helpful to have an additional proposal for the lead when one is already being discussed above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And I find your comment to be of de minimis value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wording emended Collect (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Creationist view of history" strikes me as overly accommodating the creationist perspective that there is at least parity between creationist accounts and historical accounts. Perhaps you could say, "his works promote certain conspiracy theories and young earth creationism". We should wikilink too. jps (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Instead of "fringe view on cancer treatment" you should say "ineffective and dangerous cancer treatments." jps (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you produce a "paste-up" of all the changes you would love to see and we can check readability and Wikipedia lead guidelines to see where we might end up? No reason to Wikilink in paste-ups as far as I am concerned. Aim is accuracy, and readability, while compromising to meet any major objections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I prefer readable and short leads. Collect (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to modify your paste up. Revert if you don't like that. jps (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, thank you for your consideration. I think the issue can readily be resolved by eliminating POV and PS, and replacing it with the historic significance of the topic. Fossilized remains, Egyptian mummies, the pyramids, Machu Pichu, ancient architecture, etc. are not PS, but I suppose we could attach that designation if needed, the latter of which demonstrates why we need to get control of this runaway train. PS has become censorship. We are supposed to be looking at historic values, not religious or scientific for that matter. It appears the far reaching tentacles of POV have assumed a choke hold on PS, and it flies in the face of NPOV. Perhaps as a quick refresher course we should read Britannica's entry on Noah's Ark to remind ourselves what "encyclopedic" looks like. I'm concerned WP is turning into a platform for advocacy groups which have obfuscated NPOV, and that presents a problem that should concern all of us. [6] Atsme☯^Consult 19:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(discussing second version by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) Unfortunately, belief in Noah's ark is not strictly only from young earth creationists, making that link quite problematic unless you can find a source where Griffin says he is one. Nor do I find him making comments about other YEC issues. I do not see "certain" as a real improvement over "some". We already comment on Laetrile in the body of the article, making long and winding additions to that sentence do not appear to improve it as far as I can tell. Readers of the lead do not care who Krebs is. Thanks for the first paste-up though. Collect (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

He's clearly a creationist ([7]) and but you are correct in that I can't find evidence that he is a flood geology supporter. Ron Wyatt, his comrade-in-arms clearly is. How do we describe this fairly? He's essentially a supporter of a biblical literalist viewpoint when it comes to Noah's Ark. It's not a view of history but rather a religious presumption.

As far as laetrile-promotion, I think that we just need to describe it as a dangerous alternative cancer treatment. How about that? jps (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The danger of any substance (drug or otherwise) depends on the dose. The acetaminophen toxicity results in damage to the liver, aspirin poisoning in high dosed damages the ears, and sometimes death. The tragic damage that results from laetrile treatment is the lost opportunity that people suffer by forgoing science based medical treatments, not from laetrile treatment itself. In other words, we cannot just say laetrile is dangerous – S. Rich (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Um-- isn't "quackery" then both accurate and sufficient? Collect (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, I think cyanide poisoning is a real danger. I don't know that "quackery" really captures what the issue is when describing the "alternative cancer beliefs". It's one part refusing to accept what the experts say, one part claiming something else entirely is true, and one part selling the story. jps (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

jps, I'm not sure where you're getting your stats, but please share them with us. We need RS and actual numbers, please. Atsme☯^Consult 22:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what stats did you think were relevant for this BLP? jps (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I found one paper [8] A case of cyanide poisoning from laetrile ingestion is presented as an illustration of the recognition and treatment of cyanide intoxication from 1983. Australia reports:[9] They also noted that one patient had typical symptoms of cyanide poisoning when she ate large amounts of raw almonds, and four others experienced toxic blood cyanide levels, demonstrating that Amygdalin is a toxic drug. The number of deaths appears small (three studies referring to a death). More alarming was the horrible quality control on drugs from Mexico. Death from the cyanide is possible, but unlikely absent excessive doses or uneven quality of the drugs. Collect (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. I was wondering, but knock on wood (hope that doesn't cause this TP to be governed by PS-Fringe), there hasn't been any cancer in my lineage. I might consider selling plasma at discounted rates. I also found the following information and was about to give up eating apples because the darn seeds contain amygdalin - [10]. Perhaps article about apples should be reevaluated as PS based on the belief that "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Anyone know where that adage came from? Atsme☯^Consult 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Amygdalin is typically taken from apricot kernels. See [11], [12], [13]. There is no informed dissent fomr the view that cyanide toxicity is a known side effect of laetrile / amygdalin. Seriously, you absolutely need to drop this angle if you are to retain any credibility. It is dangerous quackery. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. I think we read the same source and come to different conclusions. You focus on small numbers and I focus on the point where the study is "demonstrating that Amygdalin is a toxic drug." That's the danger. If you prefer we could call it a "toxic alternative cancer treatment". The toxicity here is important because as far as the evidence goes, it is the sum and only effect of the treatment unlike, say, chemotherapy or radiation treatment which are also toxic but have demonstrated anti-cancer effects. jps (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Um. I think we should certainly describe laetrile as dangerous and ineffective in the body, but it is sufficient in the lede to say it is a quack treatment and his beliefs in both the treatment and the conspiracy are unsupported by credible evidence. Certainly we should not describe spades as non-agricultural manual earth-turning implements, but we should not overstep the mark. On the continuum of nutjobbery from Dr. Oz at one extreme to Immanuel Velikovsky at the other, he is Griffin's ideas lie clarified, see below somewhere between Joe Mercola and Alex Jones. He is part of the glorious tradition of classical American cranks described in Idiot America. His ideas are wrong and his website full of hilarious nonsense, but I simply cannot see him as evil or deranged, merely credulous and blinded by self-belief. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I would say that your positioning him on the spectrum of nutjobbery is a BLP violation. (As an aside, why are all the (US) kooks that we have articles on conservatives? Is there an actual correlation between being a notable kook and being a conservative, or is it just that the liberal kooks get better press?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because in the current political circumstances, mainstream liberals reject left-wing kooks, while mainstream conservatives embrace their right-wing kooks, because they wouldn't get elected without the votes of the right wing fringe. BMK (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, my point is that there is a continuum of mad ideas from Dr. Oz's exploitative but largely harmless quack diets at one end to Velikovsky's fantastical nonsense at the other; along the continuum lie various conspiracy theories, being closer to or further from the axis of sanity. Chemtrails and AIDS denialism are well into the lunatic fringe, suspicion of the acts of government not so much. Big companies spend fortunes trying to manipulate government. As just one example, legislators with vested interests in the supplement industry piloted through, with the aid of costly industry lobbying, laws which effectively exempt the industry form scrutiny. We know about this because it's virtually impossible to keep any conspiracy secret. That's why the secret conspiracies revealed only by pioneering "researchers" with no relevant academic qualifications, tend to be placed on the continuum of nutjobbery.

Maybe you can think of an example of a conspiracy theory (i.e. an accusation of a conspiracy supported only by inference and innnuendo) that became established as fact after running in secret for decades? I can't.

The ideas for which Griffin is cited as an advocate include New World Order conspiracy theories, Big Pharma conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, AIDS conspiracy theories, chemtrail conspiracy theories. If Griffin is not a crank then he is extraordinarily credulous and has a seriously defective mechanism for separating truth from fiction. We don't know because virtually no mainstream sources even look at him, and why would they? He's a largely self-published author of conspiracy books, they are ten a penny.

As to why there are no articles on liberal kooks, I think BMK might be onto something. I can't imagine a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh, and most of the things that liberals assert are evil - things like industry funded astroturfing on climate change and creationist astroturfing on evolution - actually are evil conspiracies. There's a mountain of evidence that a shadowy cabal of oil industry figures is systematically working to undermine the understanding of climate change, whereas there is no credible evidence whatsoever that the Federal Reserve is part of some sinister plot to take away your sovereign citizenship. There's also the fact that the liberal approach to nutjobbery tends to be intelligent satire that makes it into press, whereas the conservative approach to nutjobbery is either apoplectic rage or (if it's ideologically consonant) enthusiastic praise. I can't imagine a right wing version of Private Eye any more than I can imagine a left wing Rush Limbaugh.

The more I look at the issues of sourcing any mainstream commentary on Griffin, the less persuaded I am that he is notable at all. This looks more and more like a side note on Glenn Beck's not-so-illustrious career. The Keep !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination) are classic of their kind: "brand new" users shouting "keep!" because they like what he says. Liking what he says is not notability, and neither is finding what he says risible. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think JzG is arguing that we say that the person is a nutjob in the article text. However, it is important to keep a straightforward perspective on these matters and we don't want to bend over backwards trying to make the ideas Griffin promotes seem less WP:FRINGE than they are. jps (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding polemic material to the growing list of WP:Civility issues here. It has nothing to do with content. Such comments are clearly PAs and extremely offensive. In fact, their presence here actually raises concern over whether the editors making such comments should be collaborating on this article. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 15:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You bandy around the WP:OMG links rather freely, but consistently fail to actually back them up. It is not polemical to note that Griffin promotes conspiracy theoriees, and to list some of those he promotes. It is not polemical to note that the dearth of reliable sources speaks to a lack of actual notability, or that the majority of sources which cite him are, to be blunt, insane. There's no significant informed dissent from the fact that sites like whale.to, infowars and David Icke are bastions of irrationality. Griffin's a Truther, a chemtrailer, a New World Order believer, quite likely a creationist given his claims on the Ark, a believer in the Big Pharma conspiracy theory and in sundry other ways divorced from the real world as Wikipedia knows it. That's a simple fact. You don't like it, we get that. Your attempts to whitewash the article by airbrushing these facts out of history, however, are unimpressive. You are better than that. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

archiving

there are lots of discussions here that i think are done and is getting hard (for me at least) to find stuff. i'm archiving everything above the imposition of the 1RR, and quite a few sections below that where nobody has commented for a while OR where there was either no discussion of actual content going on, or no real disagreement.

I've left sections where actual content proposals are being discussed, and some of the other key sections (1RR imposition, etc).

• The RfC is at the very top of archive 7, here.
• The link to the section discussing the AN review of the close is here (the actual link to the AN close is here).

if anybody objects please feel free to revert me...

I am really hoping we can use the Talk page to discuss proposals to add or remove content.

Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jekyll Island book

The second sentence of this section appears to fail verification, and "bestseller" is weaselly stated, suggesting one of the noteworthy lists when it turns out to be a reference to a Canadian bookstore's ranking. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

please suggest a concrete change. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any RS discussion of this book. To my knowledge, it is not taken seriously by historians or economists who would have written about it. I suggest deleting the second sentence, that's the only concrete proposal I can offer at this time. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

proposal for section on Jekyll Island

Re-presenting just one of the two paragraphs of the content i proposed before, as this paragraph (not the other) received mostly positive feedback. This would be a new second paragraph:

According to the preface of the book, Griffin argues that Federal Reserve should be abolished because: "It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives. It is a cartel operating against the public interest. It is the supreme instrument of usury. It generates our most unfair tax. It encourages war. It destabilizes the economy. It is an instrument of totalitarianism." Griffin also argues that the Federal Reserve should be replaced with a currency backed by precious metals.

References

OK with folks? I am bit concerned that it is self-sourced, but I think this is OK as it is brief and so avoids UNDUE, and the article could use this, per Serialjoepsycho's comment above. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking per my remark below Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

If -- if -- the article is to contain self-sourced statements of Griffin's view then it should also provide the context of the mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially considering the mainstream view as well as popular view both agree with Griffin. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme would you please bring sources showing that the ("the") mainstream view agrees with Griffin. Mainstream economic textbooks treat the Fed as a normal central bank, that functions like central banks in other developed countries. See for example chapters 9 and 10 in Carl E. Walsh Monetary Theory and Policy MIT Press. 2010 ISBN-13: 978-0262013772, which describe these banks (and the Fed in particular) and how they function. I could see arguments being made that there is some mainstream support for Griffin but I don't see the argument that "the" mainstream nor even the world as it is supports or reflects Griffin's views. The Fed is there; our money is not based on precious metals, etc. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, I withdraw this proposal. I don't believe it will find consensus. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. This is not likely to be a constructive approach and would entail original research which ultimately could not be used in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for references to World Without Cancer

We need an updated approach that is compliant with WP:Fringe, specifically referencing the fact that amygdalin is still being researched which is primarily what Griffin has advocated for in his book, DVD and in his lectures. The results are published in updated high quality peer reviewed journals, and indicate that amygdalin is effective in treating laboratory animals and in-vitro. A recent report in the Cancer Journal states: Amygdalin is a natural product that owns antitumor activity, less side effects, widely sourced and relatively low priced. All these features make the amygdalin a promising antitumor drugs, if combined with conditional chemotherapy drugs, which can produce synergistic effect. [14]. Other research indicates similar results, [15] [16] [17]. According to WP:Fringe, and WP:FRINGEBLP, it warrants inclusion as an update to ongoing research. I'm not suggesting we give it undue weight, just that it warrants inclusion per PAG as it relates to what Griffin actually promotes, not what an editor claims he promotes from their POV. Perhaps an RfC is in order. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 15:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That content and its sourcing would not comply with WP:MEDRS. MEDRS describes 2 kinds of secondary sources - reviews in the literature and statements by major scientific and medical bodies. For the first category, we have the Cochrane review from 2011 cited in our article which is authoritative as it gets in that category, and for major bodies, we have the NCI and the ACS, which are also both very strong in that category. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

These issues were raised at BLPN and I raised it at the Fringe notice board here. Both found that presenting amygalin as a valid cancer treatment is not supportable and the Fringe board determined that this is FRINGE/pseudoscience. As it is, we treat it per WP:PSCI which is what the arbcom decision that is currently primary for us, is about. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You are advocating a novel synthesis from primary sources that is contradicted by secondary and indeed tertiary sources. This has been pointed out to you so many times by now that I think it is reasonable to ask why you keep raising it. The scientific and medical consensus is absolutely and abundantly clear: laetrile is quackery. As far as I can tell, this is stated clearly and unambiguously by every major medical organisation or cancer charity that expresses a view; dissent comes primarily from quacks, crooks and charlatans (e.g. the Oasis of Hype Hope in Mexico, a justly infamous quack cancer retreat).

