Talk:G. Edward Griffin

remove images?

First of all: Great job, John J. Bulten! Thank you for putting together this very improved article!

I think the images are not really necessary. They are not directly related to the text in a way of contributing helpful information. Maybe the chart with the US dollar is kind of helpful, but it's also misleading, since some people could think that he created the chart. As far as I know, he doesn't even show it in his book. I didn't delete them right away, because maybe there are also good reasons for keeping them. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Warm thanks! Of course the images are just placeholders until the Wikilawyers sort out the copyrighted ones. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I changed a couple of details for the sake of WP:NPOV, which I hope are uncontroversial. But I still have a problem with the sentence "Griffin's dreams of a free-market, private-money system superior to the Fed caused economist Bernard von NotHaus to create such a system in 1998", or rather, with the word "caused". I haven't found proof that NotHaus was influenced by Griffin before establishing his own idea, I only found that Griffin influenced him after that and assisted him in turning their common "dream" into reality: [1]. Maybe there is more information in the reference already provided in this paragraph (Chevreau, Jonathan. "Paper notes need 'real' backing", National Post, 1999-11-11). But I cannot access it, so could someone please look into this who has access? THanks. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

From the cited article: "Economist Bernard von NotHaus read Mr. Griffin's book and took him up on the challenge, creating Norfed." I take that to mean that Griffin's book influenced NotHaus' decision to create Norfed. J Readings (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it up. Which book is meant? If it's "The Creature of Jekyll Island", then the book is from 1994. But according to the history of the liberty dollar, NotHaus started to work on his idea since 1974. Maybe the statement is true for creating Norfed, but I think at the moment the sentence is still misleading. Or does it refer to a different book earlier than 1974? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OOps, just spotted that the year 1998 is mentioned in the sentence. Sorry for the confusion in my last entry, now everything's fine for me. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin is Noteworthy!

I don't know who decided that G. Edward Griffin didn't warrant his own Wikipedia entry, but the deletion threats being levied here are absurd. Ed Griffin is the founder of Freedom Force International, a libertarian activist network, and is no less worthy of mention than Michael Badnarik or Aaron Russo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy-Rey (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The mere statement that "he is noteworthy" doesn't really help. However, if you think you could do it in a sensible manner, you should think about adding a section about current activism (or something like that), including freedom force international (and others?). But be cautious: Especially at this stage, any uncited statements or lack of neutral point of view will be food for "deleters". FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's Who as reliable source

I don't approve Orangemike's deletion of all the Who's Who citations. I have seen a lot of information around indicating that Who's Who has a relatively low bar of entry in some cases, but I haven't found any evidence that the accuracy of the information is generally questionable. I think, the fact that reputable libraries use Who's Who to provide easy access biographical information, shows that information extracted from Who's Who is generally treated as reliable. Please discuss this first before deleting the Who's Who reference again, since it's not obvious for others (including me) that "Who's Who is a notoriously non-reliable source". FeelFreeToBe (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the discussion at Talk:Marquis Who's Who for my basis. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (who has been in Who's Who himself; whoopee)

I did read this very page and took it as basis for my arguments as well. The basic conclusion from this discussion is that Who's Who should not be used as single reference to establish notability. The general accuracy of the provided facts is not in question. There seem to be some cases in which entries are not accurate, but these kind of inaccuracies can be found in ANY source, even the most "reliable" and reputated one. The questions about notability and about reliable sources are entirely different ones and should not be mixed up. Please tell me if I overlooked a statement in Talk:Marquis Who's Who which appears to be consensus and significant for your point. Some days ago I placed this question on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and still I fail to find reasonable arguments that Who's Who cannot be cited at all. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Who's Who in America, myself. The entry contains exactly what I sent them, edited only for form. It's all accurate, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this argument can be a justification to delete the reference again. Even if this was true for EVERY SINGLE entry in Who's Who, it just would be first-hand information from Griffin himself. Whether this is self-published or not does not even play a role, it can still be used as reference. I think it is even as a reliable one, since people in Who's Who would do themselves a disservice in submitting wrong information because of the consequences if somebody finds out. Or why did you yourself submit accurate information? You could have made yourself a super-star (if you aren't already one) ;-)

If you are concerned that readers will be misguided by the Who's Who reference by being too much impressed by it, you could add a remark in the footnote which contains the reference, something like: "Note that the reliability of Who's Who has been disputed: Reliable source". Don't forget the reliable source. If you have published your own experience with Who's Who somewhere, you could even cite yourself - think about it. I will not include such a remark, because I don't think it's really necessary. But deleting the reference completely is even less necessary. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, it qualifies under WP:SELFPUB only. I didn't check in detail, but you seem to be claiming that the publication is generally "reliable". Some of the instances qualify under that guideline, but some don't. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the WP article Marquis Who's Who you even get an entry as a notable person if you decline to submit any information. I fail to see how your own experience proofs that the source is not reliable. It is naive to assume that there are sources which are 100% reliable and others which are 0% reliable. Even in the most reputable peer-reviewed journals you can find fraud, take for example the cloning scandal in the top-journal SCIENCE. I found the Who's Who volumes in a university library and it is used by the US Embassy librariesand also by respected universities such as Northwestern and Harvard's Biography Resource Center. This shows that it's commonly treated as reliable source, even if the occasional case of fraud has occured (for which I have no proof). If you don't want to delete ALL references in ALL WP articles, please don't delete this one again. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

