Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Use of term Quackery in the lede

Does it have to mention "quackery" in the lede? What is the policy on using the term quackery in BLP articles. Even if reliable sources say someone is a quack, is it needed in the article? MEDRS doesn't seem to say you need to say he's a quack. This Griffen article does say he advocates conspiracy theories is that enough weight to let people reading wikipedia know his laetrile views aren't supported by mainstream medicine? I looked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery#Persons_accused_of_quackery I see none of these mention them being quacks in the ledes.

Some see the term quackery as needlessly perjorative. How "needed" is it here? Popish Plot (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You realise this issue has been discussed extensively over recent months? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean it can never be discussed again? Popish Plot (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course not -- but those who have discussed it already might not want to have to repeat the same points all again. Best to look at previous discussions and find a specific angle that you think wasn't addressed properly, rather than simply (re)opening a general discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok good idea, thanks. Popish Plot (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I searched these archives and then also found it was discussed on the fringe board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_44#G._Edward_Griffin well looks like it was decided. Thanks again. Popish Plot (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish Plot, even though "community consensus" believes it is an acceptable term, WP:Consensus doesn't trump policy. I agree with you that use of the term is needlessly pejorative, and that view is further supported by the fact it is not RS per WP:BLP which requires editors to Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources., and it also doesn't pass the smell test per WP:MEDRS, or WP:RS (medicine) #Use up-to-date evidence. For one thing, Media Matters is not a high quality source for citing such contentious material because it is a self-proclaimed progressive nonprofit organization that has a COI with Griffin's political affiliations. The other two sources are outdated, one of which is a journal article dated May 1979 that was written by Victor Herbert who died of malignant melanocytoma in 2002 at the age of 75 per the following sources. [1] [2]. The other source is noted in PUBMED as an "Historical article" originally published in the Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and was written by I.J. Lerner, (1981), Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine at University of Minnesota Medical School. [3], [4]. Not sure of the relevance, but he co-authored a chapter in Integrative Therapies 2(4); 2003 pp 332-344 re: a RCT design that "conclusively supported the hypothesis that therapeutic massage and healing touch therapy were more effective than presence of a caring professional alone or standard care in inducing a relaxed state and reducing short-term pain" and so forth "in adult patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy." [5] I found it curious considering the prevailing views of pseudoscience and CAM which is often discounted by mainstream, so why cite an author who practices pseudoscience to support the claim of quackery against another? Perhaps I've overlooked something? Anyway, I believe the 3 cited sources used to support the term "quackery" do not Those sources need to be replaced with RS or the contentious label should be removed. As soon as this RfC has concluded, I will move forward to get the current issues resolved. Atsme☯^Consult 17:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how old a reliable source is though right? I also asked about this on the BLP board where I saw someone else discussing using the term quackery in a BLP article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#I_am_a_quack_vs_my_work_is_regarded_as_quackery It says if that's what a reliable source says that can be in the article. I was thinking that wasn't the case just because I had been reading other wikipedia articles about folks accused of quackery and those articles didn't mention quackery in the lede. But maybe they should and wikipedia could be "improved" by adding that to articles such as Mehmet Oz (assuming a reliable source says such a thing, not trying to do original research). Popish Plot (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish, it will be well worth your while to read and consider the many pages of policy and guidelines regarding sources, verification, due weight, and related topics. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's just what I have been doing. Popish Plot (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Keep it up and you'll rapidly develop some context on the various talk page and editing interactions you've been following. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We might as well point to reliable source guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons Here it says to take care about anything contentious. I think there is grey area and it's worth a discussion. But there are reliable sources saying Griffin is practicing "quackery", old sources yes, but that's why I said it doesn't matter how old a source is. In fact it says breaking news is considered less reliable. Popish Plot (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

without evidence of new medical understandings of snakeoil as no longer being "quackery", what was "quackery" in 1990 is still "quackery" and what was "quackery" in 1950 is still "quackery" and what was "quackery" in 1900 is still "quackery". In fact the longer it has been identified as "quackery" and is still being pushed as if it were not, says something about the pusher. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best to say what the cold hard facts are. Do you want to know my opinion on this? I bet you don't. Do you want to see some reliable sources on this? I bet you do, if you are looking to improve a wiki article anyway. Besides that, no need to insult anyway. Keep in mind cancer is an evil, evil thing and many are looking for hope. Popish Plot (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cancer is not evil. It is a disease. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. We are not here to "provide hope". we are particularly not here to "provide FALSE hope". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I consider it quite brazen to determine for our readers what is and isn't FALSE hope when discussing ongoing research. See Alzheimer's_disease#Research_directions. The amygdalin research is real, it has been published in peer reviewed journals, and it is in practice as integrative therapy, which is not unlike the following sentence at Alzheimer's Preliminary research on the effects of meditation on retrieving memory and cognitive functions have been encouraging. Meditation? Isn't that CAM? I hope such mention doesn't stir the skeptics who appear to be opposed to anything CAM. Atsme☯^Consult 13:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Integrative medicine is just a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine, itself a rebranding of alternative medicine. All share the same problem: they are defined by rejection by the scientific community. Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. The term for alternative medicine that has been proven to work is: medicine.

Regardless of what you might "consider", laetrile, as promoted by Griffin in World Without Cancer, is objectively wrong. Not debatable or a matter of interpretation or an unpromising but legitimate line of inquiry, it is categorically wrong. Right there on the cover, it mentions vitamin B17. There is no such thing as vitamin B17. The book says that cancer is caused by a deficiency of vitamin B17. This is wrong. There are many causes of cancer and deficiency of a fake vitamin is not one of them. The book says the cure is supplementation with amygdalin (aka laetrile) which is rich in vitamin B17. This is categorically wrong since cancer, generically, is not a deficiency disease and certainly not a deficiency of a fake vitamin.

As I pointed out before, the discovery of calcium in lunar rock samples does not validate the casein theory of lunar geology. However much calcium they find, the moon is still not made of cheese.

So it goes with laetrile. Whatever uses may be found for amygdalin, laetrile remains a fraud, and a particularly evil one at that. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish Plot, your comment goes tot he very heart of it. Yes, people are looking for hope, and some people will try to sell them false hope because they know it makes money. Laetrile is a fraud, possibly the most lucrative fraud in the history of cancer quackery. It's lucrative precisely because people are looking for hope and would often prefer a barely-plausible lie to a harsh reality. That is why it is so very important to remain rigorous in our treatment of health frauds like laetrile. It's part of our mission: to inform, not to misinform. That's why we mention that laetrile is a scam, that's why we say the Earth is warming due to human activity, that's why we say the Earth is billions of years old. We know this collides with the beliefs of some people. That's their problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Will those who have actually read the book, World Without Cancer, please raise your hands? My question results from what appears to be mirrored responses originating from critics rather than actual encyclopedic analysis of specific passages in the book using RS with inline text attribution. Could that be why we're not seeing any inline text attribution? Btw, the blanket criticisms and contentious labels that are not properly sourced are not acceptable per any of the PAGs I've read. You also might want to keep in mind that reputable clinics (whether you agree with them or not) are actually using amygdalin (laetrile) today. Laetrile the drug compound is banned, but amygdalin (aka B17) the natural substance is not, and that's the further research Griffin promotes in his book along with medical freedom to choose. The fact that ongoing research is being conducted today makes the outdated sources (30+ year old journal articles for clinicians, etc.) less reliable than the belief itself, so I imagine the disputes will continue.