Moreover, Griffin's claims about laetrile, namely that it is a vitamin and that lack of this vitamin is the cause of cancer, and that taking amygdalin can thus cure cancer, is entirely wrong. There is zero credible scientific support for this belief, then or now.

Griffin's claim that the medical and scientific community have suppressed these facts in order to protect their income, would remain an evidence-free conspiracy theory even if amygdalin were found to have some useful anti-tumour activity, because it is not, and never has been, a vitamin, there has never been any credible evidence to support its use as promulgated by Krebs and promoted by Griffin, and there is compelling evidence that Krebs' ideas were simply wrong.They were tested, the tests showed them to be wrong, and nobody continued to use Kreb's protocols other than quacks.

You are talking here about a dangerous quack cancer remedy that has been shown not to work, whose only documented effect is cyanide poisoning, and whose advocates have been prosecuted over a period of some decades. There's no need to even go into the long term problems with alternative medicine studies emanating from china in order to dismiss the idea that these studies (not in reality independent: three come from the same group) in order to understand that this research would never, even if it were borne out by other research, validate the laetrile scam. I have already reminded you about the hierarchy of evidence in medicine. In vitro studies are the bottom of the hierarchy, Cochrane reviews near the top. To advocate otherwise is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:FRINGE.

You apparently accepted this once and said you would leave the subject alone. Now you have come back with fresh zeal. I find this inexplicable unless you have been receiving counsel or encouragement from quackery advocates. The real-world consensus view on this particular medical fraud is just about as obvious as it gets in respect of quackery.

In fact, you give every appearance of caring less about this article than about the legitimacy of laetrile. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this is so clear, what's the right way to get it dealt with? We can't have an encyclopedia article that includes input (even on a talk page) from this sort of perspective. But we're not making headway; Atsme isn't going to withdraw voluntarily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because what I'm reading in WP:FRINGE doesn't say what you're saying. In fact, there are all kinds of disease research articles on WP that include research sections listing all kinds of in-vitro and mouse studies that cite various Journals like what I have done above. Classic example: Alzheimer's_disease#Research_directions which actually includes information like: One Aβ vaccine was found to be effective against inclusion body myositis in mouse models. And A 2013 study showed that translocator protein can prevent and partially treat Alzheimer's disease in mice. Therefore, if it is your intent to suppress information from this article regarding amygdalin which is currently being researched, and if you are of the mind that what I cited above (which meets the same criteria as what is being cited throughout WP), you are going to need a much better argument. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - Parkinson's disease#Research There is little prospect of dramatic new PD treatments expected in a short time frame. Currently active research directions include the search for new animal models of the disease and studies of the potential usefulness of gene therapy, stem cell transplants and neuroprotective agents. And guess what? Both are FAs, so please stop telling me that what I'm proposing is not acceptable. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The information that you have provided doesn't relate to Griffin. It looks like you are building your own case for what Griffin advocates, perhaps you could start a blog. There may be a place to discuss Amygdalin and cancer research that doesn't fall under fringe. That's not here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It demonstrates that ongoing research is acceptable in WP articles, which is contrary to what I was told when inclusion of updated scientific research in this article was denied. Review the prior discussions for further information. Also, please refrain from making snarky comments about me like you did above. It's much better to collaborate in GF with our focus on article content. Also, the comment you made when you first arrived here appears to have a hidden meaning: [18] I probably shouldn't bother posting here seeing that Atsme is here, but why not. Care to explain? I was going to post notice on your TP re: BLP, PSCI, and Austrian Gold DS sanctions that apply here, but then I saw the profanity in your edit summary to ChrisGualtieri and changed my mind. [19] I think those notices are what Callanecc does anyway. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 05:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The comment should be obvious to you Atsme, and interestingly it only became problematic when I came with a side that was the opposite of yours[20]. That is actually the reason for the comment. People come off the opposite side of something and they put you into battleground mode.

You'd to point out the snarky comment. Telling you to go start a blog is advice and more specifically it's Wikipedia's advice you can see at WP:NOTADVOCATE. And on going research is acceptable to mention on Wikipedia, but that isn't exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about Griffin. You mention Griffin has primarily advocated for research. You don't provide a source for this, you don't even mention that he advocated for this type of research. You make a case based off Parkinson's disease#Research for it's inclusion here, but it's not a strong case. Really sounds like a discussion to have at Amygdalin but they seem to have a section for that Amygdalin#Subsequent_clinical_studies.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme: first and foremost, what you are engaging in is a novel synthesis from primary sources. Whether or not amydalin finds a future clinical use is irrelevant, because the Krebs claim that Griffin espouses is categorically false in every important respect. Amygdalin is not a vitamin, deficiency of this "vitamin" does not cause cancer, supplementing the "vitamin" does not cure cancer, and the Big Pharma conspiracy theory of suppression is thus entirely without merit.

Second, it is a battleground. A battle against quackery in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Wikipedia to hold back the lunatic charlatans whose motivation and determination to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Wikipedia to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects, and a battleground in this article because no matter how many times people explain to you that the sources you promote are irrelevant to Griffin's claims, you absolutely refuse to drop the stick. Every time you make the same proposal, you escalate the heat. Every time you fail to heed consensus, you contribute to the atmosphere of battle. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you keep telling me to drop the stick which indicates to me that I am not allowed to ask questions or make proposals. Your behavior is contrary to NPOV and FRINGE which clearly states: Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. See WP:NPOV#Controversial topics <--and notice how Wiki titles its section header. Where does it say we cannot include it? Please explain to me why my question is WP:BATTLEGROUND and your statement is not WP:ADVOCACY. You are basically telling me that I cannot add updates to 30+ year old scientific research even when it is properly sourced and not given WP:UNDUE in the article. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand my point. You need to stop making querulous demands to change the representation of the status of his views on laetrile. Your claims have been aired in full, discussed, and rejected, several times. Just that. I am not saying leave the article entirely, I am saying: stop demanding that we use new research at the lowest tier of the hierarchy of evidence, which does not override the much higher tier evidence showing it to be quackery, and does not in any case validate the claims Griffin makes about laetrile, in order to pretend that his book and published statements on laetrile are in any way valid. You are proposing a novel synthesis fomr primary sources, which is not only impermissible by policy, it's also factually incorrect in the context in which you make the demand. You already acknowledged that I know a lot more about the background to this, than you do. I am right out of different ways of explaining it. The consensus view on laetrile, then and now, is as currently reflected in the article, and to change it in any way would make the article worse and less accurate, not better. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme - WP:MEDRS rules here and this is a completely different subject than Emerson, whose political views were misrepresented. This is one subject that I will stand with Guy on because the circumstances are different and this is an area of Wikipedia which WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics are handled entirely differently given the nature and history in the area. Please - do not proceed on this one, Wikipedia should not be a place of endless strife. The content does not meet WP:MEDRS and therefore it will not be acceptable to be used. Also - Serialjoepsycho is aware of the AC/DS (as you also are Atsme) - I can care less about whether or not he tells me to "fuck off" or whatever. SJP's last comment is not very helpful, but please listen to Guy on this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on article content not editor behavior, and show me where in WP:MEDRS it states that my request is not supported. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• • PS - if anything it supports my request - Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 14:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, how many times does it have to be said? We do not follow your judgment of what "biomedical information" it might be "vital" to include when talking about amygdalin (in order, apparently, to avoid giving the reader the entirely mainstream impression that it is a quack cancer "cure", as stated by the FDA, MSKCC, ACS and every other reputable body), we follow the consensus view of reliable independent sources about the specific claims that Griffin makes. The salient points here are:

1. Griffin claims that cancer is caused by deficiency in a vitamin, B17. This is categorically false. There is no such vitamin.
2. Griffin claims that amygdalin is rich in vitamin B17. This is categorically false. There is no such vitamin.
3. Griffin claims that taking amygdalin can cure cancer (generically) because it contains vitamin B17. This is categorically false. There is no vitamin B17 and there is extensive evidence that amygdalin (also branded laetrile) does not cure cancer as claimed by advocates.
4. Griffin claims that there is a conspiracy by doctors and scientists to suppress this, in order to protect their financial interests. This is categorically false. The medical establishment at that time did not recognise laetrile as a cure for cancer because there was no evidence it was true, and that is the position today as well, as evidenced by statements cited above fomr major national cancer charities, hospitals, regulators and so on. The consensus view today is that amygdalin is not a cure for cancer.
5. In making these claims, Griffin is pursuing a trope promoted by the John Birch Society, a group with which he is closely associated. This is a group associated with the illegal trade in laetrile and with Ernesto Contreras, a prominent laetrile quack. The context of his statements is, unambiguously, the illegal promotion of a quack cancer cure.

As explained many times now, the studies you cite, which are in any case both WP:PRIMARY sources and at the lowest tier of the evidential hierarchy, witht he Cochrane reviews and other government-level overviews we already cite at the top, do not in any way change the fact that Griffin's advocacy of laetrile is squarely withint he realm of the refuted quack claim of amydgalin as a source of the non-existent vitamin B17.

At this point you can either shut up or start an RfC on inclusion of the plainly irrelevant claims you advocate, and agree to abide by that. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy - the reason we end up with walls of text is because you keep making me repeat my question. Show me where it states in the policies (inline text attribution) in support of why you consider the following to be unacceptable. Your synth argument doesn't apply because the Cancer Journal and PLONE reports are both self-contained: A recent report in the Cancer Journal states: "Amygdalin is a natural product that owns antitumor activity, less side effects, widely sourced and relatively low priced. All these features make the amygdalin a promising antitumor drugs, if combined with conditional chemotherapy drugs, which can produce synergistic effect." [21]. and Example text Provide the supporting statements from policy, and if they are applicable I will gladly drop the issue. Thank you. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating your question because you don't like the answer. The answer is the same every time: no. The "ongoing research" is barely significant in the article on amygdalin and is completely irrelevant to this article because it is in no way related to Griffin's claims about amygdalin. As I said. Repeatedly.

The policies, I also pointed out. You are seeking to replace a consensus view form WP:MEDRS compliant secondary and tertiary sources at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, with a novel synthesis from WP:PRIMARY sources at the bottom of the evidential hierarchy. Reversing the hierarchy of evidence is a repeatable behaviour of quacks and charlatans (the Bornhoft and Matthieson report on homeopathy being a perfect example) but it is never permissible on Wikipedia. When the American Cancer Society, FDA, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and others state that cancer is caused by deficiency of vitamin B17 and can be cured by amygdalin which is rich in said vitamin, then we change this article. Not until then. It will happen around about the heat death of the universe, because it is, and always has been, entirely false. What they actually say is that it's dangerous quackery.

There are many hurdles that would have to be cleared before those papers resulted in any treatment, the chances of it turning out to be a universal cure for all cancers, as Griffin and the other laetrile shills advocate, are between zero and none at all. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PMID 25207888 is, technically speaking, not a primary study but a review article. I'm not advocating for its inclusion but I do not think it's fair to label a review article as a primary source just because you're unable to recognize the differences between the two. -A1candidate 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

True enough. It is, however, entirely irrelevant because it either does not reference the claims made by Griffin (no such thing as vitamin B17, etc) and also notes that the form of treatment advocated by the Birchers is highly toxic. Laetrile does not cure cancer, neither does amygdalin. It may be a useful adjuvant therapy, but this paper won't change much because it comes fomr a group in China (where alt med claims are routinely treated credulously and few if any negative results are published). Laetrile as a primary treatment for cancer is refuted, as is the basis on which it is promoted. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, your third party sources do nothing for your case. This all amounts to original research, nothing more. Though perhaps unintentional, this would introduce bias to the article. This seems to be an effort to legitimize Griffin's positions. Grffin does not need Wikipedia or it's editors to do so. He can do it on his own. Unduly as in undue weight. But if you would like to do so (as with my previous "unhelpful" statement) go start a blog. Now if you are suggesting that Griffin has promoted this type of research (not just research in general) of amygdalin,to produce future drugs, you might have something to be discussed. That is a hypothetical and probably shouldn't mention it. Regardless of what you do find, this article will not be written in a way that would reasonable suggest that going to Mexico and getting shot up with amygdalin (or related current treatment) is a viable treatment for cancer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So according to the explanations relating to my sources above, the following sources would also not be acceptable: [22], [23], and dates wouldn't matter, either? Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 21:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Amygdalin is a natural product that owns antitumor activity, less side effects, widely sourced and relatively low priced. All these features make the amygdalin a promising antitumor drugs, if combined with conditional chemotherapy drugs, which can produce synergistic effect. The prose suggestion is poorly written, but it does not address and back up the claims that the Amygdalin works at all. The fact that clinical testing found it to be dangerous and ineffective can not be waved away. I do not think you understand why the statement is flawed. Replace Amygdalin with a sugar pill placebo and you'd have the same valid statement - minus the potential cyanide poisoning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed: "Clinical testing" cannot show that it is ineffective because there have been no randomized controlled trials undertaken yet. RCT is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine and therefore, one cannot claim effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) until an RCT has been performed. If you think amygdalin is ineffective, the only way to convince the medical community would be to do an RCT. -A1candidate 23:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait - I think there may be a misunderstanding. ChrisGualtieri - did you think the prose I was proposing to include was as follows: Amygdalin is a natural product that owns antitumor activity, less side effects, widely sourced and relatively low priced. All these features make the amygdalin a promising antitumor drugs, if combined with conditional chemotherapy drugs, which can produce synergistic effect.?? If so, uh oh. No, no. That was an excerpt from the Journal which is nothing at all like the prose I was suggesting. I was just demonstrating updated research. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 23:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV summary is: amygdalin (also branded laetrile) is a quack cancer cure., Griffin's claims ere refuted. WP:NOR forbids the text you propose. Try raising an rfc, since your proposals are universally rejected here. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 00:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability question (brought down from Lede: conspiracy theories)

I started a new section for this discussion because it was getting buried in the Lede section above, and was difficult to find. With regards to the guy's notability, I would think the following plays an important role:

• His site Reality Zone ranks 120,628 on Alexus Alexa, whereas one of the citations used as an opposing view is ranked 735,831.
• Advice from 3x Pulitzer winning editor at the NYTimes, David Barstow advised: "You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this." I would think if the NYTimes is recommending closer attention, WP should consider that notable. (see OP in Archive 7)
• Book reviewer, Michael J. Ross: "In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." (see OP in Archive 7)
• Argentinian author, Adrian Salbuchi: "In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the 'FED' – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'. (see OP in Archive 7)
• WSJ article [24] gives a nice balanced report like we'd expect from ethical journalism.