However, the subject has editorial review of the entry. (OR, but...) it looked to me more as if I could edit my entry, rather than "suggest corrections", as would be implied by your phrase "editorial review". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I never used the phrase "editorial review". How it looked to you doesn't mean that everybody has to agree with you. Arthur Robin, your behaviour (tagging and accusing me of edit warring) is embarrassing for you. Your view does NOT reflect consensus of the discussions you refer to. There is NO evidence (or even serious doubt) that the information from Who's Who is inaccurate. THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS A 100% RELIABLE SOURCE (except for definitions). I take you accusing me of edit warring as an attempt to discourage any further considerations in this matter. But when looking again at the arguments in our discussion, I find that you do not at all address many of my strongest arguments. I sincerely hope that independent people will look at this discussion and decide for themselves, who is engaging in edit war here. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You used "editiorial review" on WP:RSN, and the consensus there, except for your comments, is that it's WP:SELFPUB. However, in all but three instances in this article, that's acceptable. The reference in the lead is unnecessary, and the reference to book publications should be replaced by reliable sources, such as the publisher. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't find the passage in which I used "editorial review" (whether editorial review exists in the case of Who's Who or not). The fact(?) that you keep misquoting me, and the fact that you don't bother addressing my arguments at all, indicates that you either didn't properly read those discussions and my arguments, or that you close your mind against other views. In both cases, there is not really much I can do for you and there is no sense for me to discuss anything with you. I just read WP:RSN open-mindedly for the third time, and although I realize(d from the beginning) that most users don't exactly share all of my views, I fail to see any contradictions between their "consensus" and what I've said here. I have no objections whatsoever against replacing some of the Who's Who citations, but I firmly resist the complete removal of this reference, because - even if it cannot be used as a single reference to establish notability (according to most users) - it still makes some kind of a contribution to the required notability (the amount of which is for sure negotiable, but nevertheless existent). I am glad that other editors have sorted this out in the meantime. In the (unlikely?) case that you take your time to look again at all the arguments and come to the conclusion that my reaction to your editing was at least a little bit justified, the least you could do would be to remove this ridiculous message from my talk page. Thank you. It's just difficult for me to assume good faith in your action to place a message like "Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors" on my page while violating this advice yourself at the same time. Don't take this as a general objection against your contribution to this article - every critical concern can only lead to the improvment of the article. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(I see I forgot to log in as 209.243.55.22.) Hi Arthur. I generally agree that virtually everything from Marquis is noncontroversial; so I'm wondering why you think a tag necessary for the Jekyll line. Is there any doubt that he became a CFP or wrote the book or that it describes the U.S. money system? Or do you think it generally necessary to tag Marquis because people might not think it's self-published? If the latter, there still would not be a tag necessary, because we are only using it as proper for self-published sources, and such a notification is not germane to this article, but to the Marquis Who's Who article, linked by the footnote. Instead of tagging, since this is an article with a lot of heat, please indicate what the correct phrasing and sourcing should be IYHO. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Whoa! "Vandalism"? Wazzup? John J. Bulten (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, Arthur, since you declined to answer while making other edits, since your only defense for this tag has been "the reference to book publications should be replaced by reliable sources, such as the publisher", since (arguendo) the publisher is at least as much WP:SPS as Who's Who, since there are several other reliable sources for the reference to book publications of Jekyll, and since the criteria of WP:SELFPUB are met, I am deleting the double-tag questioning the publication of Jekyll. I'm confident you will accompany any future tags with more complete rationale, thanks in advance. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

considered deletion

Taking Mr. Edward Griffin's page off Wikipedia based on conspiracy theorist allegations or lack of 'weight' would have been a great contribution to ignorance. Should we consider the same for Linus Pauling; a name on every periodic chart and the only man -I am aware of- ever to receive a Nobel twice on his own, simply because he advocated the possibility for cold and cardiovascular disease prevention through megadoses of Vitamin-C and the use of the free form amino-acid L-Lysine. As explained here on Wikipedia some of Pauling's work was subject to claims of quackery by rivals. Mr. Griffin has contributed to the enlightenment of all types of people on the subjects of economy and history of banking, including myself and at least one very successful person I know in finance. Wikipedians deserve to know.

Alain O. B.Ps., MSc., RCEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4maelstrom (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alain,

Can I ask if you actually read the deletion discussions, here [2] here [3], or here [4]?

Do you see anybody arguing that the article should be deleted because he is a conspiracy theorist? Was that part of the administrators' rationale when making their decisions (see the top). The answers of course are 'No'.

I realize that external websites (including Griffin himself) [5] are claiming otherwise (and imagining conspiracy theories about why) [6]. Frankly, these poorly researched claims don't give one any confidence in Griffin, his investigative abilities or those of his supporters. But then I doubt he and I have any common views on any subject, with one exception. I agree that he is notable and his activities verifiable, which are the criteria used to determine inclusion here. --Slp1 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The New American as reliable source.

I don't see how the biweekly report by the John Birch Society can be considered reliable, without more research. We'd need to see the editorial policy, which I don't think actually exists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added sources and rephrased so as to make New American only a backup source. BTW, thanks for your reviewing this so carefully. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a sound reputation as an editor here, John: we can take something you've created seriously, unlike the previously deleted piece of partisan junk which the conspiracy-theory crybabies are whining about. But please continue to upgrade and solidify those references. Whatever I think of the guy (and it ain't much), I'd like this article to be bulletproof, just to prove that we can give a reactionary and advocate of scientific heresies a fair shake. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Mike! I'll keep my eyes peeled and keep the page patrolled for the crybaby wing of the conspiracy theorist conspiracy. Remember, the conspiracy theorists are conspiring to control your mind and waste your time-- pass it on. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

section for discussing missing or mis-placed citations

• I'm unable to verify this statement: His website refers visitors to laetrile sellers[4] and doctors and clinics that use laetrile. All which is needed to sustain that claim would be to reference Griffin's page where he actually refers to laetrile sellers and doctors/clinics that use laectrile. I'm unable to find that page, so if nobody can come up with it, the whole sentence should be removed. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, found it. Would be glad if somebody could check if that sentence is sourced well now. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Free, I'm of two minds. The winning faction is currently that self-published is "acceptable use of questionable source" here because the statement is noncontroversial enough and not disputed. It's arguably not unduly self-serving, and the doctors are probably unlikely to sue him for claiming they're laetrile clinics. The WSJ is the source for "laetrile sellers" but not for the expanded statement, which is WP:SELFPUB. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Can someone list the things required Reliable Source!! About Mr. G. Edward Griffin Article?(LakeOswego (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Can you clarify please? I am not sure what you mean --Slp1 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sure, eveyone has a problem with Mr. G. Edward Griffin Article and wants to delete it, keep saying Reliable Source, so I would like someone to list things that need Reliable Source in the Article (LakeOswego (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification, LakeO. Everything in Wikipedia needs a reliable source. See WP:V and here WP:RS for details about policy and guidelines about this. At the moment, the article is quite well sourced, IMHO. In fact, the problem about Mr. G. Edward Griffin is really whether he is notable: ie do people really know or care about him or his opinions? And can we prove that this is the case from reliable sources, not just personal opinion, what we call original research or internet noise? For this we also need reliable sources about his notability.--Slp1 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find how to consider someone as notable, but unfortunately they (Wikipedia) are only explaining how you can consider someone as not-notable. (Correct me if I am wrong) Thanks (LakeOswego (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Try clicking the word notability in my paragraph above, and you will find the inclusion criteria for people.Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