Editors have to consider the facts and present them in a dispassionate tone with compliance to NPOV, NOR, V, FRINGEBLP, etc.. Let's start with the facts:

1. There are treatments in use today so if medical practitioners are legally prescribing amygdalin as integrative therapy, why should WP assume the position that it's quackery based on journal articles that are 30+ years old? [6], [7] (about those doctors: [8])
2. If it is quackery as what was stated in Wiki voice in the lead, why are the following medical centers allowed to use laetrile (amygdalin) as part of their prescribed integrative therapies? [9] [10].
3. Is the International Myeloma Foundation (June Pruitt) a RS? [11].
4. If the therapy itself is worthless quackery, why is it still being used around the world? [12]
5. If laetrile (amygdalin) is worthless quackery, why is there still ongoing academic and scientific research? Read the guidelines in WP:FRINGE/PS before you answer that question, and see the following: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].
6. Why are RS still covering the issue 30+ years later? [18]
7. Considering the first publication date of the book, is there a reason to exclude information regarding the 60 Minutes broadcast in 1974 titled "Laetrile: Cure or quackery" with Mike Wallace? [19]

The point I'm trying to make here is that by not providing general information in a dispassionate tone in compliance with a NPOV to achieve WP:Balance and proper WP:Weight, we are driving readers away. It is far better to include as much information as possible and not leave readers thinking WP is only half truth. Consider that readers who end-up on WP seeking knowledge should be able to acquire well-balanced encyclopedic knowledge, not a coatrack for the purpose of discrediting Griffin's politics and his book. Atsme☯^Consult 23:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether any editor here has read Griffin's works. Please confine your remarks to content, not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

And please stop repeating yourself. Your opinion is clear. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As is yours, so please stop giving me instructions and limit your discussion to improving the article. Atsme☯^Consult 01:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is in very good shape. The challenge now is to keep it in good shape. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article does not give enough weight to The Creature from Jekyll Island, which is more notable than all of his other works. -A1candidate 02:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is Start-class and unstable. It is PP. WP:Start-Class The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. It does fit the description alright. And you think this article is in "very good shape"? It doesn't even satisfy fundamental content policies which will be addressed as soon as the other RfC's are completed. Atsme☯^Consult 05:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Your consistent inability to persuade anybody else rather suggests that you may be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Jekyll book is barely notable. The problem is that few RS discuss it and the ones that do discuss it are derisive. There's really nothing more to say other than what's in the article. If anybody ever finds qualified RS references, the discussion of the book can be expanded. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean cancer is evil literally. Figureateively, do you want to see some sources that made that personification? Anyways it's just best to assume good faith. If you resort to insults, people will correctly assume you're wrong. Facts may be boring and it's more fun to insult people online but really you do more bad than good to wikipedia if you do that, even if you're right. If you have facts on your side, use em. Post links to wikipedia guidelines and explain how they relate to the situation here in an emotionless manner. Popish Plot (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. Atsme has been pushing this for months without gaining any traction at all, and I have lost count of the number of times that various people have patiently explained to her why the recent research is not in any way relevant to Griffin's thesis in World Without Cancer. This is not the article to argue the toss about whether amygdalin might prove to have some valid therapeutic use at some pointy in the future, because that was not the case Griffin was making. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is saying it's not a suicide pact a common thing? It's a very odd thing to say. Strawman, I never said such an extreme thing as it being a suicide pact. Back to what I say. If you keep insulting someone, it makes you look nuts, and then people will assume you're wrong. But if you calmly and clearly show wikipedia guidelines and reliable sources, that is something else entirely. All I am saying. Popish Plot (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see that is from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_social_policies_are_not_a_suicide_pact I think you are using it in wrong way and didn't intend to. It says ""Our social policies are not a suicide pact" is essentially a restatement of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as applied to editor behavior: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Popish Plot (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I advise you to check my contributions history: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I think you will find that I have plenty of experience in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather more than you do. The patience of Wikipedia has a limit. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. You have a good contributions history. I'll try to get a good idea of what "to do" as opposed to "what not to do" based on some of your past edits. Is the suicide pact thing here meaning, if the wikipedia page here ended up with false, point of view, unsourced information, that is obviously a very bad thing hence it'd be like a suicide? And self caused? I understand we can't put false, point of viewish, unsourced information in here just to make someone happy. Don't worry about that, I get it. Popish Plot (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTSUICIDE means that while "assuming good faith that editors are here to build an encyclopedia based on policies" is the initial position, we are not obliged to continue "assuming" in the face of evidence to the contrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules might help simplify things. I think assuming bad faith is suicide too though. Popish Plot (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the crucial difference between assuming bad faith and concluding bad faith. You are also apparently ignoring the fact, whihc I have stated more than once, that I think Atsme is entirely sincere in her crusade - sincere, but wrong in important and fundamental ways. The problem is not lack of good faith, but WP:IDHT, WP:STICK and sundry others along the same lines. It seems on the face of it that no matter how often the facts are pointed out and the proposed edits rejected, Atsme will continue to assert her opinion regardless. Wikipedia has a problem with people who do that, and they very often end up sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I do understand it but I get confused by some of your vague references. In this case the assuming good faith not being a suicide pact. I believe it refers to not putting unsourced, point of viewish false information into wiki articles. Not that it gives free reign to insult people on talk pages even if they may have a wrong opinion. To repeat myself: "I didn't mean cancer is evil literally. Figureateively, do you want to see some sources that made that personification? Anyways it's just best to assume good faith. If you resort to insults, people will correctly assume you're wrong. Facts may be boring and it's more fun to insult people online but really you do more bad than good to wikipedia if you do that, even if you're right. If you have facts on your side, use em. Post links to wikipedia guidelines and explain how they relate to the situation here in an emotionless manner." What I just said is not a wikipedia rule and you are free to ignore wikipedia's rules anyway. And all of these essays and such have people disagreeing. Just common sense advice for any conversations whether on wikipedia or real life or any other medium of exchange. The golden rule if you will. Popish Plot (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep asserting that we should assume good faith, with the obvious implication that we are not assuming good faith of Atsme. This is wrong on two counts. First, I do not assume ill-faith of Atsme, as previously stated. Second, even if I did, that would be justified per WP:SUICIDE. Your exhortations to assume good faith do not offer any meaningful assistance. Atsme refuses to stop making the same factually incorrect assertions, that has nothing to do with ill-faith.