I'd say the above justifies notability, but there are many more if you feel it's needed. Atsme☯^Consult 23:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to appeal to specific notability guidelines to make your case convincing. Citing people who simply mention Griffin's book is not evidence for passing WP:BIO. It may apply to WP:NBOOK. Also, what is "Alexus"? jps (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't argue for the sake of argument, especially in a pointless notability debate that was resolved years ago. Alexus is an inadvertent misspelling of Alexa. I corrected it. Atsme☯^Consult 12:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The comment from Barstow qualifies as a passing mention, and is about the book not about Griffin. He says virtually nothing about Griffin. The WSJ article, I do not have full text so cannot avaluate how much it says about Griffin. We already know that laetrile is a notable cancer fraud, we have abundant sourcing for that in the article on amygdalin. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So I'm interested in what was convincing about the sourcing from the previous AfD. From what I can see, the sources may have all been due to Glenn Beck's promotion which does not sit well with me. Does Arthur Rubin still find the case for notability convincing? jps (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair point. My simple-minded old school test is: has this person been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources? The answer is a resounding: no. I know these days we tease articles out of scraps of tabloid cuttings, which may be OK for a famous-for-being-famous reality TV "celebrity" but for a contentious biography where virtually every word the subject writes is generally either ignored (the supermajority case) or ridiculed by sources with any kind of reputation, there is an extremely good case for going back to the original test - which existed in no small part because without such sources it is impossible to ensure that we write a biography that is compliant with policy, and that has only got more complicated since WP:BLP was promoted to canonical policy, introducing (in this case certainly, and in others too) a substantial tension between the foundational WP:NPOV and the ethical WP:BLP. We simply cannot pretend that Griffin's writing is anything other than conspiracist claptrap, without fundamentally betraying the mission (see Wikipedia:Lunatic Charlatans for Jimbo's take on that). The problem here, to my eyes, is that we are making a biography out of passing comments about the nonsense he writes, not out of secondary sources discussing him directly. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I was actually wondering if any of the editors who are criticizing Griffin's books have actually read them? My concerns originate from the fact that some of our editors are unable to recognize his notability, which explains why they question it. Perhaps that explains why we have met with so much resistance collaborating to improve /expand this article? If editors cannot recognize his notability or what he has accomplished as an author (from a NPOV perspective), how can they be expected to improve/expand this BLP? Following are links that establish notability according to policy WP:NRV and also Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] Atsme☯^Consult 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you disagree, that goes without saying. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Your sources are pretty awful. Here's a beginning of the accounting:

1. CHR is a scientology front organization.
2. The Daily Bell is a fringe outfit that promotes Austrian Economics
3. Your third source simply off-handedly mentions Griffin. There's nothing there except to acknowledge he was at some event.
4. An appearance on Coast to Coast AM has not historically been considered good enough to establish notability.
5. The Forbes contributor, Nathan Lewis, is a blogpost and is not subject to editorial review.
6. globaldeflationnews.com is another self-published monography/news agglomerator. Not a proper independent source that would be necessary to establish outside notability
7. corbettreport.com is even worse than the above... total self-published nonsense.
8. ...etc...

In short, you don't seem to have a very strong list of sources here. Can you please try to be a bit more discerning? jps (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that Atsme is prepared to cite conspiracy crank websites as "evidence" of notability while simultaneously opposing the idea that Griffin is a conspiracy crank. Geoengineeringwatch as a source? Not even in chemtrail conspiracy theory. It's an irrational conspiracy nut site. It's telling that many of these have already been discussed and shown not to pass WP:RS.

• http://www.cchr.org.au/video/157-psychiatry-a-politics-with-g-edward-griffin - as noted above, a Scientology front organisation.
• http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/34836/Anthony-Wile-G-Edward-Griffin-on-Globalism-Collectivism-and-Right-Principles/ - As noted above, fringe website.
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/boston-tea-party-group-lu_b_796412.html - As noted above, a passing mention in a blog post by Chip Berlet.
• http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/griffin-g-edward/40092 - not independent, this will be a PR biog supplied to the station by Griffin (as evidence the uncritical tone).
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/11/13/lets-meet-the-hard-money-extremists/ - Valid source for facts, but not for notability, as it's a blog post and discusses Griffin only among other items.
• http://www.globaldeflationnews.com/twenty-years-later-g-edward-griffin-is-still-taking-on-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/ - fringe website, no evidence of editorial board or fact-checking.
• https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-794-g-edward-griffin-unmasks-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/ - self-published, fringe website.
• http://www.theamericanview.com/exclusive-interview-g-edward-griffin/ - hard-right website, no evidence of editorial board or fact-checking.
• http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/g-edward-griffin-saving-us-totalitarianism - Libertarian fringe finance website.
• http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/13/the-federal-reserve-is-a-cartel-g-edward-griffin/ "an online source for world news, political analysis, and opinion commentary from outside the standard framework offered by the mainstream corporate media."
• http://goldsilver.com/news/g-edward-griffin-coming-replacement-for-the-dollar-secrets-of-the-banking-system-gold-and-silver/
• http://www.c-span.org/person/?ggriffin - Listings entry, no substantive content.
• http://rt.com/shows/capital-account/edward-griffin-federal-reserve/ - not a WP:RS.
• http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/g-edward-griffin-talks-candidly-about-chemtrailssag/ - You have to be kidding, right?
• http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/03/26/who-is-g-edward-griffin-becks-expert-on-the-fed/177986 - reliable for facts but does not establish notability.
• http://www.rechargebiomedical.com/tag/g-edward-griffin/ - Not even close to a WP:RS, site selling supplements with questionable claims.
• http://2012.freedomfest.com/new-speakers/ - OK, you are kidding.
• http://conservativeread.com/how-are-socialism-communism-and-fascism-all-the-same/ - "Conservative Read is a Popular Conservative Blog for breaking news and We Cover Politics, World, Gop Conservatism, Nascar, Cats, Economics and Sales." - Abject WP:RS fail.

Only a couple of these would pass WP:RS for any claim at all, and none constitutes a substantive source to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears we don't have the requisite notability required for WP:BIO. It is amazing, but the mentions of this character are all pretty much impossibly poor in terms of sourcing quality. They are either off-handed or they are unreliable. I would welcome more sources being identified if there are any. jps (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:RS, WP:Notability, and WP:FRINGE, but don't be concerned. We have RS-N to help out in such matters, and if that doesn't work, we can initiate an RfC. If that doesn't work, there's always an AN-review of the RfC, and if that doesn't work we can keep trying the various DR processes until we get this article right once and for all. In the interim, I suggest that you start reading the relevant PAGs because you appear to be confused about what constitutes a RS and notability. You might want to start with WP:FRINGE#Examples - ....the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia. Please keep in mind the issues plaguing Griffin are/have been noncompliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V, which still need to be corrected. The issue isn't notability. There surely are some RS issues, but not on my end. For example, Popular Paranoia is not a RS to justify a contentious statement in the lede, so I will probably call an RfC on that as soon as I get a chance. Also, there is nothing in any of the policies I've read that prohibits inclusion of fringe views in this article as long as they are presented properly and not given undue weight. Thank you for the time you've invested, but you might want to read the relevant policies again so you won't invest anymore of it needlessly. Atsme☯^Consult 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That you disagree, goes without saying. What you seem unable to comprehend is that we have read the policies every bit as thoroughly as you have. You are under the misapprehension that yours is the only reasonable interpretation of these policies. Astonishingly, you remain convinced of this despite rather compelling evidence that other Wikipedians at least as experienced as you, disagree profoundly. Your relentless assertion that policy can only be interpreted as you interpret it, is disruptive and impedes civil discourse. Which part of policy do you think supports using a chemtrail conspiracist blog as a source supporting - well, anything? I think you have become so wrapped up in your crusade to create a flatteirng article that you have lost connection with the true aims of the project. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The way to solicit consensus as to Griffin's notability would be to open a WP:AFD. I would be surprised to see the article deleted. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it would be surprising because of the WP:ADVOCACY here or because there are actually good arguments to Keep? jps (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I am discussing RS and article content while you continue to criticize me for no other reason than you don't like my attempts to make this article better. I'm sitting here reading what you said: "your crusade to create a flatteirng article that you have lost connection with the true aims of the project." and still find it hard to believe. Perhaps you can explain to me what you believe are "the true aims of the project" because I was under the impression our job is to create encyclopedic content that is good enough to pass the high standards of a FA review. I'm not the one who is on a crusade, Guy. Atsme☯^Consult 19:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You say you are "discussing RS and article content", but that is obfuscation. Your "reliable" sources for notability, are anything but. That is what this discussion (which you started) is about. Notability. Specifically, the absence of any reliable sources to substantiate it.

Again, you consistently state matters as if your opinion is the only defensible one. Try occasionally allowing for the possibility that one or more of the numerous people who disagree with you, might not be entirely wrong. How about that, eh?

The reason I am finding this article so very frustrating is that when you make a proposal, and it is rejected, your reaction is to carry on as if nothing happened. You would help here by acknowledging that you now accept the consensus view on the article's representation of his writing on laetrile. That would at least show that you are revising your views in response to consensus, because it looks to me very much as if you're not. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

blah

Side discussion - discussion is about notability, arguing both ways is perfectly fine (no distracting allegations there). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your allegations are a distraction from improving this article. Griffin's notability has long been established. Attempts to bring his notability issue back to the table is disruptive, and I imagine it would also warrant intervention by Callanecc. I ask that you please stop. Atsme☯Consult 14:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Oh FFS -- you start a section on notability, and then you castigate someone for writing a post on that issue that departs from your own narrow strictures. A priceless nugget, even: "Attempts to bring his notability issue back to the table is disruptive" -- again, in a section on the topic that you started. Get real. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC) User:Nomoskedasticity please stop your PAs. I moved this discussion to it's own section because it was a discussion started by JzG above. I did not start it. If you read the section title, it clearly states: (brought down from Lede: conspiracy theories). Atsme☯Consult 14:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Atsme, you are behaving unreasonably. You started a discussion on notability, then declare post-hoc that this is only allowed to include positive evidence of notability, thus begging the very question you purport to ask, and then you cry foul when someone calls you on it. You are not the only person who gets a say, you are not the owner of this talk page or of this article, you do not get to choose who answers and what they choose to say, and in fact on current evidence we are fully entitled to ignore you altogether since you're very often in a minority of one. In particular, your apparent belief that even questioning the notability of the subject might lead to arbitration enforcement is - well, I have no words. Really? you really think that responding to a question about notability by commenting directly on notability is a matter for enforcement? That is utterly bizarre. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC) It's not very nice for you to start a new section on a talkpage and then tell everyone else that they cannot have the discussion. jps (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC) If you find there has been a problem with something I've said or done, please provide the diff. I will be happy to apologize. I will also clearly state that it was not intentional. I have asked you numerous times to please focus on article content and improving the article. Instead you are making spurious accusations against me that have absolutely no basis. Again, provide the diffs that show I have behaved unreasonably. I am of the opinion that trying to convince editors that Griffin is not notable is unreasonable and disruptive and I am pinging Callanecc to please look into this matter. Atsme☯Consult 23:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC) how about: starting a section discussing notability and then threatening anybody who challenges your belief in the notability of the subject and anybody who points out that you did that? I'd provide drifts but looking up a couple of lines makes that kind of redundant. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed AfD nomination text

This WP:BIO superficially seems to have a lot of sources. Indeed, the last AfD where it was kept seemed convinced that such sources were forthcoming. It may have seen at that time that it would have been possible for the subject of the article, G. Edward Griffin, to become notable enough for an article as he was being promoted by Glenn Beck as an authoritative voice in opposition to the Federal Reserve.

To be clear, the article falls under our WP:FRINGEBLP guideline which asks us to consider both the biographical aspects of the article and the fringe-theory promotion that can come with it. One of the biggest issues we have with sourcing fringe articles is the issue of independent sourcing. Fringe sources which lack the level of reliability we would normally require are not enough to establish notability. We require outside notice and this is something that this article does not seem to have. The sources are all primary sources to Griffin's works, websites, and acolytes on the one hand or to extremely fringe ideological groups on the other. Going through the Google Scholar hits is particularly disheartening. All that is found are off-handed mentions (not enough to establish notability or ensure any sense of a possible WP:NPOV compliance) or completely unreliable sources such as blogposts or John Birch Society-type newsletters. Simply not what we can use to establish notability.