@LakeOswego: actually it's quite the other way around: According to WP:N "Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof." But I would admit that the term notability is to some extend strechable and negotiable (since WP:N is a guideline and cannot provide a fool-proof check if something is notable or not; and since WP:N uses itself a lot of strechable or negotiable terms and every WP editor has his own judgement about how "reliable", "objective", "substantive", "verifiable", "neutral", "credible", "sufficient", "comprehensive", "independent", ... a specific source is). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

@Slp1: are you saying that there is still serious doubt about the notability? In this case we should indeed make some kind of a list to decide which kind of proof for notability is missing. In the AfD discussion you list a couple of newspaper articles from around the world. Maybe it's worth to include some? I just have a bad feeling about including them myself, since I don't know their content. As additional "mentioning of Griffin by a reliable source" I only found this short listing of Griffin as an actor of "himself" by the NY Times. I don't think that these tiny appearances of Griffin's name should really be included into the article, but if it's the only way to establish the required notability, then so be it. Therefore I first like to know: Is there still need to proof notability? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I myself think he meets the notability requirements, but the AFD is still open, and some editors there are still unconvinced, so make of that what you will. The point of my listing the articles at the AFD was to show that there are multiple independent refs to him so that he meets the notability criteria, but I agree with you that mentions of him or quotes of him wouldn't add much to the article and are not required, though I may add a few as additional citations for a few things.Slp1 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Free, thanks, I added that. Appearance in AFTF definitely contributes to notability. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure that, John? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Laetrile

As I tried to indicate (obviously not clearly enough) in my edit summary, I have the full article, which I can send you if you send me an email.

It says:

"In conclusion, there is no reliable evidence for the

effectiveness of laetrile, and considerable doubt about its safety exists. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile as a

treatment for cancer is therefore negative."

Perhaps another time it might be worth asking for the source first, rather than just reverting?--Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It seemed the most efficient way. I'll be happy to take your word for it, but keep steady when others harp on you for those pay sources. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Efficient perhaps, but an inquiry on the talkpage might be more in keeping with assuming good faith, no? Anyway, no worries, just a suggestion. I am always happy to clarify these things, and to send on articles that people may not have access to. BTW I have taken out the quotes, which I really don't think are necessary and have the unfortunate effect of scare quotes, IMHO.--Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Slp1, maybe a stupid question, but: Where do I find your email address? I would really like to read this article. BTW both @ Slp1 and John: I can't help admiring the fast progress you make with this article and consider myself lucky to witness such an example of professional editing during my first weeks in WP (FeelFreeToDelete this if too slimy ;-) ). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all. Go to my user page and click the "email this user" link on the left hand side. Not everybody has it enabled, though. I will be happy to send you the article when I have your email address.--Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PS not slimy at all, but not sure that deserved given that I managed to claim Griffin wrote a biography on totally the wrong person!! Thanks John for fixing that one.--Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - just found in the meantime that I actually have access to the article myself over some detours :-) Anyway, thanks for the offer. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also remember, FeelFree, that a cite does not have to be online to be a reliable source; although obviously it does make verifiability easier. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{like-resume}}

It's still like a resume. Almost all the material is from Griffin, himself, and things he's written, with only a little critical material from other sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, it's not like-resume, but unbalanced. However, the content does reflect the discussion in the available reliable sources. We have several scientists ganging up on him on cancer. If there are any sources that beat him up on the Fed, that would be appropriate. Would you mind looking with me? John J. Bulten (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Financial section is sadly lacking in balance, given the controversial (shall we say) nature of his views. Here are some to get you started:[7].[8][9]

One thing I would like to see changed is that the article currently implies that his ideas about the Fed developed in the 1990s (after taking a course) when the Sayres book makes it clear that he has been propounding these views since the early 1970s.--Slp1 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! I was also very interested in finding some scientific "sources that beat him up on the Fed", and I'm happy that I finally found something. I wonder if anyone else here has already considered that source, because the Slashdot article (I think it was Slashdot) contained an ominous statement that Edward Flaherty (PHD in economics) had reviewed Griffin's book on the Fed. Though it's not a review, he does address ("debunk") a lot of "conspiracy theories" and he even mentions Griffin and his book (I had overlooked the latter for quite a while, otherwise I would have brought this up earlier). However, Griffin obviously took it as a review on his book and replied to Flaherty's analysis of the subject on his website. Stunningly, Flaherty also mentions: "Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin's book and others of its genre". Though I haven't found out who this Gerry Rough is (so far he looks more like a blogger to me), it might be worth to follow this hint. But so far I only find an archived (?) website and many of the links are dead. I'd be happy if somebody helped following the rainbow - maybe we'll find a treasure at its end! :-) I think since Flaherty is a professional and has a PHD in economics, we can safely cite him. I'd also like to include that Griffin replied. Does anybody have objections? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Feelfree, looks like a great find! See also this [10] Per WP:SPS, Edward Flaherty's website posts are probably quoteable if we can prove that he has prove that he is an established expert in the field, and has other work in the same field published other reliable sources. The PhD and the economist part sure helps with this, but with both him and Gerry Rough ideally we will find journal articles and books written by them. I note this mention of him and his ideas of the Fed in a book. [11], though not sure to what extent the book is a highly reliable source. Flaherty's website is also listed here in a scholarly bibliography, [12], but it would be good to find more and better evidence that he actually is a expert in the field. I haven't time to search further at present, but perhaps other can. --Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

These link here are probably a good starting point to find out more about Flaherty: [13]. I found no published paper through web of science, but here some information, that he has published something: [14][15]. Haven't looked at it into great detail yet, 'cause I have the same problem (time + upcoming vacation). Fortunately, now that the AfD is closed, we can work on this stuff at a more humane pace. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This paper [16] "FED CONSPIRACY USED IN TEACHING MONEY AND BANKING", Robert Tokle, 2007, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11; 1 p. 43-51 (a peer reviewed journal), recommends Flaherty's paper also.--Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

OK, so it shouldn't be in the first sentence. However, he does state, in various places, that his views are being suppessed by government or corporate conspiracies, so his being a conspiracy theorist should be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

These might be useful sources for unpacking some of this. [17] [18] [19]--Slp1 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, negative descriptions should not be placed in the lead unless self-adopted. It would be appropriate, based on the current text, for something like "he sees conspiracies in world affairs", which he admits; but absent proof of his calling himself a "conspiracy theorist" it would be WP:OR to give him that title. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be inappropriate not to have him described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. It's probably what he's best known for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Griffin himself rejects to be called a conspiracy theorist. Since the term is negatively loaded we should respect WP:LIVING (see do-no-harm and basic-human-dignity) and not call him like that either. The term conspiracy theorist might appear to be objective on the first look, but, in reality, it's not: People who disapprove his views would call him conspiracy theorist and his views conspiracy theories, but people who accept the theories to be true would call him a whistle-blower, and the theories would turn into a scandal. We have to keep WP:NPOV and cannot decide if he's right or wrong. Therefore we should avoid both terminologies. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the "conspiracy theory" sentence in the section "health advocacy". The edit summary field was too short, so I post my 3 reasons for this here:

1.) the sentence is related to the previous one, which was obscured by placing the mentioning of the review in between.