Nobody is being insulted. If you consider that being shown you are wrong is insulting, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. I will acknowledge that I have encountered some people who do profess great offence at being shown they are wrong, especially one particular strident homeopathy shill, who considers that pointing out the scientific consensus on homeopathy is abuse, harassment and bullying; I see no evidence that this applies to Atsme. While she does seem unable to unpick criticism of her statements form criticism of herself, she does not show any of the characteristic paranoid mindset of the typical quackery shill. In fact she seems perfectly decent, which is why I have not been pursuing sanctions against her for her zealous defence of fringe and crank ideas in this article. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I see where first you state the facts, reliable sources etc. That all gets laid out. If it is ignored, that is like failure to get the point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 So at that point, if you kept assuming good faith, that would mean letting someone put in false, unsourced material, or give it undue weight or whatever the issue may be, and in that case you should ignore the rule on assuming good faith because otherwise it would get in the way of making a good wikipedia article. Popish Plot (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Do not bit the newcomers. Guy, you just made some pretty bold statements about me which are not content related, including your boldly incorrect statement that Nobody is being insulted. You also said you do not assume ill-faith of Atsme, and then added if you had that would be justified per WP:SUICIDE. I perceive your statement as a threat of harm worthy of oversight by Callanecc. That statement is way over the edge. There is actually evidence that you have repeatedly insulted me as exampled by the following diffs: [20], [21], In this diff you ask why nobody else agrees? Perhaps some editors don't speak up because of behavior similar to what you just did to Popish. No editor wants to constantly be told they are wrong based only on your POV. [22], Falsely claiming that I tried to "imply a vastly greater scope and breadth to that consensus" The closing comments are evidence for why it is a false claim: [23]. You have made known your views as a a skeptic against quack treatments [24] which appears to carry with it a specific POV not to mention your political slant that "all Birchers are toxic for any editor who fails to understand and accept that members of the John Birch Society are usually extremists and very often completely unhinged. I see no justification whatsoever for your behavior, past or present. Atsme☯^Consult 18:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, please confine your article talk page remarks to content improvement. SPECIFICO talk

I think part of the problem is I asked questions and he wrongly assumed that meant I was doing something wrong. But I didn't understand what suicide pact and ignoring all rules meant here. I think wikipedia doesn't like to have hard and fast rules that must always be followed because context matters. So they have many essays giving leeway but some of them do more harm than good because they're confusing and then people get annoyed if someone asks what it means. But he finally did explain which was great. Popish Plot (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you are quote-mining through policy and ignoring its actual intent. You are not a newcomer. Your claims of insults rely on the idea that criticizing your arguments is criticism of you. That's not how it is. I think you're a nice person, but I know, as a fact, that you are wrong about laetrile - as you acknowledged once before, I know a lot more about this than you do, yet you seem unwilling to accept consensus even after acknowledging that others know more than you do. Sooner or later you are going to have to either walk away form this or be removed by force. I would very much prefer the former. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the whole laetreile thing really a John Bircher scam? I think unless there were reliable sources showing that connection it's original research. Popish Plot (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind I searched and found it's not original research. http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html Popish Plot (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure - how is "Quackwatch" a reliable source? I looked for credentials at the bottom of the webpage, and saw only a list of "recommended vendors" for sunglasses and such. Quackwatch looks to be no more RS than DrMercola.com for statements of fact. You might get by with attribution to the doctor who wrote the article, "According to...", but how noteworthy is he? petrarchan47tc 20:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You could always search a well-known online encyclopaedia. Quackwatch is considered (by independent authorities, not just Wikipedia) to be a reliable source for critical commentary on Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (SCAM for short). Guy (Help!) 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a Bircher scam, it originated with Krebs, but the Birchers became involved when one of their members was prosecuted; it offended their libertarian ideals to have a Federal agency regulating medical claims, as far as I can tell. A reliable source for this has been posted several times on this page: Laetrile, a lesson in cancer quackery. Please do read it. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were saying it was Birch scam when you said " Griffin is one such. He is an advocate for a form of quackery long promoted by the society, and which has caused untold misery." Maybe not originated by them but continued at least? I did look it up to get more info and I think your quote is true. But that wouldn't be important for this page I suppose. Popish Plot (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I had came to close this discussion, but I do have some bias. I don't believe that using the term quackery would be a good choice. Call him crank, conspiracy theorist, etc. but quackery is just a different term. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

He is a crank, the laetrile scam he promotes in World Without Cancer is quackery. The two are decoupled. He's not a quack, he is merely an apologist for quackery (which is actually less damning than his antisemitic conspiracy theories, AIDS denialism and sundry other idiocies). Guy (Help!) 08:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

PP

I feel that we need to have the page protection, due to expire in 3 days, extended for another month. I see no progress on the issues that led to the disruption here. After another month, we'll have resolution on two RfCs and perhaps the tone of the discussion here will improve. Could those who agree with an extension post a brief note here so that we can arrange with an Admin? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for all but I do think for me this has been informative and at first I was thinking this was a BLP so that meant keep tedentious material to a minimum but then I saw the reliable sources, and some that were older, I had been thinking older material was less reliable but I got corrected on that. And one edit I would make is remove the source USA Daily http://web.archive.org/web/20071016170111/http://www.usadaily.com//article.cfm?articleID=63368 because it isn't considered reliable. That one tricked me because I wrongly assumed it was USA Today, an entirely different newspaper. Popish Plot (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that perhaps the sanctions should be allowed to expire. I'd question the ability of an extension to have an effect if the current page protection has not. This may shield disruptive individuals from sanctions that could assist in ending their disruption.The benifit of the doubt has been given and ample opportunity has been provided (or what have you).-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're agreeing with my concern but stating that once the disruption resumes that it will be ended once and for all by sanctions on the perpetrators? SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, but it's more questioning aloud than an actual statement. Just another avenue to look at. I mean it may be that if there is further disruption page protection settles it. Or it maybe this has went on for to long and it's time to settle it once and for all.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. It says at the top of this talk page

" The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.

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."

Is this the same thing you're talking about? Popish Plot (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

For goodness sake. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes. My personal preference is for the RfCs to be closed and all parties to abide by them, but there is no doubt that Atsme is in danger of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Can you please keep all these silly essays on rationalwiki, not here? -A1candidate 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC) You're mistaking me for Atsme, whose silly essay was recently deleted, but I don't think she edits RationalWiki (I certainly don't). Guy (Help!) 22:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Guy, your disparaging comment was unnecessary, and duly noted. Atsme☯Consult 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I like this essay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot Too much uneeded insulting going on. Is it necessary? If not no need to say it. Popish Plot (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Atsme, your statement of complete lack of self-criticism was unnecessary and hasn't been noted because it's redundant. You might want to criticise A1candidate, whose statement was actually rude, but I won't bother as A1candidate is a quackery apologist and doesn't like the reality-based community much, so I kind of expect it. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead no more the same?

Why this lead is so small now? It should have more details about his books and both type of reviews about them. SamuelDay1 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• The lede is POV and does not adhere to WP:LEDE, which states: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

The only reason Griffin has a WP article is the fact that his book became a best seller. There are details about the contents of his book in the lede, but the fact that it was a hit (and, indeed, the "notability of the article's subject") is missing. So it appears that negative information about Griffin finds a cozy home in the lede, while the most important fact about the subject is relegated to a sentence in the body. That fact happens to be a positive. This is not neutral and not encyclopedic. If it's true that the reader doesn't scroll past the lede of any given article, visitors to this article will never know why this guy is notable. They will, however, have a very clear idea that he should be in a straightjacket. That seems a further violation of WP:ALIVE.