To play devil's advocate, there are essentially only three sources I can find which come close to the WP:FRIND ideal, and they are not enough to pass our threshold, in my estimation. The first is this agglomeration from media matters. The only problem is that it is essentially a collection of quotes from Griffin with nothing to guide us on as to his notability. It's essentially an inherited claim from mediamatters evaluation of Glenn Beck. Second is A science blog from Australia and the source doesn't really speak to the person of Griffin as much as his claims about a certain quack cancer treatment. In any case, I'm hesitant about using blogs for notability establishment especially in WP:BLPs. The third is yet another blog from Forbes.com which suffers similarly as the second source. Neither of these last two sources do a particularly convincing job of establishing Griffin as notable. Rather, they are almost a testament to his lack of notability, they seem to focus on his obscurity and marginalization as a telling feature which is almost a News of the Weird-style that is warned about in WP:NFRINGE.

At the end of the day, we are supposed to err on the side of caution with respect to WP:BLPs. Our question should be, "Is it possible, given the available sources, to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on this living person?" In the case of this person, it does not seem possible because sources simply do not exist that seriously deal with the person or his oeuvre as a subject. We are looking at a person who is famous only in WP:FRINGE circles, which is historically a strong delete argument here. The superficial appearance of many WP:GHITS (all of which are to sources that are not independent enough to serve as reliable sources of his notability) is not enough to establish a serious bibliography that would be necessary to write an article on the subject. It is possible to quotemine some individual statements of independent journalists and commentators who have offhandedly mentioned this person, but offhanded mention is not the standard for WP:GNG.

Someday, a group of academics may write an exhaustive analysis of members of the John Birch Society. Maybe Griffin will be afforded the outside attention that would be necessary for us to actually treat the subject fairly. Until that time, I do not think it appropriate that Wikipedia have an article on this person.

jps (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared to add the nomination based on the above rationale. Would you like me to do that? Guy (Help!) 06:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait for more feedback. My concern is that the ongoing controversy here may simply spill over into the AfD space muddying the waters. I would like to see how the objections line up here and perhaps offer tweaks (or even rejection of the AfD if the case can actually be made convincing) so as to better address the concerns. I'm still not certain what it was that scuttled the AfD the last time. jps (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And I get criticized for writing walls of text. Too funny. May I suggest that if you're planning to propose an AfD, you might want to come up with a substantive argument first. To be clear, this article is about an author who writes books about controversial topics, some of which are considered fringe topics. WP:FRINGE is only a guideline, not a policy. The policy we are supposed to strictly adhere to with regards to this article is WP:BLP with some reference to WP:FRINGEBLP which is actually a circular reference to the primary policy. Of course the 3 core content policies apply, WP:NPOV which is where this article has issues, WP:V, and WP:NOR. With regards to RS, below are some excerpts I've collected and tweaked for brevity from knowledgeable editors you may or may not find useful:

Reliable Sources 101 - A common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. RS-N cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.)

A book by members of a think tank published by the think tank would normally be reliable for the views of that body, or the views of the movement of which it is part. It's better than a blog, but it's not a neutral description of anything. Such books may be well researched (e.g. some form the Centre for Policy Studies) or may be worthless (anything from the creationists, usually). I'd normally look for independent evidence of its significance, in references in other sources.

A book published by a university tends to be much more reliable, as long as it's a decent university. So books published by Louisiana Baptist University would be worthless as sources, but books published by Cambridge University Press are generally highly regarded. University presses are commercial organisations and most will have a Chinese wall between them and the institution, they are a favoured route for publication of the work of academics in the university but simply being on faculty does not guarantee acceptance. These essentially count as peer-reviewed sources in normal usage, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

A book or report authored by an expert on the topic, published by their own publishing company or a pay-to-publish company would be considered self-published and reliable only as an indication of that person's view on something, and not normally outside an article on the author.

If information is shown to be inaccurate? Depends on how. A retracted paper should not be quoted in an article on the topic of the paper, but may be quoted, and the retraction noted, in discussion on the development of the idea (e.g. Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper in the article on MMR and autism). Information that is contradicted by other sources may be a case for balanced coverage (A says X< B says Y) or may be a case where this would be false balance. We should not quote an AIDS denialist in an article on HIV, even if we then go on to show them to be wrong, but we might well cover ideas once thought to be plausible and subsequently falsified, or we may cover wilful denialism in the context of ongoing holdouts against settled science. So there's no one size fits all there, the guide should be WP:WEIGHT.

A source with an agenda may be a reliable source in respect of accusations of bigotry. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a good reputation for accurately identifying hate groups, whereas several religious extremists do not. If the group making the claim is significant or of substantial academic reputation then it is generally legitimate to attribute a claim to them (WP:ATT), but not to state the claim as fact in Wikipedia's voice. In most cases it is better by far to find a reliable independent secondary source that weighs up the competing claims, rather than weigh them ourselves.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) Don't all editors have an auto sign feature? Atsme☯^Consult 01:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please review the General Notability Guideline. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say an AfD would fail. Even a notorious deletionist like myself, much as I despise the guy's crackpot ideas, is forced to concede that he is well-known in certain portions of U.S. culture. I think he passes GNG. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I said the same above. I'd be surprised to see the article deleted, but I hope we will stay on track with the standard it must meet. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that the text Atsme refers to applies to obviously notable subjects and discussions of notable crank ideas. The claims in Jekyll Island are established to be notable crank ideas, and the coverage would probably justify an article on the book (as long as the article correctly noted that it's regarded by real economists as a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys, or, more commonly, ignored altogether). However, in the context of an article on a living individual teased out form a few book reviews, some self-sourced PR puffery repeated on talk radio websites, and the like, it doesn't really apply. I have yet to see a single substantial article in a proper source that is about Griffin. A lot of what we have is actually about Glenn Beck, using Griffin only as an example of the kind of crank he features. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should not be the first place on the internets to write a biographical profile of someone, especially someone known only for being wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So what are the convincing sources for notability, OrangeMike and SPECIFICO? jps (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

None provided to date. And Atsme seems to think that nobody else is interested in improving the article. That's rubbish: we all are. It's just that the reality-based contingent don't see Atsme's proposals as doing that. Rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Atsme, you keep saying this article has NPOV issues, and you keep using invalid arguments to substantiate that claim. Your problem witht he article appears to be precisely that it does not violate NPOV, specifically that it does not represent self-published fringe ideas and conspiracy theories as if they are valid. You would materially help your case if you would state whether you have now accepted the obvious consensus in respect of laetrile. That would make it clear whether you are genuinely interested or simply stonewalling.

Only a couple of days ago you proposed geoengineeringwatch.org as a reliable source. It's a perfect example of the kind of site that finds Griffin's arguments compelling, and a perfect example of the sort of site that Wikipedia would never use as a source. You dispute the characterisation of Griffin as a proponent of conspiracy theories, and then reference a site which is devoted to expounding the chemtrail conspiracy theory, a site which notes Griffin's support for this theory. Life would be so much simpler if we could use sources like this. It would mean that we could restore "conspiracy theorist" tot he first sentence based on a hundred references. But we don't use those sources, and the mainstream doesn't either, and the lesson from the debates on this talk page is that the mainstream doesn't discuss Griffin precisely because it numbers him among those crank sources. You appear to want to have your cake and eat it: this crank website can be used to substantiate Griffin's importance, but woe betide us if we dare to note that it's a crank website lauding his crank ideas.

I've seen the same from people claiming that they have been featured in the national press, but complaining bitterly when you quote the actual coverage, which actually critiques their ideas. This double standard is endemic in the crankosphere. Dana Ullman lauds a judge as a visionary because he stopped a class action against a homeopathy company on a technicality, but in the next tweet calls the judge an idiot for stating that Ullman as a witness was "not credible", biased, and that his use of a radionics machine fatally undermined the chances of his being taken seriously.

As I've pointed out before, "this article has NPOV issues" is opinion stated as fact and at this stage in the discussion is simply obstructive. "I believe this article has NPOV issues because it says X when I think it should say Y" is a valid statement of opinion and a potential starting poitn for productive discussion, as long as it has not already been discussed and rejected. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Numbered response for easy reference - Guy's comments in green text, my response follows:

1. The claims in Jekyll Island are established to be notable crank ideas, - provide RS, please. All I've seen are a few biased articles from the progressive left, and as you pointed out, the Glen Beck article was more about Beck than Griffin. There is actually a reason for the latter but you have yet to see past the biased political persuasions of Media Matters.
2. (as long as the article correctly noted that it's regarded by real economists as a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys, or, more commonly, ignored altogether). - RS, please. The sources I provided dispute such claims.
3. Only a couple of days ago you proposed geoengineeringwatch.org as a reliable source. - [43] Read (2A) & (2B) please and then go down through the list of government and scientific documents here [44] The documentation and links they provide are quite reliable.
4. I have yet to see a single substantial article in a proper source that is about Griffin. - [45] Rebecca D. Costa [46] Hon George Brandis, Atty General of Australia, and there are many others who respect Griffin. Your casting aspersions on the guy is not helpful, and actually reflects part of the reason this BLP has NPOV issues. As a professional writer, I see things from a much different perspective. For example, when David Barstow (NYTimes, 3 Pulitzers) said: You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this.[47] I actually followed his advice, and did the research. I have researched and read a lot of different material which is what professional writers do if they want to maintain a successful career. I am confident that I have enough researched enough material to write a fair and balanced BLP on Griffin if given half the chance. What I don't understand is your strong opposition to improving this article.
5. and then reference a site which is devoted to expounding the chemtrail conspiracy theory, - explain your support of Popular Paranoia [48] which is cited in the lede of this article to justify inclusion of contentious material about Griffin. I have disputed it on more than one occasion, and remain confident that policy will eventually prevail. I also provided several scientifically verifiably true RS regarding geoengineering and chemtrails. I am opposed to the idea that editors are responsible for debunking anything, rather I support the fact that our job as writers is to provide complete information in a dispassionate tone with strict adherence to NPOV.
6. You appear to want to have your cake and eat it: this crank website can be used to substantiate Griffin's importance, - Guy, I'm on a diet so I actually don't want a cake and I certainly don't want to eat it, too. One small piece would require mountain biking a minimum of 16 miles RT on the Womble Trail. I much prefer a relaxing SCUBA DIVE in the Dutch Caribbean which is only a few 100 feet from my back door. Cake not needed. I've uploaded some of my u/w photographs to Commons, one of which made FP.
7. As I've pointed out before, "this article has NPOV issues" is opinion stated as fact and at this stage in the discussion is simply obstructive. - and that is your opinion. Atsme☯^Consult 12:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if you (Atsme) were correct as to the mainstream recognition of Griffin's theories, you would still be disruptive in the above statements. Your claims have been refuted, and there are at most two editors who have claimed agreement with any of your proposals for the article, so you lack WP:CONSENSUS for any of your proposals except removing "conspiracy theorist" (but not necessarily "conspiracy theories") from the first sentence. Perhaps an AfD is in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, sometimes your comments are difficult to understand. For example, your assessment that even if I'm correct, I'm still disruptive. WTH?? I suppose if you'd prefer I not respond at all any response would be considered disruptive. And then you go on with...my claims have been refuted and I lack consensus except.... - except that I was correct then just like I am now, and I'm still being called "disruptive". Disruptive to what? A particular agenda or POV? Jiminy Cricket, Arthur. There hasn't even been an RfC for consensus regarding RS so let's initiate one, starting with Popular Paranoia being cited in the lead, and the antiquated OR that dates back 30+ years. What I also find puzzling is the belief that noncompliance with NPOV is determined by the location of the contentious material, not whether or not it's policy compliant, RS and/or Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false. Atsme☯^Consult 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to find reliable sources about conspiracy theories except from believers; that's why WP:FRINGE is a necessary adjunct to WP:NPOV. Even if Griffin were not a conspiracy theorist, you would be proposing incorrect application of wIkipedia policies. I admit there are some unreliable sources used here, although most of them are from Griffin, himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the only way to proceed here is to start the AfD and get additional and fresh thinking on the matters of Griffin's notability and the sourcing of this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, I doubt you will find even one reliable source considering today's media bias that one could consider trustworthy, much less reliable. Regarding conspiracy theories, do you remember any of the following: "Operation Northwoods" [49], "The CIA's Heart Attack Gun" [50], "The Asbestos Cover-Up" [51] or "A.J. Reynolds cancer-causing tobacco cover-up" [52], all of which were laughed at, discredited, mocked, and well, received a similar reception not unlike what's happening now. You could also surmise that yesterday's quackery is today's science and vice versa. The latter is why I prefer to maintain NPOV, and in doing so I research extensively to find trusted sources but out of respect for the public's right to know, and freedom of the press I deplore censorship. Sometimes I feel the latter is being imposed on my work, but I have chosen to AGF and remain focused on being a good collaborator. That's why I read and actually study the comments by you and Guy, and take them all into consideration with the utmost respect. I will continue to do so despite your frustration with me because I simply don't agree. Atsme☯^Consult 19:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, WP is just another mainstream website. If you try to "correct" its viewpoint, you will be violating policy and eventually you will be invited to leave. Please allow the designated processes to work here. An AfD will address the issues. You've made your view clear and repeating them after they've been acknowledged is disruptive. Please step back and let's see what happens at AfD. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand why it would be a problem that the media was "biased" in favour of rationality, and certainly it is not a problem that Wikipedia is, it's deliberate policy, but actually the media isn't biased enough: the issue here is that despite the media's generally unbelievably credulous approach to abject nonsense, it still apparently puts Griffin beyond the pale. Frankly it's not a surprise: chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracy theories are red flags sufficiently bright that few will miss them. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still POV which is not the approach we should be taking with regards to writing this BLP. I've shown you the RS that support my position, now show me yours. We are supposed to be writing biographical material about an author who has garnered respect and attention, the latter of which includes critical attention. It isn't our job to critique his work. We are not book critics, political pundits, and we certainly aren't judge and jury for Griffin's body of work. Our approach to editing is supposed to be NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and in Griffin's case, biographical content that requires strict adherence to policy. It is not our job to censor the work of any author just because we don't agree with it, or we think it's science fiction. Our opinions do not matter. Please provide the RS that support your position, but keep in mind, even if your sources present a good argument, it doesn't mean we exclude the other. Pretty simple concept, don't you think? Aside from the laetrile aspect, almost everything you described is politically based. NPOV where are you?? Guy, please read some of the subjects we are covering now in one of the reputable, long established encyclopedias to see how the topics were presented. With all due respect, your current approach looks more like censorship than a comprehensive treatment representative of encyclopedic. Atsme☯^Consult 23:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The opposition has consistently failed to produce RS to support their position. Further, it has been requested repeatedly over the past 3 months without response. This is ridiculous. You need to take action providing RS.--Pekay2 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no RS supporting your (Atsme and Pekay2) position that anyone within sight of the mainstream believes Griffin's views. (Actually, that's not quite true. A few experts find his views on the Fed "interesting" and/or "enlightening". I don't think any of those called it "accurate".) Under those circumstances, his own description of those views would be "unduly self-serving", and should not be included in the article unless properly attributed and if we can find a reliable source commenting on those views.