2.) "the review found that his view is a conspiracy theory" was misleading by implying (even if subconsciously) that arguments against this conspiracy theory are given in the review.

3.) it implied that the given quote is the main conclusion of the review. Instead, I included this conclusion now.

FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, G. Edward Griffin is identified as either a conspiracy theorist or someone who writes about conspiracies in the third-party literature. Whether or not it is positive or negative is a matter of opinion. Get enough of those citations and, according to WP:LEAD guidelines, it's acceptable to place the label in the lead section.

I just noticed, for example, that A. Ralph Epperson discusses Griffin in his book The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History (Publius Press, 1985). From the point of view of Epperson, Griffin's views are positive because they link to his own conspiracy theories.

Another example is by journalist Chris Thompson writing in the News Section of East Bay Express (California) entitled "Dirty Deeds; The Dorean Group promised hundreds of homeowners that their mortgages would go away. Guess what? They didn't" (April 5, 2006):

Sometime in the last few years Johnson and Heineman began reading about mortgage elimination programs on the Internet. Such schemes aren't just a way to make money; they're a longtime staple for conspiracy theorists who claim the American monetary system is based on a massive fraud perpetrated by a cabal of bankers. The godfather of this movement is G. Edward Griffin, the founder of American Media, a Southern California company that distributes books and videos about conspiracies ranging from the banking system, to the September 11 attacks to the secret society Skull & Bones. In the early 1990s Griffin published The Creature from Jekyll Island, the movement's bible, in which he claimed that ever since the United States replaced the gold standard with paper money, the country has been plagued by inflation, while banking elites print money out of thin air to secretly enrich themselves.

Julian Dibbell places similar labels on Griffin writing in the Village Voice in an article entitled the "The Goldbug Variation" (8 January 2002, pg. 56).

In any case, right now, we're probably not there yet. But if citations like these keep popping up then, yes, putting "conspiracy theorist" into the lead would be acceptable, according to the guidelines. J Readings (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we're talking about a gentleman here who likes to use the word "Conspiracy" in the title of some of his own books and films. In addition to the third-party literature already mentioned, there may come a point when the evidence suggests that using the "C" word is more than acceptable. J Readings (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding new sources, J Readings. I find it fascinating that different newspaper archives can come up with different articles. You use Lexis-Nexis, I believe, and I use Factiva. Vive la difference, I guess!

Anyway, I agree that conspiracy theorist is becoming more and more sourceable, especially given his own extensive use of the term for more than 30 years in books, films, and talks, e.g. Sayre book [20];

"In a wonderful talk by G. Edward Griffin, slides and diagrams of triangles and arrows and circles show how the Conspiracy learned its techniques from the 18th century Freemasons of Europe)....."He added "Is it possible that the communist and capitalist conspiracies have more than one inner circle? We don't know, but it seems possible.".

Arne says of the Creature book

"There is actually very little overt outrageous conspiracy mongering in the book till page 123 when Griffin contends that the fall of communism itself was a charade"

.[21] An extensive review of the Creature book in "Popular Paranoia" a collection of conspiracy theories (motto... All conspiracy. No theory)[22]. And the tantalizing reference in Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia which I may try to track down in print. --Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I would agree on including that "he has been labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' (by ...?)" whith refering to these sources. Because that's a fact that nobody can disagree on. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Slp1, thanks for these links. I have online access to the "Conspiracy Theories in American History" book, but I only found Griffin's name once, and disappointingly merely mentioned in the discussion of some other source. The sentence is: "In Nutter’s syllabus section entitled “Extremist Literature,” we find THE NEW AMERICAN magazine and books by its publisher, John F. McManus; its senior editor, William Norman Grigg; and a contributing author, G. Edward Griffin."

The book looks very interesting and promising, since it states in the preface that "It is intended neither to promote nor to dismiss various conspiracy theories", but at least the section about the Federal Reserve System appears to be mainly a history of the Fed from the author's POV, without even mentioning any "conspiracy theorist" in the field. Therefore rather inconclusive, unfortunately, I would say. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi FeelFreeToBe, for the sake of the discussion, I just wanted to raise a few points about this issue that might be useful. I've been involved with editing a couple of highly controversial BLPs on Wikipedia where there was some disagreement about the lead section per WP:LEAD, namely on David Irving and Bobby Fischer. In the former, there was the issue of whether or not Irving, as a WWII Military Historian, was "widely discredited" as the result of his alleged "Holocaust denial." In the latter, there was the issue of whether Fischer, despite being the only heretofore American World Chess Champion, was also "widely known for" his anti-semitic views. In both cases, it was about putting those phrases in the lead section. In both cases, there was the issue of WP:LIVING and WP:BLP. When you examine both those pages, you can see what happened. They were finally added. Why? Because the preponderance of evidence was just so overwhelming that even the most sympathetic Irving or Fischer editor couldn't deny the fact that reliable third-party sources were constantly making reference to those issues. Personally, I don't have any agenda either way for the Griffin article. I got involved here by accident, but having researched him now, I'm interested in how it plays out. One of the things I keep reading in LexisNexis is how he's identified as a "conspiracy theorist." We can talk about the wording some more before adding anything, but I have more references here that refer to him as either "paranoid" or "conspiracy theorist" or similar. It's interesting, actually, how the third-party sources largely view him. J Readings (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree with you that it should be in the lead, because it's a very important point. Even though Griffin refuses to be called like that, nobody can deny that he is viewed as a conspiracy theorist by most of the people (including me, because the term is accurate - just negatively charged). In fact, now that we have so many sources about it, I think we have to include it to remain neutral. Is there any problem with using a phrase like "he is largely regarded as a conspiracy theorist"? Because I still think the most neutral way to say it would be to say that somebody calls him CT, than simply to say that he is one. Maybe we could even go as far as saying something like: "While admired/idolized by his supporters, Griffin is largely regarded as a conspiracy theorist". Probably there is a better way to say it, but I hope you get the idea. I have no problem with anybody editing this (I'm kind of torn between the two versions that I suggest here), but since it's a delicate matter, I will try to achieve a solution that looks neutral to me (as somebody, who looks at Griffin's "conspiracy theories" open-mindedly but not gullibly). BTW, thanks for bringing this to my attention so smoothly - that's the proper way to deal with a potential crackpot... ;-D FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