The lede also violates WP:LEDE in terms of due weight. According to the lede, the entire article is about Griffin's conspiracy theories, and Griffin was an author of little consequence (because, one would assume, if that were not the case, his accolades would be present in the opening paragraph, as is the case with all biographies). petrarchan47คุก 19:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I see some have said the book isn't notable. I don't understand the reasoning for that. If so why not nominate this for deletion and argue based on that. Instead, is it better to protect this every month to keep it as it is, that seems odd if also saying the way it is now is no good since it isn't notable.Popish Plot (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if you are his fan, he is certainly known for such conspiracy theories and he himself admits. SamuelDay1 (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did you proposed any other version? SamuelDay1 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

SamuelDay1 the proposed changes I made were reverted but can be seen here: [25], plus I attempted to add the following in an effort to provide more biographical information, but it was also reverted [26]. You can scan the edit history and see that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) was also reverted and so on down the line. There is a substantial amount of information that was kept out of the article to make it what you see now. Atsme☯^Consult 03:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your version had no mention of conspiracy theories. SamuelDay1 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

See [27], also March 8, 2015. He has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by biased critics and according to BLP policy, we need high quality RS to use contentious labels in Wiki voice. If we use Media Matters as a source for being referred to as a conspiracy theorist, it should be done using inline text attribution quoting the writer of that statement. Atsme☯^Consult 05:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep asserting this, but you have consistently failed to persuade others. S

Griffin promotes the New World Order conspiracy theory, asserts that there is a conspiracy in medicine to suppress the "truth" about vbitamin B17, repeats AIDS denialist conspiracy theories as "fact", repeats 9/11 conspiracy theories as "fact" and so on.

He is not being done down by "biased critics". These are conspiracy theories, they are unhinged from reality, and anybody who states otherwise is irrational.

The only bias is in favour of reality, a land largely unknown to Griffin. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the man, Guy, though personally I don't think we need to even touch upon the question of the objective rationality (or lack thereof) of those who believe in the various fringe views referenced. But even agreeing with your assessment (and further agreeing that this is generally how sources regard him), it still seems to me that this particular suggestion of Atsme's has some merit, as a purely procedural distinction. Why not directly quote and attribute our sources in this area as much as possible? It seems like a reasonable compromise solution that can only tend us more towards neutral point of view, by giving our readers the useful perspectives we have gathered here and allowing them to come to their own conclusions. And I can't imagine many readers, when presented with said information, will draw conclusions too drastically different from those you and I have (and those who do were probably going to believe in those notions regardless of what we had to say).

Of course, the devil is in the detail, and maybe I'm missing the context of some past controversial edits that would frame this in a different light, but generally speaking I think direct attribution is an approach that should be utilized liberally, both with regard to editing in general and articles on fringe science topics in particular. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede is small because a small group of people (essentially one plus hangers-on) refuses to accept that Griffin is a crank. Feel free to propose specific actionable changes that can be reviewed, achieve consensus and be added to the article. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no chance of any editor persuading quack skeptics, critics and/or haters of Griffin of anything other than what they believe per their own political advocacies and other stated positions or beliefs, none of which have been supported by RS to date. It's POV with an extreme bias as evidenced by the following diffs: January 15, 2015 February 20, 2015 February 16, 2015. I actually asked other admins if editors who have such a strong POV should be editing a WP:FRINGEBLP. Not one has responded to my question which I also find rather curious. Regardless, the kind of content editing I've been exposed to here is not the kind of GF collaboration I wish to partake in. I have made known my position for the record on numerous occasions, the same as you have yours. Any claims saying that I didn't give it a good ole collegial try to clean-up this BLP will be false ones. I have gone beyond the call of duty and what most others have attempted regarding the issues. I have no regrets. In the interim, I have bigger steaks to barbecue. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 20:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I think you're misstating the issue. I'm confident none of the editors here "hates" Griffin. The problem is not that mainstream sources or editors hate him, it's that we have found less than a handful of experts or notable authors in Griffin's fields who take his work seriously enough to comment in what would be reliable sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Atsme is determined to have an article, and equally determined that said article should not follow the line taken by the tiny number of reliable sources that actually discuss Griffin at all (in my view only in passing, I am not persuaded that he is actually notable at all). The source of the problem is Atsme's circular logic: we must have an article because he's namechecked in reliable sources debunking his writing, but we must not follow their assessment that he's a crank "because WP:BLP" (even though, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, WP:BLP does not in any way prevent us from describing cranks as cranks, and numerous articles on conspiracist nutjobs like Alex Jones (radio), David Icke, David Irving and others). It's a self-reinforcing circle, and my personal preference for breaking it is to move this article to the primary subject which is actually covered in the sources, namely Creature. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I just provided tell a different story....and there are many more in the TP archives, on various TP, etc. If you don't think such rash statements reflect hate or an extreme bias, then I'd be curious to see what you think does. Atsme☯^Consult 21:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I do not hate Griffin. I don't hate anyone, that I can think of. I am entirely clear on the fact that he is a crank, which is well established, and I know that any attempt to portray his crank ideas as legitimate is a fundamental betrayal of canonical Wikipedia policy. I also know that 90% of the problem here is that there is so little coverage of him in reliable independent sources, because his ideas are so obviously unhinged that they get little or no traction int he reality-based media. That's 90% of the problem, the other 10% is that you refuse to take "no" for an answer.

As to bias, Wikipedia is unashamedly biased towards reality. Creationists, AIDS deniers, conspiracy theorists and other cranks are covered as exactly what they are: cranks. See Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans for evidence that this is entirely by design. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What rash statements? I don't follow you. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Small group knows . SamuelDay1 (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on laetrile

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

---

Please comment on sources and content regarding the use of amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy in cancer that may validate Griffin's claims.

Griffin's claims are, as far as I understand it:

• That amygdalin is a vitamin, specifically vitamin B17.
• That deficiency of vitamin B17 is a cause of cancer.
• That supplementation of vitamin B17 can cure cancer.
• That the medical establishment conspires to suppress this.

The questions at issue are:

1. Is it reasonable to describe Griffin's thesis in respect of amygdalin as scientifically unsupported (per [28], [29], and even [30], a well-known proponent of numerous quesitonable supplement claims)?
2. Is it reasonable to characterise the vitamin B17 / laetrile scam, as quackery, in Wikipedia's voice (per [31] especially - "All prior forms of cancer quackery, however, pale in comparison with the laetrile crusade, unquestionably the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history"), or must it be attributed to "the medical community", or, more accurately, the medical and scientific communities?
3. Does recent research suggesting a possible therapeutic benefit for amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy, cast sufficient doubt on the consensus [to include mention in the article]. Missed form original, added after Nomoskedasticity's comments below

Please address each separately.

Alternative questions

(please specify if your responses pertain to the Alternative question)

1. Is it reasonable to include Griffin's views as biographical content regarding why he wrote his book, World Without Cancer, as long as his views are not given WP:UNDUE, provided the current views of the medical community are properly presented including not only the research that is 30+ years old, but also the most recent research on amygdalin in 2013 - 2015?