If we cannot find reliable sources that he is (not just "is considered") a kook, or that his ideas (mentioning him by name) are unjustified, there appears to be nothing that can be said about him on Wikipedia that would be consistent with WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, and the article should be deleted. If some sources can be found, then some of his own assertions might be included if adequately balanced by mainstream facts, and we could have an article. 09:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You guys forgot to sign your comments. Makes it look like a drive-by shooting. With all due respect, some of the reasons for initiating an AfD are rather amusing. I never considered failure to find RS with defamatory material a justifiable cause for deletion. Can't wait to read the AfD comments for that one. I suppose we need to start making a list of articles to delete because if that reason flies, WP has quite a few other BLPs that need to go, including the angelic David Gorski, referred to as the "infamous medical blogger and surgical oncologist", [53]. Of course, unlike Griffin, there are far more criticisms about Gorski, they just aren't included in his article. I haven't checked reliability but I would imagine they'd be acceptable for the purpose, so we'd better get busy adding trash to Gorski before it is proposed for deletion. I also noticed the article is limited to Gorski's criticisms of others, the likes from which he enjoys impunity, or should I say immunity? Reminder to self: Stay healthy! Your life depends on it. As Arthur eluded to earlier with reference to Griffin, inclusion of only the good stuff is noncompliant with NPOV. Now we need to add the lack of bad stuff may be cause for deletion. Hold on a sec, I need to apply some aloe vera gel (home remedy) on these rug burns I got from ROTFL. C'mon, guys - surely you see the humor, don't you? Ok, ok, I'll be serious. WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, and so is WP:FRINGE. WP:FRINGEBLP is a circular reference to WP:BLP which is a policy, and so is WP:NPOV. We adhere to policy, and try our best to follow guidelines. In adherence with NPOV and BLP, we are obligated to improve this COATRACK of a BLP, and make it a good article whether you like the guy or not. Your opinion doesn't matter. He is an author who writes about controversial topics. If you will please look at it from that perspective, we can get back to work. If not, I'll have to go root out goody-goody articles about angelic doctors, and make sure they have enough dirt in them to be compliant with NPOV, or risk deletion. Atsme☯^Consult 16:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone signed with five tildes instead of four, very easy to do, it just adds the timestamp. You forgot altogether a couple of comments up, so how about not playing holier than thou, eh?

The problem here is that while you assert it is "POV" to describe Griffin's ideas fromt he mainstream perspective, and while that may be technically correct, in that the mainstream POV is a POV in the same way that the crank POV is a POV, nonetheless Wikipedia policy ascribes tot he mainstream POV a special and preferred status. WP:NPOV in respect of conspiracy theories, means the mainstream POV.

It's semantically correct to say that the scientific consensus that laetrile is dangerous and exploitative quackery is a POV. It is not, however, correct as per Wikipedia policy, because it is the conclusion fomr all the available evidence, and it is a POV only by contrast to those who reject all or most of the available evidence, usually in order to make money but occasionally because they are simply cranks.

When someone promotes the New World Order conspiracy theory, the Big Pharma conspiracy theory, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, 9/11 conspiracy theories and the like, then they are a crank. That's a POV in the same way that accepting the reality of anthropopogenic climate change is a POV: it's an informed view based on the totality of the available evidence, and it will change if the evidence changes, so it is not a POV in Wikipedia terms, it is the neutral point of view.

Wikipedia policies go to great lengths to explain that the neutral point of view emphatically does not mean giving parity of esteem to extreme minority views (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Explanation of the neutral point of view, nor does it mean some average point between those views and the mainstream, because that is the fallacy of false balance.

WP:MEDRS is a guideline which simplifies the application of policy by allowing obfuscation to be blown away. Our coverage of Griffin's laetrile advocacy in this article is absolutely 100% neutral and compliant with policy. You have made many, many attempts to persuade otherwise, and failed every single time. It is very obvious that your mechanism for assessing sources is badly broken,. You not only propose geoengineeringwatch as a reliable source, you defend that claim. I do suggest you ask at WP:RSN.

I note that there are no reliable independent sources about Griffin, only mentions of his books. In rebuttal you post a link to an address, which contains a single name-check of griffin attached ot a single mention of one of his books, which is the subject of the mention, thus neatly proving exactly my point.

As far as I can see, you now have the following options:

1. Raise an RfC with a specific proposed change and abide by the result.
2. Drop it.
3. Prepare yourself for the inevitable trip to ArbCom.

It won't be me that shops you, because I like you even though i find you utterly infuriating, but there is a limit to how many times you can repeat the same refuted and rejected claims and expect to get away with it. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, are you saying that my discussions on this TP will get me a trip to ArbCom because I disagree with you, despite the RfC that resulted which prove my concerns over noncompliance with NPOV? Atsme☯^Consult 01:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. NPOV was not a stated concern in the RfC, and the corrected closure indicated that it only covered the first sentence, and possibly only "conspiracy theorist", not "conspiracy theories". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am saying that, due precisely to issues such as your asserting that an RfC rejecting only the very narrow question of whether we call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, amounts to an endorsement of your claim, rejected by pretty much everybody else, that characterising him as anything other than a mainstream scholar violates NPOV. Griffin is, according to all the available evidence, a crank whose mainly self-published work promotes conspiracy theories and other fringe views. Wikipedia policy forbids us representing this as anything else. You refuse to raise a specific RfC for specific proposed changes, you refuse to accept the answer "no" to any demand, and you refuse to stop making claims however often they are rejected.

Let's look at your points above.

1. Jekyll island is a crank book. We've established both its notability and the fact that it is a crank book. Reputable economic texts accept the Fed as a perfectly normal central bank, and do not endorse in any part the New World Order conspiracy theory Griffin asserts to eb behind it.

2. The sources you provide are either unreliable or do not dispute the fringe nature of the book. They establish that some authors say you need to read it in order to understand the hard money crank mindset, that's about it.

3. Geoengineeringwatch is a chemtrail conspiracy theory advocacy site and not in any way a reliable source, not only is it crazy but it also fails to pass the tests we establish at WP:RS such as editorial review and a reputation for fact checking. The fact that it may link to one or two sources that are not themselves insane, is of no relevance. But I'm happy to leave this to third parties - see WP:RSN.

4. Your sources "about Griffin" are: an interview on "empowerme.tv" (primary source and uncritical), a namecheck in a speech which is actually a namecheck for the book, and a source establishing the notability of the book as an exposition of a crank idea, which has already been discussed. None of them are about Griffin. They are about Jekyll Island.

5. I don't advocate the source Popular paranoia, or indeed anything from Steamshovel Press, as a source for anything other than an idea being a part of the crankosphere, because that is the limit of its reliability.

6. You evaded the point.

7. You proved my point. You don't accept that your opinion is just opinion, you think it's fact, but you use my statement as an excuse to downplay my views while not, apparently, accepting that your opinion is only your opinion, and has been rejected by pretty much everyone else here.

You're pushing fringe nonsense, and pretending it's not fringe nonsense. Wikipedia has a view on that. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, if the sources Geoengineeringwatch link to are, as Atsme says, "quite reliable", then we should be using those reliable sources if they say anything about Griffin. If they don't say anything about Griffin they are not relevant here. Brunton (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good thought. Actually I have no idea, and haven't really looked because Atsme's version of what is and is not "quite reliable" is so far at odds with mine. Perhaps Atse could list the ones she thinks meet this test and which contain more than namecheck references to Griffin. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you said "Jekyll island is a crank book." Please state the RS without using WP:SYNTH.--Pekay2 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The coverage of his appearances on Beck's show unambiguously establish this fact. Do you not think that the New World Order conspiracy theory is a crank idea? I sincerely doubt it. Nobody competent to edit in this area should be in any doubt. David Neiwert writes entertainingly of it here: [54]. This has already been dealt with at length, note that I do not advocate calling it that in Wikipedia's voice, instead I would call it a book promoting conspiracy theories in regard to the Federal reserve. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I actually expected you to produce a RS that contained at least one of the contentious slurs you keep throwing at Griffin. Instead, you bring us Crooks & Liars, a biased progressive weblog that happens to be what their name implies. It isn't much different from Popular Paranoia, for Pete's sake. Furthermore, there is nothing in that article even remotely close to the things you've been calling Griffin, and there certainly isn't anything that is fact based, much less accurate. It's all BS opinion from some left wing radical attacking Beck, a right wing radical. Pah-lease, stop with the biased political propaganda ad nauseam, and show us some RS. This article is a BLP, and as such it requires that it be written with strict adherence to BLP policy. The contentious material must be RS and cited according to Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements, or it will be removed as noncompliant with NPOV. While you're at it, please provide RS where indicated by the citation needed templates, or that material will also be removed. Please start by replacing Popular Paranoia with a RS as I've requested numerous times. Our bickering back and forth is getting nowhere. It's time to get to work. Atsme☯^Consult 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

All you're doing is underscoring the problem with an article on a living person teased out of passing mentions of his name in sources primarily discussing one fo the few of his books that is not self-published.

The fact that the Fed is a perfectly normal central bank is not "biased political propaganda". Neither is the fact that hard currency cranks are cranks. Neither is the fact that the New World Order conspiracy theory, on which the Jekyll Island case is largely based, is an insane conspiracy theory. No sane, rational person from any part of the political spectrum believes the stuff in Jekyll Island. It is not in mainstream political texts, libertarian or socialist. It is not in mainstream economic texts of any political leaning.

Asserting that Griffin's fringe and conspiracist ideas are somehow mainstream, ensures you will never make progress, because his ideas are fringe and conspiracist in nature, as the sources in the article show, and the sources you propose to counter this are themselves fringe and conspiracist, and generally the height of unreliability. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

whale.to

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html |title=Lecture By Mr. G. Edward Griffin, Author of "World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B–17" |date= |accessdate=2015-03-10 |quote=Our speaker tonight is Mr. G. Edward Griffin, who was one of the founders of the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy. ... Ed was just 15 when he delivered a speech on Patrick Henry at the annual national oratorical contest sponsored by the Hearst newspapers, and won first prize. During his senior year in high school, he was master of ceremonies of his own CBS radio network program, "Make Way For Youth". Then he was awarded a "Regions Alumni Scholarship" to the University of Michigan, where he received his Bachelor of Arts Degree. In addition to two years in the Army, Mr. Griffin served as a radio announcer news commentator, assistant TV director and insurance man before commencing his career as an author, narrator and producer of documentary films and books, which has established his national reputation. Among these, many familiar to most of you, are the "OSHA Controversy", "The Capitalist Conspiracy More Deadly Than War", "The Grand Design", "The Great Prison Break", "The Fearful Master" and most recently, "A World Without Cancer". He is now the President of "American Media", a publishing and film production company in Southern California, where he lives with his wife and four children. ... |publisher= |location= }}</ref>

• You had me worried there, I thought someone had actually added that to the article. You know of Scopie's Law, don't you? This is exactly what I mean when I say that the proof he is a notable conspiracyist crank, is mainly on sites we can't use. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Fringe sources for fringe articles are fine. Fringe sources for mainstream medical articles is not fine. It isn't a reference proving his notability, but supporting the section about his pre-author life, which is currently unreferenced. Anyway your mind has been poisoned by the mercury in your fillings and the fluoride in your water, so I shouldn't listen to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Whale.to is a source that should never be used on Wikipedia in any article under any circumstances, for anything. Including it would be WP:SYN anyway because although inclusion on whale.to denotes, by common consent, a crank idea or worse, you'll struggle to find a WP:RS that allows the link to be made within policy. This is a major problem with this article already. His own website provides ample evidence of all kind of mad ideas, from AIDS denialism to zoos on water and all points in between, all of which are documented on Wikipedia with robust sources showing them to be unhinged, but we can't connect the dots because policy does not allow it. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whale was blacklisted for spamming, not for being a source of fringe documents, or for misrepresenting fringe ideas. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I know. That doesn't change the fact that it is worthless as a source, even for the notability of a crank idea (there is virtually no bullshit so insane that it's not on whale). It is an indiscriminate collection of bullshit. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