I realize, John, that you have done a lot of work on this, but I don't think all the editions are really needed. WP:LOW appears to suggest either the first edition only, or putting all the editions of the same book on the same line, which would be clearly, if all the information is really needed (which I am not sure it is, really).--Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. It's getting to be really excessive now. For example, do we need a "periodicals" section? My goodness, can you imagine what would happen if we started to list every single op-ed piece, journal article, or newspaper column that someone ever wrote in his or her encyclopedia entry? At that point, I would wholeheartedly agree with others that the G. Edward Griffin article would start to read like a resume instead of a serious encyclopedia entry. Half of those listings should be removed to first editions and the periodicals, etc. should be removed completely. J Readings (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK fine, but that was not an article, but a periodical he founded. It might fit elsewhere. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Founder or President or Board of directors

• American Media
• The National Health Federation
• The International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends
• The Coalition for Visible Ballots
• The Cancer Cure Foundation
• Freedom Force International

I think this need to be added to the Article.

(LakeOswego (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

But OrangeMike dont think so,

I disagree. OrangeMike quickly removed the resume-like listings of Griffin serving in various positions from the article. Actually, I agree that it was probably the right thing to do. The only way that (or any other) trivia should be re-added is if an independent third-party reliable source (e.g., journalist or academic) wrote about Griffin serving in those capacities. Otherwise, there is no objective criteria to determine what can and cannot be included in the article. G. Edward Griffin would explode into a lengthy mess with lots of non-notable factoids making it read very much like either blatant advertising or a resume, thus risking an AfD again. Hopefully, none of us wants that. J Readings (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

reliable source (e.g., journalist or academic) Again!?

Anyway the above list is FACT. :) I am getting sick from Wikipedia.

(LakeOswego (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

One More thing journalists are Liars and they create lies, I cannot understand how can they be "reliable source"

(LakeOswego (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Are you getting sick from WP or sick of WP? Sick of, I suspect. Unfortunately, your career here is guaranteed to be frustrating if, as indicated above, your views differ so greatly from those of the community-agreed guidelines and policies. --Slp1 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Slp1 Thanks

There is 2 reasons someone whats to delete Mr. G. Edwards Griffin Article.

1 Paid to.

2 Ignorance

(LakeOswego (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

No reliable sources as to notability. I believe he thinks he's notable, and there are some semi-reliable sources (IMDB, Who's Who), who seem to think he's notable by their standards, but who thinks he's notable, even with respect to Laetrile? He doesn't seem to be the principle pusher.

That's the only Wikipedia-valid reason for deletion which has not been disproved, but I don't see any articles about him, only some which discuss (one of his) conspiracy theories, and possibly not even about that theory.

The articles may exist, and now may even be in the article somewhere, but they're swamped by the self-promotion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you need to be the principle pusher in order to be notable? The fact that his book about cancer has been recognized and critically reviewed in the scientific literature demonstrates that the book had impact.
• Who's Who constitutes a reliable contribution to his notability. Various libraries of excellent reputation rely on Who's Who and none of them would spend money on a collection of biographies of non-notable persons.
• He has world-wide notability as the various newspaper articles which quote him, demonstrate. Most of them have not been included into the article because they don't contribute additional information, but they nevertheless contribute to his notability.
• Recognition and occasional mentioning by mainstream-media such as the Los Angeles Daily News, Wall Street Journal, ESPN, Boston Globe, Calgary Herald, Rocky Mountain News, National Post as well as his listing in the NY Times as actor (of himself) in the movie "America: Freedom To Fascism" contribute to notability.
• The fact that several controversial books about the Federal Reserve System quote from his book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and the fact that this book can be found in business bestseller lists is evidence for notability in his field.
• His notable contribution to Nothaus's development of the "Liberty dollar" had impact in the real world.

I will not cite these statements any more, because they have been brought to your attention more than once, and never have been properly addressed by you. Nobody here is claiming that Griffin is extremely important or some kind of a super-star. But there is a fair consensus between a number of reasonable editors that the established notability is sufficient for the justification of a WP article. I'm afraid nobody will be able to convince you that he's notable if you keep ignoring the arguments presented to you :-( FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We generally require that there be an article about him in a WP:RS, preferrably mainstream. Sources quoting him are not necessarily indications of notability, and sources mentioning him are clearly not indications of notability. Since there are so many sources which are clearly not reliable or that only mention him in passing, I'd appreciate it if you pointed to one WP:RS which is about him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he is a journalist, book author and documentary film maker, his notability is conveyed through the "notabilities" of his work and its impact. An in-depth article about the person itself doesn't seem to be necessary to me, BTW it's not uncommon that such articles are written after the death of a notable person, but Griffin is still alive. The Who's Who entry is about Griffin. It's not extensively long, but it mentions the works which he is notable for. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I see the phrase is "significant coverage in reliable sources". The closer of the prior AFD noted the problem was reliability, saying nothing of breadth or triviality of coverage, so that was the paradigm we've been working from. But now that you're arguing from nontriviality instead, I still don't understand why you think the LA Daily News article is not (exclusively) about him (even by your terms), and the med journal review of WWC as well, and others; or why you think that 15-20 of the articles don't give him significant coverage (more than trivial but allowably less than exclusive). John J. Bulten (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Google video copyright

Is there any evidence that http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507 was not uploaded by Griffin, or with his permission. If there was proof, the link shouldn't be in the article, but I don't see any evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proof needs to be given that it isn't a violation of copyright, not proof that it is. The video is copyrighted, and Google Videos illegally hosts copyrighted videos. We need proof that it was uploaded by the author or we have permission to do so, not proof that it isn't a copyright violation. The video is copyrighted, and it a copyright violation unless you can prove it isn't. Provide anything that suggests that he uploaded the video or gave permission and I will keep it here. If you don't I'm removing it. — Κaiba 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Evidence needs to be given that it violates copyright, other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on google video. The uploader is listed as http://www.realityzone.com , "A subsidary of American Media", which is Griffin's publishing company. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good detective work Arthur, though not clear why you would want to make it easier for people to watch his stuff! ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is irrelavent. Everything on Google Videos that is copyrighted is illegally hosted unless proven otherwise and no amount of cleaver wordplay can change that. Since it you seem to be sure it is his publishing name who made the video, I won't remove it, though. — Κaiba 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:writing for the enemy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a point? — Κaiba 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He's answering me, I believe, as I had rather rudely interrupted your conversation with my own sly remark. It's a good essay and one I like a lot, so more power to you! Slp1 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fasold