Note: Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, includes documented evidence regarding clinical trials of various physicians [32], and the results of various physicians and scientific researchers of that time period (30+ years ago) who used the drug Laetrile, a chemically modified version of amygdalin, a natural substance found in apricots, almonds and various other fruits and nuts. [33]. Scientist Krebbs called amygdalin (B17) a vitamin, but it was never officially recorded as such. Griffin's book marshals evidence provided by physicians and researchers of that time period, much of which still applies today with regards to the natural substance, amygdalin, [34] [35]. There are books written by whistle blowers from Memorial Sloan Kettering that exposes the fraudulent results of the 30 year old research: [36]. Griffin's book advocates for further research of amygdalin as a potential treatment for cancer but more so for the freedom of choice. [37]

2. Is it reasonable to include brief mention of ongoing scientific research as indicated most recently by Memorial Sloan Kettering, who finally admitted to "the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms" [38], as well as what is published in peer reviewed journals as long as those views are presented as ongoing research per WP:FRINGE guidelines? [39] [40]

• Important notes: This RfC is poorly crafted, the questions are rather misleading and ambiguous for the following reasons:

1. Griffin did not write a thesis, he wrote a book World Without Cancer which provides historical documentation of laetrile including clinical application by medical physicians such as Laetrile Case Histories, which is further supported by more recent documentation Evidence Based Medicine, 1700 scientific publications, and historical research. The current results posed in the questions are based on 30+ year old research. [41] The book advocates for further research of amygdalin which is commonly called B17, or laetrile and also advocates for medical free choice. More recent research indicates much different responses from the 30+ year old research: ...amygdalin may serve as a promising lead candidate, Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells, Amygdalin inhibits renal fibrosis in chronic kidney disease With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin..., More likely, serious negative reactions are in fact unusual, [42], [43].
2. The sources cited to justify calling it quackery are sourced to old research (one is a journal articles for clinicians) that date back 30+ and has since been challenged by whistle blowers Doctored Results, and the antiquated results disproven as evidenced by recent research above.
3. Recent research suggests a possible therapeutic benefit for amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy, and amygdalin is currently being used as an integrative therapy in reputable clinics in the US and around the world. In Chicago, Miami, New York, etc., [44], and a list of locations by the American Anti-Cancer Institute. Atsme☯^Consult 15:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Important notes on the "important" notes

Atsme, as has been pointed out dozens of times before, the recent research you keep mentioning is completely irrelevant to the 1970s laetrile scam.

Will explaining it one more time get you to finally shut up? I'm happy to explain it yet again if you like.

1. There is no such thing as vitamin B17. PubMed mentions it only in connection with the laetrile scam (see search, "The many popular misconceptions and unsound advice concerning vitamins and health, including "fake" vitamins-pangamic acid ("vitamin B15") and laetrile ("vitamin B17")-are also discussed." - both B15 and B17 were invented by Krebs).
2. Deficiency of "vitamin B17" aka amygdalin aka laetrile does not cause cancer, not least because, as noted above, vitamin B17 does not exist.
3. Supplementation of vitamin B17 aka amygdalin aka laetrile does not cure cancer, ditto.
4. There is no conspiracy by the medical profession to hush this up because the claims are false so there is nothing to suppress. The "conspiracy" would in any case have to be unfeasibly large and yet never have had a single whistleblower.

That is the core of Griffin's thesis (see the relevant definition of the word for its validity in this case) in his book. Every single argument he makes in favour of the laetrile scam, is invalid. The book was written in support of a fellow member of the John Birch Society who was prosecuted for taking part in the laetrile scam.

The book's arguments are invalid.

There is no newer research on laetrile as a cancer cure because the Declaration of Helsinki does not permit human trials unless there is credible evidence that a drug will actually work. No IRB in the world would sanction an RCT of laetrile for cancer at this time, for the simple and obvious reason that it has at its heart an erroneous claim: that cancer is caused by a deficiency of "vitamin B17", which does not exist. .

The recent research showing early indications that amygdalin, or a component thereof, may have value as an adjuvant therapy in some cancers, are not in any way relevant to the 1970s laetrile scam as promoted by Griffin in World Without Cancer and which is still ongoing now.

Even if these early findings bear fruit and a worthwhile therapy results - and bear in mind that at least nine out of every ten substances that show early promise of this kind turn out not to be clinically useful - this would have absolutely no bearing or relevance whatsoever on the status of the laetrile scam as promoted by Griffin in World Without cancer.

Now that's all clearly explained, you can safely strike the comment you added above, as it may serve to mislead others who share your previous lack of understanding, which I have now corrected, of the irrelevance of this recent material to the laetrile scam.

Lest it be misunderstood: the laetrile scam was identified as possibly the most lucrative form of cancer quackery in the 1970s. It has not gone away. Despite the comprehensive evidence that it is a fraud, it is still pursued by a small number of unscrupulous individuals, mainly working clinics across the border in Mexico that specialise in preying on desperate terminally ill Americans with money. This is not a historical issue, though it should be and would be if these vermin had any conscience. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

• Editors previously uninvolved in this issue comment in this section.

• yes, yes and no. This is all supported by high quality RS. Any recent research should only be considered once reviewed by MEDRS quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with MrBill3, it should be yes, yes and no. Yes to 1 & 2, because the sources are good. No to 3, because the sources are not talking about using amygdalin to cure cancer, which is the issue here. Darx9url (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• yes, yes and no. as per the above-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• yes, yes and no per the above. The reliable sources are quite clear on 1 and 2 and recent research on amygdalin has no bearing on the consensus regarding Griffin's thesis (here I'm using "thesis" to mean "central idea").

Regarding the "alternative questions": no and no. If Griffin's motivations for writing the book were covered in reliable sources, that information might merit inclusion in the article. However, inclusion of his motivation in writing the book does not imply that current medical research must also be included. One of the issues here is that Griffin and recent medical research define amygdalin differently: Griffin says it's "Vitamin B17" and makes certain claims with respect to that "Vitamin" whereas modern research defines it only as an extract. Even if the Griffin and modern research weren't talking about different substances (which they are, since they define amygdalin differently), this article is a biography; it is not a summary of the past and present research into amygdalin, and the medical status of and research into amygdalin does not belong in this article. Ca2james (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• yes, scientifically unspported, yes, quackery, no, recentl research doesn't change anything. BMK (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

General RFC discussion

For the avoidance of doubt my views are:

1. Yes. There is no such thing as vitamin B17, there is no evidence that cancer is caused by a deficiency of the non-existent vitamin, or of amygdalin, whether or not it is a vitamin, there is no evidence that amygdalin is a cure for cancer as it is promoted by laetrile quacks, and there has never been any evidence whatsoever of a concerted cover up by the immense group of doctors, medical scientists, regulators, drug company employees and charity workers who would have to be party to any conspiracy of silence. It is therefore correct, both technically and in terms of WP:NPOV, to describe Griffin's view as scientifically unsupported.
2. Yes. Laetrile is a fraud. Numerous prosecutions (e.g. [45]) attest to this. It is correct to characterise it as quackery and/or fraud and there is no need to qualify this as it is a view that has no significant dissent among the relevant scientific community. Even those investigating amygdalin as a potential therapy, do not subscribe to the laetrile narrative of cancer as a disease caused by deficiency of amygdalin.
3. No. Recent research is irrelevant to Griffin's claims as it does not touch at any point on the narrative of laetrile: it does not demonstrate that amygdalin is a vitamin, does not support the idea that cancer as a deficiency disease, does not show that amygdalin cures cancer when administered as Griffin and other laetrile promoters claim, and if anything weakens the claims of the laetrile underground by providing a plausible explanation for the positive results found by Sugiura at MSKCC, one which refutes the narrative spun by the likes of Ralph W. Moss and other laetrile believers. Thus it is not relevant in this article and to include it would be a red herring, a novel synthesis and a failure of WP:NPOV.