While most of the ideas are a little too far fetched, the site's support for cannabis is (partly) correct and its criticism of the DSM also has a small kernel of truth to it, although calling the DSM a "scam" or "hoax" is absolutely ridiculous and an insult to those who worked so hard on it. -A1candidate 23:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That you like it's opinion on one thing does not change the fact that it is a terrible, terrible source with no fact checking at all and with an editorial policy that allows for literally every kind of craziness, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to be treated as if it is fact. This is not a reliable source. This contentious BLP absolutely must not use sources like this. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Lede

I have not been following closely, and I notice a number of recent edits and lo and behold the lede no longer tells the reader that Jekyll Island promotes his conspiracy theories regarding the Fed. What happened? After all the effort spent on that, it should be restored as it was a week or so ago. The book is not about anything real. It's about Griffin's fictional version and misrepresentation of events. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what page(s) you're referring to as his "fictional version and misrepresentation of events." Will you be so kind as to provide the page numbers? Thanks. Atsme☯^Consult 23:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're asking for my OR analysis of the book. No. That's how various RS have described it. This has been discussed here repeatedly. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I found in a March 2013 Forbes article: Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island is an excellent account of how the Fed came into being. The fact that this 1994 book is, today, the #2 bestselling book in Amazon.com‘s Banks and Banking category, the #2 bestselling book in the Economic Policy and Development category, and the #4 bestselling book in the Economic Policy category, shows why crowds start chanting “End the Fed” wherever Ron Paul turns up, with no prompting from him. [55] It all boils down to WEIGHT, and leaving our political leanings at the login when we come here to edit. I've found more positive references than anything else. Advocates with a progressive agenda criticize the book, and everybody else seems to think it's right on the money. No pun intended. Atsme☯^Consult 00:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You're repeating assertions, e.g. the Forbes blogger, which have already been debunked. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Debunked by whom? You can't just say a source was debunked because you don't like it. Sorry, but Forbes is a RS, and we can cite it. Also, Rice University has the book listed as recommended reading for their Computational Finance 1 - Market Models. [56]. I'm still researching for a few more RS to fit the prose I intend to add. We already have plenty of RS to do what needs to be done but it doesn't hurt to have a few more. As soon as the AfD is over, I will take the necessary measures to begin improving this article. It's like Carrite said, "A couple activists need to stand down and real Wikipedians need to step up to make this an NPOV biography." I would certainly welcome his collaboration and extraordinary talent for writing biographies, and consider it an honor to work with him. Atsme☯^Consult 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed it from the lede, it doesn't belong there in a biography of a living person. The section on the book can have criticism and praise and the author's rebuttal. A blog is an online format, it doesn't denote anything about reliability. Opinion pieces are not under editorial control. The New York Times has highly cited opinion writers who are not under editorial control. It is the opinion of the author, not the New York Times. The New York Times doesn't make corrections to opinion pieces, however the author may choose to make a correction. The New York Times also has reliable and highly cited bloggers. My blog is not reliable, but when a magazine gives space to opinion writers in a blog format, they are vetting them as notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, what does not belong in the article is 1) Text which misrepresents that as a book about historical facts, 2) Text which does not reflect the statements in the Media Matters source, and 3) The second reference, which is not WP:RS. I don't know whether you're aware that @Callanec: put this under a 1RR per week restriction, now apparently expired. You've put a lot of effort into this article recently but I don't think that it is helpful --prior to new discussion and change of consensus -- to remove that text, which has a long history on the talk page and reflected the resolution of an extensive recent talk. Please revert that change and reinstate the "promotes conspiracy theory..." language. P.S. Your mistaken that Forbes' bloggers are notable experts on the subjects of their writings. Talking about the NY Times doesn't make Forbes' bloggers RS. You may think I'm mistaken. That's why it's important to discuss before reverting something that had appeared settled after long discussion. Please undo your removal of the consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Specifico, but you are specificolly mistaken. Atsme☯^Consult 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes blog I cited above [57] regarding Greenspan wanting to end the Fed and the comment about Griffin's book was written by professional journalist, Nathan Lewis, author-economist-macro strategist, and writer of opinion pieces that have appeared in the Financial Times, Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Newswires, Worth, Daily Yomiuri, Asia Times, Pravda, Huffington Post, and numerous other print and online publications. [58] It is an acceptable source per WP:NEWSBLOG - Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. I also included below the statements from the original RfC close, and the result from the request for review of close along with a summary from Callanecc. Atsme☯^Consult 05:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking Greenspan to Griffin is classic WP:SYN and the status of the commentator on Jekyll Island does not change the fact that it is a fringe book published by a fringe political group that promotes a conspiracy theory that is not accepted by the mainstream (or indeed by Grrenspan). 09:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until the passage has been added with an inline citation before determining its acceptability. Atsme☯^Consult 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC Close results - Please do not archive

From the closer, Nyttend: (See Archive 7)

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

• Admin Nyttend removes noncompliant with NPOV conspiracy theorist references [59]
• I've opened a discussion of the implementing edit at Nyytend's talk page, here User_talk:Nyttend#Edit_implementing_close_at_Griffin_article. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Diffs to Jytdog's TP discussion re: close [60] [61]

• [62] Drmies close for request of close

I have read this entire discussion and the RfC, and am of two minds. First, I don't think it's a good idea for someone who closes an RfC to start implementing its conclusion; if it had been explicitly cited in the edit summary as "remove BLP violation" or something like that I can understand that, but Nyttend's edit muddied the waters a bit. In addition, their choosing not to comment here isn't helpful: sorry. We all appreciate someone making a difficult close, but once that's done one should be willing to defend it. Second, it's hard to find fault with the close, but just as hard to be at peace with it: it could have come down either way. Let's face it, we do have Category:Conspiracy theorists, and I have no doubt we could find plenty of articles that have the phrase in the first sentence, the lead, the infobox. In addition, we report on theories that are conspiracy theories and label them as such, whether the subject and their supporters like it or not. Whether it's a BLP violation to state "x is a conspiracy theorist" when there is overwhelming evidence that they are (I think the RfC supports the latter point) is an interesting question, and probably one that ArbCom, as our Supreme Authority, should decide on. That it's "essentially not-neutral" is still an open question, as far as I'm concerned, and that's where our BLP and fringe policies may bump into each other. This RfC couldn't have decided on the larger point, and I advise Jytdog to kick this can down the road some. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Feb 23, 2015 Callanecc's summary of the request for review of close regarding use of conspiracy theorist (theory)

I think your summary is accurate. As to whether it will change my judgements - not really. As far as I am concerned the RfC still means that he can't be referred to as a conspiracy theorist (or worded in a different way, e.g. promoter of conspiracy theories) in the first sentence. However, I'm not of the opinion that the RfC prevents 'conspiracy theory' (or worded in a different way) being used to describe his theory or a theory he supports as long as it is supported by consensus, nor do I believe that doing so would be a BLP issue if it's properly sourced (though it does depend how it's worded and what it describes). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme☯^Consult 03:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary action, we all know the terms if the RFC close, which you have misinterpreted several times, so you appear to be the only one in any doubt about them. Adding Callenecc's opinion (which you like) and not the numerous dissenting views, is tendentious.

The most important point to remember is that this covers only the first sentence, and any extension beyond that exceeds the bounds of the RFC

close. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It serves a useful purpose as a reference, and should also be readily available for new editors who show up here to collaborate. We will probably be adding more RfC results as we go along. Atsme☯^Consult 00:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Only if summarised in neutral terms, i.e. not by a partisan. You are the very last person who should be doing this. I support a neutral summary, I will nto do it because I am a party to the dispute. You have seveeral times portrayed your own biases ans neutrality, so you should not either. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Contentious edits

Richard Arthur Norton reverted my removal of a cite to Natural News, which is not a reliable source, removed the much discussed text about world without cancer, and added another unreliable source, Freedom Force International. I think those edits need reverting. As does the addition of a cite to whale.to, probably the single most unreliable source on the entire internet.

There are a lot of edits in quick succession. Here's my view on them:

1. [63] references IMDB, a user-edited site and not a WP:RS.
2. [64] is a useful edit establishing the conspiracist nature of Griffin's ideas.
3. [65] adds text to something sourced to Reality Zone, when in fact the source cshould simply be removed as it is unreliable.
4. [66] adds more text to a source that should be treated with extreme caution, as it's a fringe political group.
5. [67] seems unproblematic.
6. [68] adds Category:AIDS denialists. This is an NPOV issue since although he has promoted AIDS denialism, he is not a notable AIDS denialist (nowhere near the likes of Peter Duesberg, for example).
7. [69] seems unproblematic.
8. [70] risks giving undue weight to a side-issue. Griffin has promoted AIDS denialism, but to call it out in a section? I don't know.
9. [71] Removes the entirely WP:MEDRS source the American cancer Society, as a supporting source for the unscientific nature of the "vitamin B17" claim, and replaces it with Media Matters. Media matters may be a supporting source, but the ACS source is clearly both reliable and on point. That source needs to go back in.
10. [72] improves sourcing but removes the fact that Griffin asserts a conspiracy to suppress laetrile, which is why his laetrile advocacy is conspiracist claptrap and not just claptrap. Needless to say I have a problem with removing this fact.
11. [73] is obviously valid.
12. [74] removes his promotion of the quack cancer cure. That has to go back in, since it's been extensively discussed on this page with broad support for inclusion. This edit also removes another WPRS and WP:MEDRS compliant source.
13. [75] removes "Starting as a child actor for radio, he became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began producing books and documentary-style films promulgating conspiracy theories related to a range of subjects including cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, and the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. He was also a member and officer of the John Birch Society." Why? This is a straightforward summary of his career.
14. [76] demotes from the lede a description of his views on the ark and the Fed and replaces it with a bald statement that he believes the ark is at Durupinar, which if excessively bland given that he's produced a book and a film promoting this false idea.
15. [77] is accurate but there may be a WP:UNDUE problem.
16. [78] adds Category 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Accurate, but is it undue weight?
17. [79] sharpens a link, no problem.
18. [80] adds Category:John F. Kennedy conspiracy theorists. He is, but is is an originator or leading proponent of these? Possible WP:UNDUE.
19. [81] moves a section. No substantive change to content.
20. [82] replaces the fact that he promotes this false idea with a simple statement that he believes it. Belief is not a strong enough word. He wrote the book, that goes beyond mere belief. And while Atsme will undoubtedly be delighted to lose the fact that the "vitamin B17" idea is scientifically unsupported, I'm not.
21. [83] introduces "Freedom Force International" as a source. This is one of Griffin's crank websites, it is not a reliable source for his having been an officer of the John Birch Society because it could be resume-padding. You need an independent source for that, or at a pinch the canonical authority, the JBS itself.
22. [84] As above. Repeats Griffin's claims as if they are fact, without referencing an authoritative or fact-checked source.
23. [85] Adds aa reference to an existing source.
24. [86] Adds a reference to "The Cancer Cure Foundation", which is Griffin's own creation and of course not actually a cancer cure foundation but a propaganda site promoting alternative cancer cures. It is not a WP:RS for the content. In fact the entire paragraph should probably go as it has no reliable independent sources and repeats Griffin's claims uncritically.
25. [87] Null edit
26. [88] Legitimate removal of part of the para on the "cure foundation".
27. [89] Removes "promotion" fomr seciton title "pseudoscience promotion and conspiracy theories". No obvious problem with this.
28. [90] Adds the "cure foundation" for a source to things that are not about itself, the only limited context in which it might be argued as reliable. This site is not an acceptable source for the content it is now being stated as supporting.
29. [91] adds summary to a source and makes some edits to a section about the Jekyll Island crankfest. No real opinion on this.
30. [92] Null edit.
31. [93] Adds good summary to a good source.
32. [94] Adds a ref to an existing source.
33. [95] Adds a reference to whale.to. Sorry, but just no. Being on whale is an extremely storng indication that something is conspiracist bullshit, but to use inclusion as a source for that is WP:OR and that is literally the only thing we could possibly use it for, since the site has no fact-checking (other than to studiously remove facts fomr most of its articles, I guess) and the editorial policy is so badly broken that it promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as factual.
34. [96] Adds a summary to an existing source.
35. [97] Formatting edit.
36. [98] is a sound edit, clarifying that he supports these conspiracy movements without asserting that he is a member of them.
37. [99] adds a ref to an existing source.
38. [100] changes "pseudoscience and conspiracy theories" to "writings". As long as we're clear that his writings are pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, I guess this is fine.
39. [101] changes writigns to works.
40. [102] Removes the heading altogether and moves the rest up a level.
41. [103] removes the fact that Jekyll Island promotes conspiracy theories, extensively discussed above and having broad support, so needs to go back in.
42. [104] Removes the NPOV tag, which Atsme probably won't like as the article is still written fomr the reality-based perspective.
43. [105] Adds a summary of a source.
44. [106] Minor edit, no substantive change.
45. [107] more accurately represents Griffin's response (and repeats his grammatical error verbatim).
46. [108] formatting edit.
47. [109] formatting edit.
48. [110] reverts formatting edits.
49. [111] removes reference to Rough.
50. [112] removes an unreliable statement from the summary of the unreliable source whale.to.
51. [113] says he is president of American media. He is not "president" of American Media, he is American Media. The source is horribly unreliable.
52. [114] cites WorldCat. That's suspiciously WP:OR. Link worldcat int he refs at the bottom, not in the article.
53. [115] reverts removal of canonical unreliable medical source Natural News. This is currently the only article other than that on the site itself, which references Natural News.
54. [116] formatting edit.
55. [117] moves a paragraph but leaves the unreliable source.