Hi Slp1, would you mind posting your source which shows that Griffin took his views from Fasold? Otherwise your entire add to Noah's ark would be revertable by anyone as a classic WP:COATRACK (i.e., not really about Griffin). I appreciate the search for balance, but (as with the prior case) you'd need to let us know what you've got on it, thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem: Griffin's own website [23]--Slp1 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Slashdot

Incidentally, who is Michael J. Ross and why should we care what he thinks about Griffin's book? According to this website, he is a Web developer, freelance writer, and the editor of PristinePlanet.com's free newsletter. <yawn> I'm beginning to have doubts that Slashdot constitutes a reliable source especially when the "review" opens with a "posted by" line. This website looks like it has the features of a blog to me. J Readings (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it adds anything useful and I have always wondered if it really met the RS grade.--Slp1 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Griffin's books in translation

This is another issue that I've been mulling over. Listing his major publications (1st ed.) and films is one thing, but is it really necessary to start listing the translations, too? What does it add? Perhaps this is something that can be quickly mentioned in a sentence in the text -- something like, "His books have been translated into foreign languages such as XYZ." J Readings (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (how long will this expression last, do people think, now that records are a thing of the past?) I agree completely. --Slp1 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Produced vs. Narrated

I don't know which ones he produced and which he narrated. It would be useful to the reader if we could divide the films up under these subcategories, rather than these long, messy lists that are increasingly hard to read. Any help on this front would be appreciated. J Readings (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Telly Awards

Having never heard of this award I decided to check out what they are. Perhaps others would care to do so too. Given the large numbers of people that get these awards, that you have to pay to enter, and that marketing advantages are a major reasons why people are encouraged to send in their US$70 [24] I seriously question whether this award is a sign of anything that should be included here. Comments please? --Slp1 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of WikiProject Films for a couple years now. This is the first time I've ever come across the award. In fact, type in "Telly Awards" into the Wikipedia search engine and you only get one hit: the actual award. Hmmm...curious. I also checked LexisNexis. I couldn't find any third-party sources reporting on G. Edward Griffin receiving this award. Hmmm...very curious. My inclination is to remove it as self-promoting spam from Griffin, but that's just my opinion. Does anyone else have an opinion? J Readings (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I put it in believing it to at least merit a mention, especially as it concerns his film Discovery of Noah's Ark. Certainly when bringing up a film he did in the article it would be pertinent to include that he won an award for it, even if most people haven't heard of the award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Most people haven't heard of the award"...including the journalists who usually cover this material, apparently. I don't know. If journalists and academics don't cover the information, it's usually because they didn't think it was worth covering in the first place. I get nervous when Wikipedians start adding information that you can't find (even when you look hard!) in reliable third-party sources. In my opinion, the additions start to conflict with the official policies on what Wikipedia is not. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny. Google shows me lots of people who are very proud about their own awards and explain that it's a "widely known and highly respected national and international competition". I guess if enough people believe it, it really means something. Well, seriously now: One the one hand, it looks like too much advertisement than we should tolerate, since it doesn't look like a highly respected and well-known award to us. On the other hand, I would only be convinced that our scepticism is justified, if somebody can name another award for similar types of film productions, which is proven to be well-known and highly respected. In doubt, however, I'm neutral about whether to remove this statement or not (because I've no clue about many awards, even if well-known and highly respected). BTW, I wouldn't consider the "payment" argument, because a competition in which everybody can enter can make a nominal fee necessary, i.e. in order to prevent people from submitting their youtube vids. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why it shouldn't be mentioned. We mention the movie and pretty much everywhere this movie is on the Internet it's mentioned that it won this award. Considering this is an article about him it would seem relevant to me to mention that he won an award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I entered "Noah's Ark" AND "Telly Award" AND "Griffin" into Google News. If a reliable third-party news organization covered it, for example, I wouldn't have said anything. However, there's nothing. I also checked with both Factiva and LexisNexis. There are no mentions made in connection with this award. A simple google search doesn't tell us much of anything because they include blogs or other unreliable (or partisan) sites. Plus, and I think this is obvious, of course Griffin is going to promote the fact that he won an award (albeit obscure). So he likely sends it along to websites as a sort of press release, and hopes someone takes a bite. I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore, for example, but journalists everywhere were quick to report his win of the Academy Award for Best Documentary for Bowling for Columbine. Winning that award (like winning a Grammy Award, or an Emmy Award, or a BAFTA, or a *gulp* even a Razzie) means something. Winning an award that no independent, third-party source with editorial oversight covers? Hmmm...no. I'm not convinced yet. J Readings (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of the Awards it's easy to understand why it wouldn't be reported. Entrants are probably not going to be of national news interest. There are a lot of promotional and instructional videos with some cable shows included and they don't let in national network programs or commercials. Also the fact it isn't a competition means there's very little in the way of bragging rights except, "I won an award!" However, all things considered it is at least relevant as it seems to be the only award he's ever won and it is a national award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, your argument makes sense. Therefore, I would like to repeat the request that somebody should name another award for similar types of film productions, which is proven to be well-known and highly respected. If the Telly award is the only (or one of few) awards of equal reputation, then I would see no good reason for removing the statement. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then again, see the important caveats to policies regarding WP:SELFPUB. I would ask why anyone would want to include information not directly about Griffin's personal life into the article that cannot be verified by an independent, third-party reliable source? It doesn't make sense to me. J Readings (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. So the whole discussion about how "well-known and highly respected" Telly is doesn't really matter. Sorry, I overlooked that argument. Not even on the Telly page itself can I find a list of winners dating back to the times of Griffin's film. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recents edits

Many of John's edits of today look good, but I have significant problems with two of them, and would be glad of the opinions of other editors.

• Edit one: [25] My main problems:

• The deletion of the East Bay Express reference [26]" as redundant and of questionable editorial integrity". What evidence of this is there?
• The change of "the conspiracy theory of history espoused by the John Birch Society" to "JBS theory of history (arguably a conspiracy theory),". The first sentence is directly sourced from the Journal of Politics reference: "They [members of the JBS] overwhelmingly accepted the international conspirational theory of history espoused by Robert Welch." The second version (the arguably part) is unsourced. Which reliable source is arguing that the JBS does not have conspirational view of history? Given that the society and the man over and over again use the term conspiracy, and that reliable sources over and over again mention the JBS (and Griffin) and conspiracy theory in the same breath, I think we need to have multiple strong sources to say that there is any doubt about this.