(addendum:) In respect of the alternative questions posed presumably by Atsme: the 2013-2015 research is irrelevant to world without cancer so the question is moot. WWC claims that amygdalin is a vitamin. It isn't and the new research does not change that. WWC posits that amygdalin is a cure for cancer generally, that claim is fraudulent and illegal and will remain so even if the 2013-2015 research shows it to be a valid adjuvant therapy for specific cancers. The reasons behind the John Birch Society promoting this fraud are political, not medical. There is no medical or scientific evidence to support the thesis in WWC, and cherry-picking through it looking for statements that are only arguably wrong, rather than definitively wrong as is the case for the book's overall argument, is impermissible per NPOV and SYN. No reliable sources establish that WWC is a valid view of dancer or if Laetrile.

Sorry to raise this issue yet again but it's clear that we need to establish an unambiguous answer to these questions so that we can break the endless circular argument. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an RfC is in order, but the way you are wording it is not neutral. Furthermore, you have provided attributions to OR that dates back over 30 years (most of which is represented in a recent compilation), and doesn't include any attributions whatsoever to substantiate your allegations of what Griffin claims. WP is not interested in your POV. Policy requires inline citations with inline text attribution and that includes adherence to NPOV and Verifiability. Let's discuss how the RfC will be worded, or have you already called for one, because if you have, I need to add an alternative question. Atsme☯^Consult 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the number of times you have to be told why the literature dates back 30 years, and why no IRB would sanction new research on this? If one more time will get you to finally drop it, I will do so, but otherwise I won't waste time repeating what you have already been told numerous times. As to the wording, you have had ample opportunity to start this RfC yourself, and you haven't. Somebody has to, it's me, and I am going to phrase it as I see fit. We've already established that I am substantially better informed about this scam (and indeed health scams generally ) than you are, so perhaps you might like to consider the possibility that I do actually know what I;m talking about here. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) No. All answers are based in a proper reading of the sources: if we use the best sources on this topic, we find a high degree of consensus regarding these answers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I just wanted to add that I have never opposed the inclusion of scientific facts or the position of the medical community with regards to the drug, Laetrile, or its efficacy as a treatment for cancer. My objection is the use of contentious material to present those views, their relevance to this author's book, and the fact that you are trying to suppress the reasons Griffin wrote the book. The latter is biographical material that should be presented with strict adherence to NPOV, and with proper WEIGHT regarding the views of the medical community. Your position has been to suppress all mention of those views based on your interpretation of suggested PSCI guidelines, and that is my objection because by doing so, it appears to be an inadvertent violation of our 3 core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. The following two links are examples for his views on the topic which we are obligated to include in this BLP per WP:PAG: [46] [47] because they qualify as RS that support the author's views. The medical community doesn't support the use of the drug Laetrile in the treatment of cancer. The FDA has banned its use, and we will clearly demonstrate that view, making absolutely sure we don't give WP:UNDUE to the drug. What I also believe should be stressed is accuracy. I have read claims that it kills, it's harmful, etc. which are actually claims that over and above what the American Cancer Society has published on its website: This substance has not been thoroughly tested to find out how it interacts with medicines, foods, herbs, or dietary supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete. [48] Accuracy is essential - it is not our job to sensationalize, or use contentious material that is not included in the sources, therefore cannot be cited with inline text attribution. While Griffin believes amygdalin merits further research (which you know full well is ongoing) based on what he considered to be "documented evidence", his primary advocacy is a person's freedom to choose. You may or may not be of the opinion that people are too stupid to make such decisions for themselves, and I may or may not agree with you, but either way, our opinions do not count here. You are making this debate focus on the chemically modified form of amygdalin which is known as Laetrile. You and others have also been misrepresenting my position, and I am growing weary of it. I have you to repeatedly to please stop. I simply want the article to be right, and that means factual accuracy void of POV. We are basically saying the same thing, only from different perspectives. I want to write GAs which is how you should gage my perspective. You are a self-professed quack buster which is how I gage yours. I am concerned that your advocacy may be contributing to the disputes over noncompliance with NPOV and BLP policy, but will AGF, and remain hopeful that we will soon meet on neutral ground to improve this article and make it a real biography of a living person. I want it ready to pass a GA review, possibly even FA which means it cannot remain as a WP:COATRACK. Atsme☯^Consult 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You have said this before, but your version of what has to be done to make it pass GA is to remove any reference to the crazy nature of his beliefs, and while that may make a nice article, it is not a good article by any meaningful definition. I do not care if it meets GA criteria or not. The page on homeopathy has been kicked out of GA primarily because the quackery apologists hate it so much that they spend endless hours trying to water it down (irony unintentional), and it gets longer and longer as each new bullshit rationale for magic sugar is debunked. Whether it's GA or not is entirely immaterial: it is an exceptionally solidly referenced article and a model of reality-based analysis of a fraudulent "medical" practice that is in effect a religious cult not a form of medicine at all. I'm not interested int he rationale behind your special pleading, I am only interested in ensuring that this article accurately reflects the fact that Griffin is a promoter of conspiracy theories, that he is referenced almost exclusively by cranks and loons, and that his ideas have no objective merit as established by reliable independent sources. The Fed is a perfectly normal central bank. Laetrile is a fraud. Chemtrails don't exist. AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus. The twin towers fell as a result of fires caused by impact of aircraft hijacked by terrorists. There is no Jewish New World Order conspiracy. These are facts, and Griffin claims otherwise. We have to be honest about that. And to be fair I have absolutely no idea why you would want to promote to GA status, an article on a crank who is ignored by virtually the entirety of the reality-based media, being promoted only by certifiable kooks like Glenn Beck.

Neutrality does not lie somewhere between the scientific consensus and whacknuts. The scientific consensus is inherently neutral. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Guy, is the laetrile claim of curing cancer something that the John Birch Society first came up with? You said "The reasons behind the John Birch Society promoting this fraud are political, not medical." I see it says in http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91/pdf John Birch members supported it in 1972. John Birch Society is all about being against communism and for limited govt. Do they just want americans "to have right to choose laetrile for themselves"? Or is it a hoax they themselves are pushing? I see you mention other non laetrile things that Griffen is connected to like AIDS, Jewish NWO, etc. Why? Atsme's lede in the sandbox said Griffen is a conspiracy theorist, are you worried someone might be reading wikipedia and think laetrile is a proven cancer cure by looking at that? Popish Plot (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. The Birchers weighed in because one of their own was prosecuted for his part in the scam. It could be argued that as zealot libertarians they might thereby have invented the health freedom movement, modern adherents of whihc seem to think that it's possible for the individual to opt out of having standard human physiology - and in some cases also opt out of the laws of physics. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, and no per WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI. This is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Irrelevant, Irrelevant, and Irrelevant No, no, yes based on actual PAGs, and for the same reasons provided above: [49] and ^{16:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)} per the passages proposed for inclusion in the article to make it ready for a GA review. See current proposal User:Atsme/sandbox2, and a prior attempt which was reverted without justification [50]

1. Is it correct to cite RS and/or questionable sources to justify inclusion of contentious material that defames/discredits a BLP if the cited source does not support the statement, or are only passing mention?
2. Is it correct to include pejorative terminology to describe an author such as "charlatan, quackery, and/or fraud" in the lead when the author has written many books on various topics, but only one of which covers a medical topic?
3. Is it correct to exclude updated scientific research regarding the primary topic (amygdalin) of this author's book in a section about his literary works which includes a segment on his views/motivations for authoring a particular book?