In summary I would say:

• Whale.to must go. It is simply not an acceptable source for anything.
• Natural News must go. It is a crank website whose views on health matters are simply not compliant with Wikipedia policy.
• ACS should come back, along with the text on the scientifically unsupported nature of "world without cancer", as this is the core of the problem with that book. Atsme has already demonstrated how it is possible to get terribly confused by the difference between whether amygdalin might have therapeutic purposes, and the refuted claim that it is a vitamin whose absence causes cancer and that the medical-industrial complex is conspiring to hush this up.
• The references to freedom force international should go per WP:SEFLPUB. It's not his official website so not a WP:RS for facts about him and the claims he makes there are not independently validated.
• The references to the "cancer cure foundation" should go as they are being used to support statements well beyond the narrow bounds of what's permissible in WP:SELFPUB.
• Long-debated content in the lede should be restored pending discussion here.

Removing Natural News and whale is an obvious and urgent matter. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a given that Whale.to and Natural News should not be used as sources for anything - to use them here is quite ridiculous. The other comments by Guy are apropos, the vast changes overnight (for me) need reverting, and Guys assessment above used for discussion on a point by point basis. I move for a mass revert. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done some of it. I don't mind if there's a mass revert taking it further -- but I did some piecemeal editing to allow for the possibility that there were some useful edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sure that the edits were in the main constructive, Richard and I obviously don't see eye to eye on the appropriateness of whale and Natural News but I don't recall any times we've disputed the overall thrust of an article on a fringe topic, and a good faith effort by someone fresh to this article can only be welcomed. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You have not provided any information that substantiates any of the comments above are factually accurate. At this point in time, they are nothing more than POV. It is highly inappropriate to make such decisions based on one's own opinion. What is a crank website anyway? Where is the consensus determination from RSN that declared it an unreliable source for the information it was used to cite? Please explain why, in your opinion, it is a crank website. Atsme☯^Consult 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the removal of sources

I have no dog in this fight to have the article deleted. I came through AFD. The lede was changed because of concerns for a WP:BLP --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whale.to must go. It is simply not an acceptable source for anything. Whale was blacklisted for spamming, not for having unreliable material. The link is a transcript of his biographical blurb read before a lecture.
• Natural News must go. It is a crank website whose views on health matters are simply not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Fringy websites to support fringy biographies are fine. Just like with articles on religion we use religious sources, even if they believe in talking snakes and floods that covered the Earth, and virgin births.

I have removed it as an external link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• ACS should come back, along with the text on the scientifically unsupported nature of "world without cancer", as this is the core of the problem with that book. Atsme has already demonstrated how it is possible to get terribly confused by the difference between whether amygdalin might have therapeutic purposes, and the refuted claim that it is a vitamin whose absence causes cancer and that the medical-industrial complex is conspiring to hush this up. People can click to the article, we do not have to spoon feed people what will be found when they can click to find what something is

I have addressed this by adding in the negative finding by the FDA in the 1977 report on laetrile form the laetrile page. I have also added the reference from that page.

• The references to freedom force international should go per WP:SELFPUB. It's not his official website so not a WP:RS for facts about him and the claims he makes there are not independently validated. Of course the website can be used to to support the fact "Freedom Force came into existence at a meeting on December 12, 2002, in the Dominican Republic where G. Edward Griffin was a speaker at an off-shore investment conference" WP:SELFPUB reads: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities"
• The references to the "cancer cure foundation" should go as they are being used to support statements well beyond the narrow bounds of what's permissible in WP:SELFPUB. Of course his website should be used to as a reference for his website. WP:SEFLPUB reads: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities"
• Long-debated content in the lede should be restored pending discussion here. NPOV for a BLP MUST be removed. BLP concerns override consensus for disparaging ledes. There is no need to call him a conspiracy theorist in the lede, when the body of the article explains his theories. When he dies you can call him a conspiracy theorist. He doesn't describe himself as one. His book on the reserve has been reviewed by many and the reviews range fringy to inciteful. As soon as people read the titles of his other books and the topics they will get the idea he is fringy and conspiracy without disparaging a living person by calling him fringy or conspiracy.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." (emphasis Wikipedia)

• The categories are fine, no one argues that they have to have a new theory to be included, but they can write supporting existing theory. While Dusenberg has his own theory most of the others are followers of his theory, like the president of South Africa who is in the category, and clearly belongs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Your edit today is a violation of the 1RR per week restriction on this article. I suggest doing a self-reversion asap. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You will have to point me to debate where such restrictions are posted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? It's just up at the top of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you post it here in quotations for me please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I see no reason for spoon-feeding -- just look at the first section of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies -- that restriction lasted for one month. In which case: I am reverted your edits, and now per WP:BRD you can gain consensus here on the talk page before repeating them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages." There is no mention of 1RR, again, instead of hand waving and concerns about spoon-feeding, if you know where this is discussed, now would be the time to show me. That would be much better than threatening me that it secretly exists and I must obey this hidden rule. I have no dog in this fight, I am not a fringe supporter, I am a medicinal chemist and a supporter of orthodox scientific principles. I am here through the AFD addressing concerns about the quality of the sourcing raised in the AFD, and by the NPOV tag added to this BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you were unable to find this. But here it is: "I have imposed a one revert per seven days restriction on this article as an arbitration enforcement action for one month in the hope that it will at least slow down edit wars. I will also note that tag team edit warring is disruptive and may result in the editors involved being further restricted (such as with 0RR or an article ban). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)" (If you still don't see it above, a text string search will sort you out.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• If it was active it would be in the Admin Banner which only reads "Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." It also reads "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you've restored your edits without noting the comments above that support the revert, that was not a good idea.

Whale is a classic WP:ELNEVER. If there is no better source for that information then it is not significant information and should not be included at all.

The "BLP concerns" have been debated here ad nauseam and your belief is at odds with the consensus view on this talk page; you are implementing in some cases changes that have been rejected after extended debate.

Dozens of people have looked at it, including numerous admins, and the consensus has been that the text you removed does not violate WP:BLP. Atsme thinks it does, but then Atsme also thinks that his ideas on laetrile are now vindicated, Creature From The Black Lagoon is a mainstream work of scholarship, and that the assertion in world without cancer that the role of "vitamin B17" in the cause and cure of cancer is being suppressed by Big Pharma is somehow not a conspiracy theory.

Natural News is also a classic WP:ELNEVER. It is a site with a long history of inaccuracy and even outright deception, if the information is not available from a more reliable source then the information should be removed. The argument that crank websites are fine for crank ideas is simply wrong. WP:RS makes no exception for information that is not available in any reliable sources, the way to deal with information not available in reliable sources is to remove it.

His own websites (of which he has several) are reliable only about themselves, not about other people or about claims which they support but which are contradicted by the evidence. Nothiong Grififn claims can be taken at face value. For example, if he is the only source of the claim that he was an officer of the John Birch Society, then we should not include it because we need independent corroboration. The most we can say is that he claims to have been a spokesman and officer.

There is a 1RR restriction on this article. You've reverted at least one edit more than once. That wasn't a good idea either. I understand your motives are sound, but you need to seek consensus especially in respect of the incredibly unreliable sources you are proposing. This would be, I think, the only article on the entire English Wikipedia to cite either Natural News or Whale. And you want both. In a controversial biography of a man who at least one editor refuses to acknowledge is a crank. You might be going a bit too far there. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have read anything I wrote. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." (emphasis mine) Calling him "a c...k" even on a talk page is potentially libelous for a BLP. WP:ELNEVER, the external link was removed many edits ago, so you are commenting without even looking at the current state of the article. "Whale is a classic WP:ELNEVER." Whale is an internal reference, not in the external link section. His own words describing his work is fine per WP:SELFPUB, which reads: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" (my emphasis added) I would agree if an even more reliable source countered that claim. Lets say the JBS posts that he never appeared in their membership records or was never an "official spokesman". Fringe sources to document fringe thought is fine, just as we use religious sources to document religious issues, no matter how much they defy physics, chemistry, and biology. As I said before, I am a scientist and have no dog in this fight. I am here through the AFD and am addressing BLP issues raised by the NPOV tag. Wikipedia rules demand they be "be removed immediately". You cannot override BLP rules with consensus to add potentially libelous labels. The readers can decide for themselves based on his writing. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"The most we can say is that he claims to have been a spokesman and officer." We cannot use the word "claimed" because it is potentially libelous for a BLP. "Claimed" is implying that he is lying. We can say someone "claims" they won the Medal of Honor if the official website for the Medal of Honor does not list them. JBS or another more reliable source would have to write on their website that his claims are false, if we are going to imply they are false. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Media Matters uses "promoting wild conspiracy theories", but if we say it, it is potentially libelous. If we use the Media Matters quote in the lede we then come under WP:UNDUE. For BLPs we ALWAYS side on caution in wording. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes blog piece is not RS for a statement about US history or monetary institutions. It's an opinion piece by a investment fund manager. There are, however well-sourced RS (Flaherty) statements in the article body which establish that Griffin's narrative concerning the Fed etc. is conspiracy theory stuff. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What Forbes blog opinion piece are you referring to, I do not see one in the article. If it is there, yes, it is an opinion piece. It is referencing his opinion on the book, just like the other opinions expressed about the book in that section. I add the New York Times opinion pieces all the time, add I add the The Economist opinion pieces all the time. Every movie review and every book review is an opinion. Movie reviewers are not filmmakers, although Roger Ebert wrote a movie script that was made into a film ... yet they review movies. Can you point to the rule demanding opinion pieces be removed. Also show me where in the article this reference appears, I only know it from the AFD debate. I get the feeling you are recycling old arguments without actually reading the current state of the article. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for editors to share our feelings. Please remain focused on content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Forbes blog entry is not in the biography, so I will say as a fact that you are not discussing the current version of the article and are recycling old arguments for no reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. I refer to the discussion of that Forbes source on this page, above. Moreover the second reference in the current version of the article (USADaily) is not RS for the statement attributed to it in the note. P.S. Please don't comment on others' motives -- "...no reason." Please don't make personal remarks here. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will put it this way: I have no idea why we are discussing the issue of a Forbes reference that does not appear in the article. And I do not know why we are still discussing it now, and I do not know why we will still be discussing it later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Richard, I know you are trying to help, I really do, but it is very clear that your edits do not enjoy consensus. Please discuss them first and actually listen to others instead of simply stating that your interpretation is the only valid one. Atsme's being doing that for months and so have I, I suppose, and it's irritating everyone. More voices in the discussion would be most welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Restoring the word "quackery" to a biography of living person is libelous and should be removed immediately. My neutral scientific wording was fine that it was found ineffective by the FDA. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." If there is contention over libelous wording it cannot stay, even if a group of people through consensus decide it is ok to libel someone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave the legal analysis to actual lawyers, please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawyers merely represent the aggrieved in court and make the oral argument to the judge. The decision of libel/not libel is made by 9 non-lawyers of the jury. We don't need lawyers, we just have to follow the Wikipedia rule: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

We'll be at the back of a long line starting with the editors of this journal. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard, numerous cases have established that this is not the case. And that's in isolation fomr the fact that laetrile is not merely quackery, it is a fraud that has been repeatedly prosecuted and is stated to be so in numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia policy does not prevent the use of factual terms, even if they are considered pejorative by believers in fringe and pseudoscientific ideas. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Laetrile is not a living person subject to libel laws, you can say that at the article on Laetrile and I would not be bothered. Libel only applies to people. Recently there have been test cases trying to expand libel to commercial products and corporations as the Oprah beef case. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Laetrile does not cease to be quackery just because a living person is advocating it. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can you show me where the word "quack" or "quackery" is used in another living person biography? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We have several articles on notable quacks that use the term, and of direct relevance is Ernie Baron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where we describe another person dismissed as promoting quackery. Also relevant are articles like Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where we are entirely forthright in noting that fraudulent claims are fraudulent. Use of the term quack is protected speech under US law anyway, but we don't call him a quack, we merely note, entirely correctly and with references, that he promotes a form of quackery. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ernesto Baron (August 15, 1940 – January 23, 2006)> He is dead, Jed. You can't libel a dead person. It is also unreferenced and poorly written. "irked medical professionals and then dismissed him as promoter of quack medicine." Did the medical professionals dismiss his ideas or did the television station dismiss him from his job? He sounds like the Filipino Mehmet Oz. Can we say Mehmet Oz is a quack. You also have no understanding of free speech. Libel is not free speech ... slander is speech, libel is printed slander. US law doesn't matter, it violates Wikipedia policy for WP:BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not violate Wikipedia policy. He was promoting Laetrile, Laetrile is a dangerous quack remedy. These facts are both established with robust sources. No policy is violated by saying so. You could see Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example of forthright coverage of fraudulent medical claims. Griffin is a crank, not a quack, but he is a crank who has promoted one of the most repugnant medical frauds in history. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Has someone called an RfC that I've missed? I keep reading references to consensus, and would like to read the initiating statement that called for comments. I'd also like to read the survey results and closer's statement. As far as I can tell, we've only had one RfC, so who is determining consensus in the absence of an actual survey? Atsme☯^Consult 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In regard quackery: Need I refer you to the article I referred to on Talk:Quackery. "Quack" is not necessarily libel; and has adequate sources already in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia WP:BLP policy is not determined on talk pages of articles, it is set by the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

But the policy is applied on the talk pages of articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus here that "quack" is a BLP violation. If anyone feels this is wrong, I suggest posting on BLPN and soliciting guidance there. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP mandates the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material from biographies. Most fo the problem with this article is that there are vanishingly few proper sources about Griffin at all, only about his work, which is in the main self-published and entirely ignored by reality-based media (though undoubtedly popular on conspiracist websites like Whale and Natural News, as you've shown earlier).