• Edit two: [27] My main problems:

• To misquote Tina "What's Wyatt got to do with it?" Where is the evidence that Wyatt had anything to do with Griffin's film? It seems clear that Wyatt and Fasold split long before the film was made and before even Fasold wrote the book on which the book was made. I think Wyatt is totally irrelevant to Griffin and his film.
• David Fasold's vascillation. Can you give provide the text from Deal's book "Noah's Ark: The Evidence" that proves this, please? But in any case I sincerely doubt that Deal's book is a reliable source. I note that the Wikipedia article on Fasold contains multiple unreliable sources to apparently try to prove that Fasold reneged on his early sworn testimony and newspaper interviews, including a scanned letter,[28] and books written by Ark researchers with a point to push, and with publishers who publish books "by scholars who, through much study and research, discovered some astonishing truths when they combined Biblical history and prophecy with secular history andarchaeology".[29] This is the publisher of the Deal book. Is it a reliable source? I doubt it, myself.

I would be happy for the comments of others on these matters Slp1 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me only respond to the conspiracy theory issue (I need more time to understand the other points): I share parts of both of your views: 1.) the original sentence is not neutral enough and needs to be changed; 2.) John's edit didn't improve it at all. To find the right wording using "conspiracy" terminology is a highly delicate issue in my view. Even so-called "reliable sources" have their POV and many choose to put certain views aside as a "conspiracy theory". But this is a generalizing and superficial approach, which we have to be very careful about. Using this terminology to label people and opinions with the excuse that everybody does it - even "reliable sources" - for sure would make our decision easier, but I think we will be able to come closer to the NPOV ideal. I don't have a final answer to this yet, but I will definitely think about it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, Feelfree, and also your openness (shown several times on this page) to discussion and even changing your mind. While you are thinking about things a bit more, let me add a few other thoughts. The original sentence was "Since the 1960s, Griffin has spoken and written extensively on the conspirational theory of history espoused by the John Birch Society, including Communist and capitalist cabals,...". Given the titles of his books/pamphlets, the reports of his talks, a glance at his current website etc, I am astounded that anybody is questioning this way of describing what he did/does. But that is OR, and not allowed. However, we have lots of reliable sources for all aspects of the sentence. Are there any reliable sources at all that contradict (or argue) that this is not the case? If so, let's have them. Please also note as a general point that being neutral does not mean giving all views equal importance. WP:UNDUE is the thing to read here: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." --Slp1 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good that you posted the original sentence again. I have the feeling that you suspected I might be on the wrong track, and - if so - you were right (once again ...). In fact, I had only read (or understood) "conspiracy theory" instead of "... of history", which completely changes the tone of the sentence (looks like I want to see conspiracy theories everywhere
;-) ...). Also no need for further pondering, because "conspirational theory of history" is already perfectly neutral (it's an accurate way to say it without inducing immediate dislike - rather scepticism instead, which is good). I'm convinced now that the original version of the sentence is the better one (and a very good one indeed), and I changed it accordingly, with confidence that others will agree as well (if not, then disagree!). BTW, I'm not as often changing my mind as my knowledge and my conclusions - but I'm sure you meant it in the positive way only. (Thanks for the Wikilove, however I guess next time I'll try to first read and then comment ...) FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1 and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss, because I've always found your edits level-headed as well and it's much more fun to reach consensus in such a case than it is with some people ....

(1a) The term "conspiracy theory" is nonneutral because pejorative to many. When the Journal of Politics uses it, because it is pejorative to many, it should be flagged as a POV among others. Griffin's POV (which I'd been agnostic about until I searched for it just now) is refreshingly clear: "There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory" [30]. Therefore the NPOV edit should not make use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" itself together (either of Griffin or of JBS), though both words can be used independently. "International conspiracy theory of history" doesn't vitiate the nonneutrality enough. (Example. "Bush believes a theory about 19 terrorists conspiring on 9/11" (neutral); "Bush believes a conspiracy theory about 19 terrorists on 9/11" (nonneutral).) This is not an argument from WP:RS, but from WP:BLP and proper use of labels. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources say "Hitler was evil", our job is to say "Hitler did thus and thus" (WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves).

(1b) Generally three sources for one point are overkill (with exceptions), and East Bay struck me as an area weekly alternative paper, not one with high standards. But the real question is: what does its article prove that no other source proves?

(2) Obviously the flood facts are sketchy and I'm only working from the other WP articles (though I might have a book source somewhere). We do know from the David Fasold article that the movie was based on the book, which described the Fasold-Wyatt expedition, so either the movie mentions Wyatt or it (notably) disses him. There may have been disagreements on particulars between the two at the time of the book or 1992 movie, but the actual doubting of its being the ark site was dated only to 1996-1998. (I also know that most everyone who approaches ark researchers has a POV to push, 3 of which are mentioned together in Fasold's article.) So IF both Fasold and his doubts are worthy of mention in this article, THEN Wyatt and his faith are also worthy, because otherwise the article implies that Griffin's promotion of a cause "abandoned" by Fasold is unwise. However, I'm also open to the idea that this is a WP:COATRACK and we could stick to a bare mention of Fasold, with a link for those interested in the controversy. It would certainly be ridiculous to say that Fasold's name on a 1996 article proves his whole belief system in the presence of these other charges and his 1985 belief system; again, it doesn't matter if the charges are less reliably sourced, it matters that we are not giving Griffin (or Fasold) proper due if we say baldly that Fasold recanted on the strength of one disputed reference. WP:RS does not apply when editorial slight-of-hand has been charged credibly against the source, nor is it proper to argue that WP's airing of the charges of unreliability is obviously unreliable but Collins and his editors are obviously reliable. Rather, the credibility of Collins is just as debatable as that of the Usenet posts. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this John. I will start at the end and work backwards. First, and most importantly, we cannot use the WP entry on David Fasold as a source here. See WP:SPS We must use original reliable sources, ones that we can verify. If I understand you correctly, you don't have the references (Dawes, Deal) that you have cited, and thus can't verify that the Fasold article used them appropriately. If this is the case then I am sure you understand that they and the sentences they support need to be removed as unverified. On another matter, I disagree with your questioning the "credibility" of the Collins and Fasold article, as published in a peer reviewed journal. Note that I also gave two other sources from mainstream newspapers (and there several more as well) reporting on interviews and on Fasold's testimony in court in which he said he had changed his mind. I can't find any reliable evidence that Griffin's film had anything to do with Wyatt and his work (he is notably absent from the credits), and unless you have something, then the importance of Wyatt and his opinions to Griffin is speculation, and original research/synthesis.

Being of neutral point of view does not mean obscuring the reliably sourced majority view of the John Birch Society or Griffin. It does not mean that Mr. Griffin's opinion that he is not a conspiracy theorist gets to affect the article, though inclusion of the denial would be interesting I think. The East Bay article adds more about the conspiracy theory angle and also specifically used the word "cabal" which you changed to the unsourced "cartel". Given the nature of this article, I think we need all the citations we can get, and unless you can get some agreement from others that the East Bay Express is not reliable, then I suggest we leave it in, so that readers can make their own decisions. Having said all this, I think your latest edit is a reasonable compromise that I can live with.Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Being of neutral point of view does not mean obscuring the reliably sourced majority view of the John Birch Society or Griffin. It does not mean that Mr. Griffin's opinion that he is not a conspiracy theorist gets to affect the article, though inclusion of the denial would be interesting I think."

Slp1 is spot on here, I think. John, I look at this way, if we have 100 articles (for example) that say X, especially when they're mixed together with preferable academic articles that also say X (and thus add to the weight), and only a handful of sources that say Y, we cannot really turn around and put undue weight on the Y articles simply in the name of NPOV and BLP. That was one of the major points of the WP:UNDUE policy as part of NPOV. And also, it's likely that Griffin's isolated interpretation of his works could also be part of WP:FRINGE.

To come back to the David Irving article again, I watched how a few editors attempted to re-write the article to exclude the vast majority of verifiable articles that identified him with "Holocaust Denial" simply because Irving publicly rejected the label and its negative implications. It didn't matter because WP:UNDUE kicked in. Citing that Irving rejected the label was fine, but removing the vast majority opinion from things like the lead section and the consensus view of Irving didn't fly. J Readings (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Slp1 accepted the compromise (thanks so much!), I only need reaffirm on #1 that, if there be any future edit, it should avoid phrases like "conspiratorial theory" which have negative connotations. There is balancing of POVs re "whether X theorizes conspiracies", but there must also be balancing of POVs re "whether 'conspiracy theory' is pejorative"; and the latter is a case where the rights of the minority to self-identify must be respected. There is no validity in arguing that the majority finds you to be a racist therefore you are; that is a judgment call of the "Hitler is bad" kind. E.g. for the other example, not "X denies the Holocaust", but (hypothetically) "X affirms there were no political deaths in Germany during WWII" or whatever X says, followed by the majority POV.

On Fasold I'm still disappointed that Slp1 felt it necessary even to mention him (based on the self-published source), and then not to mention Wyatt too. Once again, I'd appreciate the quotations from the two nonfree sources. And it would be appropriate to repeat my concern that Slp1's presentation may contain a slight POV slant by suggesting Fasold's change is both unambiguous and authoritative. Once Slp1 posts the quotes, I would be comfortable with that throwing it to me to do some more sourcing of my own or to suggest another compromise. Thanks again! John J. Bulten (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

John, with all due respect, I strongly disagree that "rights of the minority to self-identify must be respected" here on Wikipedia. Can you find a policy or a guideline that says this? And as J Reading pointed out, yes, verifiability says that if the mainstream, verifiable view of things that you are a racist, or a holocaust denier, or a conspiracy theorist or a promoter of conspiracy theories, then yes, it gets to go into the article. No, it does not play second fiddle to the person's claims otherwise, though such denials would be important to include.

re Fasold: There are not just two articles about his court testimony and interviews, but many. Here are some to consider:

• "American author David Fasold told the court yesterday he spent $75,000 visiting and researching what some claim is the resting place of Noah's Ark in Turkey before he stopped "throwing money into this hole in the ground". One of two men behind the so-called Evolution v Creation legal battle, Mr Fasold told the court, "I stopped throwing money into this site . . . in February, 1995. I became very concerned that a mistake had been made." "Mud' A Geological Term, The Creationist Slinging Match Begins 10 April 1997 Canberra Times
• "Mr Fasold said he met Professor Plimer at the site in 1994 and at the time still had "Ark fever". However, he told the court: "I stopped throwing money into the site, this hole in the ground, in February 1995. I was very concerned a mistake had been made." Mr Fasold claimed to have spent more than $75,000 on expeditions to the site." Ark claim `a mistake'. 10 April 1997 The Australian
• "A MARINE salvage expert who was once obsessed with the idea that he had located Noah's Ark and held a nine-year belief in the structure's authenticity now regards it as "absolute BS", a court was told yesterday." 9 April 1997 Witness Tells How Ark Faith Sank. The West Australian
• "Mr Fasold, who is suing college lecturer Dr Allen Roberts for allegedly lying in his lectures about his examinations of the structure, admitted to the Federal Court in Sydney he was thrilled when he first arrived at Mt Ararat in 1985. "At the time I believed it was Noah's Ark," he said. Mr Fasold, who is now a car detailer in Oregon, said he made numerous expeditions to the site between 1985 and 1994. But under cross-examination by Dr Roberts' counsel, Alex Radojev, he admitted he no longer believed in the Ark and had told the press it was "absolute BS". " Doubts sank faith in Ark. 9 April 1997 The Daily Telegraph
• "A MARINE salvage expert believed for nine years that rock formations in Turkey were Noah's Ark before changing his position and mounting a legal challenge against the man who claims to have found the biblical relic, the Federal Court in Sydney was told yesterday. American author Mr David Fasold and the University of Melbourne's earth sciences department head, Professor Ian Plimer, are suing Dr Allen Roberts and Ark Search Association Incorporated in a landmark case in the Federal Court." Author admits belief in Ark for nine years.9 April 1997 The Australian
• "It was not until he went to Turkey with Prof Plimer in September that real doubts about the "Ark structure" arose in his mind. He had been convinced by the dimensions of the structure (300 cubits long and 44,100 square feet in area) being close to those quoted in the Bible, but Fasold now thinks this is what made the ancients believe it was the Ark. He said: "I believe this may be the oldest running hoax in history. I think we have found what the ancients said was the Ark, but this structure is not Noah's Ark." THEORY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER PETER POCKLEY 6 November 1994 Sun Herald