WP:BLP does not mandate the removal of all negative material. We have many biographies on cranks, charlatans and promoters of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories which are entirely accurate in noting these facts. Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for example. The fact that laetrile is quackery, is unambiguously established form entirely reliable sources. The fact that "World Without Cancer" promotes the fraudulent claim that amygdalin is a vitamin, a claim introduced by proponent Ernst T. Krebs in order to evade regulations, is also well established, and it is this claim in particular which is most associated with quackery. One or two of us on this talk page are very familiar with this subject area.

And one of the long-standing problems with this article is people asserting that their interpretation of policy is the only valid one. On this matter, the relevance to BLP of the fact that Griffin advocated a quack cancer cure, it is very obvious that reasonable people can and do disagree. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources that validate Richard's concerns

In an effort to be helpful, following are RS to substantiate what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) explained above: [118] In May 1999 the Amsterdam Court of Justice decided that a retired internist and propagandist of his own alternative cancer therapy, could rightfully be called a quack by his critics. Recently this judgment was reversed on appeal. The first court used the medical definition of quackery: a treatment of which the supposed benefits are unsubstantiated. The court of appeal, however, took into consideration that to the general public calling someone a quack is an indication that this person is a swindler and practises medicine unlawfully. This definition is supported by the most authoritative Dutch dictionary. And then we also have the following situation that occurred in late 2013: [119]. I think a thorough review of BLP policy may be in order. Atsme☯^Consult 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these is relevant to the discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Can the irrelevance of my statement be substantiated by something other than opinion? I would think that since we are obligated to strictly adhere to BLP policy the information I provided actually would be relevant, at the very least based on the common sense reasoning provided above. The terminology has been challenged by more than a few editors who have suggested on more than one occasion that the same point can be made without using contentious terminology. It is far more encyclopedic and less tabloid style to described it as an unsound medical therapeutic that is not FDA approved, or scientifically supported as a treatment for cancer. The way the lead is written has been challenged by more than a few editors who are proficient writers of biographies on WP. Atsme☯^Consult 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, that is an argument_from_authority and is also irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I could actually use the same argument_from_authority in response to your position, but doing so doesn't resolve the issue either way. What this article needs is NPOV in compliance with BLP, and closer fact-checking for accuracy and making sure the stated material is actually contained in the source per V. In order to achieve that goal, discussions on this TP should be void of opinion based arguments, and unsubstantiated claims. I and others have provided links, diffs, and substantive arguments for why certain terminology should not be used in a BLP. The recent RfC consensus determined same. It appears certain passages in this article are going to require another RfC for consensus because it is obvious the editors here are not going to agree on what is or isn't a policy violation. I am reviewing the various options available to us now because going back and forth to various noticeboards for every disputed sentence is laborious. Atsme☯^Consult 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the RfC concerned the wording of a sentence in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Recently this judgment was reversed on appeal. It's not "recent". One of the Netherlands' highest courts voided (not just vacated) the appelate decision.

References

Looks like we are reading two different cases. The case to which I referred was in Holland, and it was physician Sickesz being called a quack by Renckens. In December 2003 an attorney for Sickest directed Renckens to stop calling her a quack. She filed suit on August 4, 2005, and the lower court ruled against her. "The court accepted the explanation of the VtdK of the term 'kwakzalver' or curer, namely that it didn't imply the intent to deceive." Sickesz appealed on May 31, 2007, and won the appeal. The use of the term is libelous in Holland. [120] [121]

The case you're talking about is a different case in Belgium. It was Gorter vs Skepp & Betz. Gorter lost in the lower court, appealed and won most of his argument but not all. The court ruled that use of the terms quack and quackery were libelous. Gorter is protected by the law, not because he appeals to (generally accepted Western) science but because it relies heavily on alternative 'medicine' (anthroposophy, acupuncture, homeopathy and Ayurvedic medicine) and his "experience" as a cancer patient. Because he himself believes in him is no 'ill will' or cunning to charge. They used the Sickesz ruling as caselaw. They can say his treatments don't work, are not supported by science, etc. which is basically what we've been arguing for 3 months to modify in Griffin. There is no need to use contentious material because it reflects badly on our professionalism and lowers the quality of information we provide to readers. [122] For example, scientifically unsupported, and not FDA approved is factual, dispassionate, and accurately described, and it sounds so much better than quackery. Atsme☯^Consult 01:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, "contentious" does not refer to you contesting the material on the WP talk page. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on article content. Atsme☯^Consult 04:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was doing. Let me be more clear. You are misrepresenting the substance of the policy which refers to "contentious material..." in article content. SPECIFICO talk 04:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket, please just quote the relevant part you think I am misrepresenting so I'll know what you're talking about. I can just as easily say you are one who is misrepresenting it and that will just put us back to square one. No resolution when there is no understanding. Atsme☯^Consult 05:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article sanctions

I'm trying a different approach to working out what to do with the article and discussions now. The 1RR/week, though very strict, seemed to calm down the article quite a bit and actually get people to talk about issues rather than reverting. Rather than impose another article sanction by fiat I thought I might take this approach and ask what people thought will help. Could you please indicate which of the following you think would work best (I'm just after comments, I'll make the final decision)?

Nothing

This is the correct approach imho. I'll send you a doggy biscuit if you impose this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1RR per 24 hours

Longtime editors are much more used to this sort of restriction. 1RR per week is hard to keep track of via timestamps. jps (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1RR per 72 hours

1RR per 7 days

Full protection

To provide an opportunity for the RfCs that need to be initiated. It will also insure that before an edit is made, it will have consensus. Atsme☯^Consult 05:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FFI

Atsme reinserted the para on Freedom Force International, describing it in Wikipedia's voice in terms lifted from its own mission statement. The problem here is that while Griffin may believe it's an international group committed to personal freedom, few independent observers would be likely to view it in such rosy terms. Without reliable independent sources we have no idea of its importance and no way of discussing it neutrally, since fringe views may not be accepted at face value. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but can't we simply delete the para, as it is obviously not acceptable in this BLP? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, it would be considered noncompliant with NPOV to suppress the views of the subject in his biography. I cited the source for that information with an inline text attribution, and it is perfectly acceptable as a RS to include information from self-published sources about themselves. It is not our job to determine what/how independent observers will view or think about the subject. We simply write the material, and the readers form their own conclusions. What you are proposing is censorship of information based on an argument that is noncompliant with NPOV. It is not necessary or required to include an opposing view for every sentence we include in a BLP. If you have an opposing view, add it to the paragraph but please do not delete my work based on your presumptions. This is a BLP, and in a BLP we write about the person and that person's views - not what we think others will think about it. They are his views, and this is his biography. Atsme☯^Consult 12:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we've now reached the root of the misunderstandings you have about this article. It is not "his biography" -- it is a biography of him. There's a difference, something most editors active here understand quite readily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're correct in that we have reached the root of misunderstandings, but it has nothing to do with me. My cortical responses to lexical and syntactic processing for reading comprehension function quite well, thank you. (1) it is his biography, (2) it is Griffin's biography, (3) the biography we are writing about Griffin (4) we are writing his biography. A biography is an account of someone's life written by someone else therefore to say it is a biography of him is to say it is an account someone wrote of his life of him which is redundant to say the least. A biography is an account of a person. Now, please try to focus on article content instead of trying to blame me for things you don't understand. Atsme☯^Consult 04:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If any other editor thinks they understand what Atsme is getting at here and wants to try to translate, I'd be grateful... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation is that Atsme's statement above fundamentally misrepresents core WP policy with respect to BLP, V, and RS. Not in a manner which could be attributed to differences in application or interpretation, but rather that the statement is false. Policy does not prescribe that we present a primary-sourced mirror of the subject's self-description and let the reader sort it out. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between "his biography" and "a biography of a living person" is subtle, but important. If anyone goes out and write a book on Griffin, they can call it "his biography" and put in whatever you want. But because this is a collaborative effort that relies on secondary sources, is a summary style piece, is limited by various guidelines and policies, and is subject to a changing consensus, we cannot put whatever we want into the article. But let's get back to the topic of this thread – FFI. It is listed in the infobox, but it is not really "his" website. He is simply a founder of FFI. So it should be removed from that location. Instead, it ought to go into the External links section with a short description. (Something like "A politically oriented networking organization for individuals founded by Griffin in 20xx.") – S. Rich (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the article, not what you incorrectly think is my interpretation. Quite frankly, Murray_Rothbard is my interpretation of how this biography should look, so whenever you have any doubt about my work or intentions, give that article a quick review instead of trying to sway discussion into a debate over semantics. It isn't going to happen. Atsme☯^Consult 14:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? I think you are taking the rules for article creation and trying to force them on descriptions of mission statements by organizations. Of course you use the organizations mission statement as a reference and describe the mission statement in an article. This is just silly. His biography vs. autobiography vs. biography of him is another silly waste of time argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Only trouble is, this isn't an article on an organisation... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin identified as Conspiracy Theorist /Conspiracy Author in Lead

The first sentence of the second paragraph reads: "Griffin's writings promote conspiracy theories about the political and health care systems."

I was curious what LexisNexis would produce in terms of WP:SECONDARY independent sources that confirm the point that G. Edward Griffin is identified as a "conspiracy theorist." These are some of the results.

1. Skyjacker of the Day; Anthony Bryant took a plane to Cuba to buy bazookas for the Black Panthers. Fidel Castro wasn't happy to see him.

Slate Magazine, June 7, 2013 Friday 11:15 AM GMT, HISTORY; Life, 605 words, Brendan I. Koerner
... Watch his conversation with noted conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin.) Bryant also became a ...
2. Controversial American Political Pundit Invited to Speak to Knesset in July
Palestine News Network (PNN) - English, June 28, 2011 Tuesday, 291 words
... hosted on his show, G. Edward Griffin, a conspiracy theorist who believes that the widely ...
3. New Documentary Film The Truth is Out There Starring Former X-Files Actor Dean Haglund Chronicles the Conspiracy Obsessed; Premiering in London on April 30, this epic of comedy, consciousness, and conspiracy is destined to become a legend says SLIDETV® Studios.
PR Newswire, April 25, 2011 Monday 7:11 AM EST, 851 words
... insider' status, to interview conspiracy theorists, researchers, authors, journalists, ...
... Rob Simone; authors G. Edward Griffin, Tucker Smallwood, and David ...
4. Fox is dropping Beck. (It's probably a conspiracy.)
The Washington Post, April 7, 2011 Thursday, A-SECTION; Pg. A02, 785 words, Dana Milbank
... case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the ...
5. AIG A GOLD STANDARD FOR FIASCOES
Palm Beach Post (Florida), March 20, 2009 Friday, OPINION; Pg. 18A, 661 words, Rhonda Swan
... consideration to the so-called conspiracy theorists.My frie nd ...
... mess.Are Mr. Russo, G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll ...
6. Choose your friends wisely
Jerusalem Post, September 12, 2011 Monday, OPINION; Pg. 15, 921 words, ROBERT HORENSTEIN
... turned to conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin, whose website promotes anti- ...

... feminism, even insisting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were God's ...

There's actually more than this, but this is a sample. Some WP:SECONDARY sources have been mentioned in the article. Some haven't. There are quite a few opinion pieces that could be properly attributed and cited. Quite a few op-eds have been written about Griffin in reliable sources that discuss Griffin's activities and what they consider to be conspiracy theories. If we follow WP:LEAD, it probably doesn't need to be sourced if it's just summarizing the body text. But I'd like to know what others think. There's also not much of anything in the article about the 9/11 Truth Movement and Griffin's support of it, but it's mentioned in the lead. This could probably be expanded further in the body text. Otherwise, I'm not sure it should be there. Oddexit (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a contentious label. See the section above titled, RfC Close results - Please do not archive. In the list of sources you mentioned, #1 is nothing more than parenthetical mention that mirrors WP which makes it unreliable, and further explains why such a contentious label does not belong in the lead. The remainder of the sources are either partisan, or passing mention which do not pass the smell test for including such a contentious label in the lead, and if used in the body of the article, must contain inline text attribution. I have no problem using "conspiracy author" or "conspiratorial view" in the body of the article, as they are NPOV. The same applies to references of quackery and the like considering that terminology has been determined to be libelous in the U.S., Holland and Belgium as was pointed out in recent discussions. Following are a few more links demonstrating what most RS write about Griffin and his literary works. There are many others that I posted at the AfD, and in the TP archives here which include in-depth discussions about this very topic. Editors who have written 50 or so WP biographies such as Caritte, Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_), and ChrisGualtieri have provided insightful input with regards to the contentious labeling. Having been a RL author of biographies, including bios of competitors in magazines, and a few intro bios on famous celebrities I've worked with over the years, including William Shatner, Jimmy Dean, Larry Hagman and others, one could say my experience in the area of potential and neutrality is rather extensive. I certainly respect the advice of authorities in the field of medicine, science, technology, etc., but I also respect the advice of editors who have expertise as professional writers, particularly writers of biographical content on WP which is why I mentioned the editors above. Passing mention that simply hangs a contentious label on a BLP will carry little weight in a determination for consensus vs RS that include brief bios preceding actual interviews with the man.

1. [123] 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." ...
   
2. [124], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa) "G. Edward Griffin works tirelessly to dispel the notion that the Fed has been a failure. His latest effort was at the just-concluded Casey Research/Sprott Inc. investor summit on Navigating the Politicized Economy, where he told a packed hall that the Fed has been wildly successful at its true mission – to protect the banking system at all costs. According to Griffin, the problem is the American people are footing the bill for these costs through stealth taxation, thanks to the coordinated actions of the Fed and US government." ...
   
3. [125] 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." ...
   
4. [126] Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa) "On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act we talk to G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, about America’s central bank."...
5. [127] 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. ..."
   
6. [128] 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...
   Atsme☯^Consult 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)