I wanted to also bring the following information to light because of the requirements for NPOV, V, NOR, and strict adherence to US Laws in BLP policy regarding the inclusion of pejorative terminology as mentioned above: [51] [52] [53]. If you don't think it should be a consideration, then simply ignore it. The arguments presented above have little relevance to what is actually written in Griffin's book, but even if they were relevant, the passages being proposed would be written from a biographical perspective relating only to the author's views, not from a medical perspective. WP already has an article about Laetrile. This is a BLP about an author who wrote one book about amygdalin. That book doesn't even have to be mentioned in the lead. There is much ado about nothing. More importantly are the concerns over noncompliance with NPOV, V, OR, and BLP (including FRINGEBLP) which supersedes the guidelines suggested in WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. Atsme☯^Consult 04:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted before, BLP is not a magic talisman to ward off criticism, and ideas are not people anyway. BLP gives no reason at all not to identify when somebody advocates ideas that are wrong. Three long-standing editors have Al lready rejected your claim in this RFC, and others have rejected it in the history of this talk page. So, your opinion is noted, but it is only your opinion and I for one reject it for reasons given many times now. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Why do you have a special section for uninvolved editor comment? Anyway, Question 1, Yes. Question 2 in a nutshell yes, but the concerns priorly mentioned can be addressed, shouldn't be completely written off, in the end it's all about presentation. Question 3, no. Alternative question 1 A very cautious yes. Alternative question 2 No it's not reasonable as this is a bio about Griffin and not amygdalin, and this would only stand to unduly validate Griffins positions (he can due so himself) while ignoring numerous wikipedia policies and guidelines (that have already been pointed out) without a common sense justification to WP:IAR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - summoned by bot. tl;dr. Maybe I'm not understanding the issue, but I would suggest that even if his arguments are ridiculous and a huge scam, the critique of his arguments should be presented professionally. Using words like "quackery" seems lacking; surely there are more professional terms and analysis to use. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The professional analysis - as published in the journal CA: A Cancer Journal For Clinicians, impact factor 162.5, the highest ranked peer-reviewed cancer journal in the world - is precisely that it is quackery: Laetrile: A Lesson in CancerQuackery. It is a truly remarkable fact that the laetrile scam - regarded as possibly the most lucrative fraud in US medical history - is described forthrightly and unambiguously in these terms. To get a slapdown of that magnitude in the scientific literature indicates wrongness on a truly epic scale. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the date, Guy? That paper is dated 1981. The terminology went out of style with bell bottoms and sheepskin vests. Terms like quackery and snake oil belong in the Ntl Enquirer not in an encyclopedia where we should be using terms like scientifically unsupported. Atsme☯^Consult 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to whitewash the article. However, there does seem to be a reasonable basis to discuss and review the language used. Specifically the word "Quackery". To be clear, discuss and review, that would be with both the possibility that it be changed and the possibility that it stay the same. I'd ask specifically is this more of an attack on Griffin or a reasonable criticism. More importantly, is it clear that his views on vitamin b12 (or what ever) are complete bunk, garbage, fringe views that aren't supported by medical science, or ect? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points, SJP. Atsme☯^Consult 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As noted before, the fact that laetrile is quackery is established from very strong sources (e.g. Laetrile: A Lesson In Cancer Quackery, CA (the highest impact cancer specialist journal in the world). Wikipedia should only use terms like this when we have good solid external evidence from reliable independent sources to support their inclusion. Of all the forms of quackery there are, this is probably subject to the most robust and forthright condemnation in the literature, because it was such a profitable scam in its day. And this article specifically references the reasons behind Griffin's book, namely that the John Birch Society rallied to the defence of a member charged with participating in the fraud. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Going back over the article, Care is used with the word quackery. Perhaps to much care. The word is solely directed at the use of laetrile to cure cancer. Certainly I would agree that it's a reasonable criticism as used, though again perhaps it's to diplomatically used. The second use of the word does make it clear to the reader that this view is bunk, regarded as fringe or what have you. I'm concerned that the lead does little in this regard but this really isn't of much importance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• No, no and no Synthesis says we cannot take one source that says Griffith makes claims about Vitamin B17 and another source that says those claims are invalid (or valid for that matter), when the first source does not say they are invalid and the second source does not mention Griffith. The MEDRS guideline is no reason to override policy and in fact is not relevant. No one reading this article is looking for medical advice. TFD (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. Per Guy - this is basic policy. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. Per Guy - are we still on this? Laetrile is a pernicious scam, and the scam appears to have convinced many people. Still a scam though. It isn't a vitamin either - why is this difficult to understand? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. Straightforward and application of core policy. The RfC is clearly stated. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. No to both "alternate" questions which are leading. Why are we still having this discussion? We're well into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Yobol (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• yes, yes and no. Per arguments presented by many others, WP:SNOW - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC on sources

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

---

Please comment on the admissibility of these sources:

1. [54] 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. [55], 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. [56] 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. [57] 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. [58] 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. [59] 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...

Uninvolved editor comments

• Comments by editors previously uninvolved go in this section.
• Improperly crafted RfC. Evaluation of the reliability of a source is relative to specific content. Propose content with sources and seek consensus on the content and the reliability of the source(s) for that content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello MrBill3, I'm not sure what this means: " Evaluation of the reliability of a source is relative to specific content." Is this like saying it depends on context? Popish Plot (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is if you propose a source, you need to specify what content in the article you feel that source would support. I don't see proposed content or a reference to specific existing content. In other words the question would need to be, is source "A" a reliable source for proposed/existing content "X". Then the reliability of the source for that content could be evaluated. I hope this has clarified adequately. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• From a quick glance, I fail to see how Forbes or RT could be rejected as sources. There has been ample discussion about using RT as a source, and I believe the general consensus was that it qualifies for all but Russia-related issues, at which point more discussion is needed. As a side note, I wonder about the option of taking these sources individually to the RS noticeboard rather than dealing with them here. It would make the task easier for uninvolved editors who have no experience with this article. petrarchan47tc 23:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please review this page and the archives. There's ample explanation, which need not be repeated, as to why e.g. a blog post from a non-notable commentator on Forbes is not RS for the claims being made. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with SPECIFICO'S assumption that Forbes is not a RS for the following two reasons:

1. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. Even the RS noticeboard cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. It is the greater context of the article that matters.
2. According to WP:RS - Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. The latter applies to Forbes and the journalist credited as author. I already made this point very clear in other posts. Atsme☯^Consult 23:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Specifico's claims are not in alignment with WP:RS. In fact even non-notable blogs can be used as a source in certain circumstances. If taken to the RS NB, the Forbes source and content, for example, can be reviewed by less-entrenched editors with perhaps a more neutral stance. petrarchan47tc 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're calling me "entrenched" because I have graciously responded to many repetitions of the same nonsense here, I consider that a personal attack and I ask you to remove it. It is disruptive to cast aspersions on unnamed "entrenched" editors, whoever you intend to characterize in that manner, instead of responding to the content and policy-based statements they make here. Please strike your remark and comment in the future on content, not contributors. Several Admins are watching this page, which falls under Arbcom sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Specifico, I was speaking in generalities, as this has been a long dispute involving several people. This wasn't meant to be a comment about you, it was a recommendation to Atsme. petrarchan47tc 03:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as a PA, SPECIFICO. Why would you make such an assumption? It appears maybe you may have been premature to make such an allegation. From where I sit, less-entrenched meant the depth of one's involvement, or is there a policy I've overlooked that considers "entrenched" to be derogatory? If my memory serves, you and I and several others who have tried to improve this BLP have been involved for quite some time. I don't see that as a PA, or a bad thing, either. I find it commendable that we have devoted as much time to trying to improve the article as we have. Sometimes I feel like I've grown roots so in an effort to be less involved (or entrenched whatever the case may be), I've been spending more time copy editing and working on other articles. I highly recommend it. Atsme☯^Consult 00:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• All of these sources fail rs as secondary sources. 1. GoldSilver.com is a site selling gold and silver, hence not rs. 2. The Casey Report is an investment newsletter, also not rs. 3. Financial Sense - same as 2. 4. Contains an interview with Griffin. Probably meets rs as a primary source, hence not useful. 5. While Forbes articles are rs, this is an opinion piece, hence not rs. 6. While RT articles are rs, this is an opinion piece, hence not rs as a secondary source. But since it is by Griffin, it meets rs as a primary source, hence not useful. TFD (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - TFD, thank you for your input, but please see the following per WP:RS guidelines: (my bold for emphasis)

1. Self-published: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves;
2. Opinion pieces: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.
3. Blogs: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.
4. Primary sources: Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
5. E-commerce sources - inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages, just not as external links. Atsme☯^Consult 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Mostly true. However, you need establish weight for opinions and balancing aspects for facts, which can only be done by showing that the specific opinions and facts you want to present are reported in reliable secondary sources. You need to stretch the rules to include these sources. Note for example that the section in rs about e-commerce refers to such things as running times of albums, certainly not details that come under biographies of living persons. Also note that opinion pieces are not rs for facts. So we cannot use for example an opinion piece in Forbes to explain why Griffith named his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. TFD (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

TFD, I realize this RfC was improperly crafted which makes it difficult for participants to respond without having to invest a great deal more time analyzing than should be necessary, but if I may please demonstrate one example for your consideration? The passage that cites Casey Research, [60], references a summit held by Casey Research, a reputable company with a reputable team of experts where Griffin was featured as guest speaker. They published the video recorded interview of Griffin with interviewer Louis James, an expert in his field who has been interviewed himself by RS, [61]. It appears to me to fit the requirement of a RS as it relates to the passage and overall context of the article. Atsme☯^Consult 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, an interview is rs for what Griffith said, and agree to keeping a link to it. But what Griffin says needs to be reported in rs and I do not think Casey Research or any investment analysts meet that level, except when they write news articles. Usually though when analysts write for newspapers, it is opinion pieces, which do not meet rs. So why would something they write for their company's website have greater reliability? I agree btw that these RfCs are poorly written and the article is biased. The lead contains the words "conspiracy" three times and "denialist" and "quackery." Ironically, the amateurish agitprop style by being over the top creates doubt about whether Griffin might be right, since "the lady doth protest too much." TFD (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• admissibility is dependent upon what content they are supposed to be supporting although in general, the answer to most is clearly no for any content in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• This RfC needs to be deleted as it is based on supposition of passages not currently included in the article. The results of this RfC will only create disruption in the future because whatever passage is actually added citing one of those sources will be automatically reverted using this RfC as consensus to not include the passage, even if the added passages has nothing to do with the examples used or the application of the source. That is just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

• On the contrary -- since you keep bringing them up, we need some closure about it. Or you could simply stop... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• They don't apply to anything that is written in the article. It's vapor source. Please do not talk about me as though I'm the only one who has attempted to fix the issues here. Focus on the unreliably sourced material currently in the article because as soon as this RfC is over, I'm taking it to RSN, or perhaps to BLPN. I haven't decided which one, yet. Atsme☯^Consult 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC Sources can only be classified reliable in the context of specific text they're supposed to support. Without that text, it is not possible to determine whether or not these sources are reliable. That said, aside from the Forbes blog, which only contains a passing mention of the fact that Griffin wrote the Jekyll book (and thus can only be used to support that fact), all the sources listed are interviews with Griffin. I suspect, although I'm not certain, that such interviews are WP:BLPSELFPUB and therefore can only be used in limited circumstances. I suggest that this RfC be withdrawn and the interviews be brought up over at WP:RSN (along with the text the interviews are supposed to support). Ca2james (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

General RFC discussion

For the record, I oppose Atsme's interpretation of all of them, and I oppose the inclusion of any of them because only one meets WP:RS and that is merely a namecheck. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may ask (for the record) on what grounds do you oppose them, Guy? A very useful analysis of RS was posted by TenOfAllTrades at RSN regarding a common misconception (my bold): that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. 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.). What part of the aforementioned analysis do you believe supports your argument? Atsme☯^Consult 17:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by several others above, several times. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• All of those sources are inappropriate for use on this BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: RfC as posed is not answerable - there are few sources that one can very broadly say are RS or not RS for use in WP. It depends on what you want to use them for and the RfC doesn't make that clear. Seems more a matter for RSN in any case. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is at least the third recent time that these citations have been advocated against consensus. None of them is RS for the associated article content that's being advocated. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - the sources are perfectly acceptable for how they are being used. It is not about whether or not you "like" or "agree" with a source, but whether that source supports the material that was added in a BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 04:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Did you notice how nobody else agrees? Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfC proved differently and so did the AfD. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Atsme☯^Consult 07:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, they did not. The RfC "proved" only that to call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence is inappropriate - it does not even prevent us saying, in the first sentence, that he is known for advocacy of conspiracy theories, and it certainly does not prevent us noting throughout the article that most of what he writes is conspiracist claptrap. The scope was very narrow. You have of course tried many times to imply a vastly greater scope and breadth to that consensus, but every time you have tried this, you have failed. The AfD similarly did not in any way validate the crap sources you keep proposing. Importantly, neither shoed any consensus at all in favour of inclusion of these sources. That's your precise argument here: that the RfC and AfD "prove differently", i.e. that they show unambiguous consensus that the sources you propose are valid. That claim is simply false. To pretend otherwise is disruptive, kindly stop. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, it appears we are reading different RfC summaries. Per RfC close (excerpt): 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) (See Archive 7 here) It doesn't say only the first sentence of the lead. Admin Nyttend took it further as well he should have because of noncompliance with NPOV. Furthermore, he deleted the following from the lead: [62] Review of that close by another admin (excerpt): 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. It also states: 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. Guy, the closings are not at all what you surmised. Further substantiate is the following from yet another admin's summary: 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). The only factually accurate way to summarize it would be that It is still in question and it appears perhaps that an ARBCOM may be our only recourse. It is not productive for you to discredit me based on your misapprehension of the closings. Atsme☯^Consult 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly does seem as if you are reading a different RfC summary fomr the rest of us. You should be well aware by now that your interpretation has been explicitly rejected by several others before now. The RfC consensus is narrowly restricted to whether we call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Just that, nothing more. Obviously you want to imply a payload of additional restriction favouring your view that this article should not portray Griffin as a crank. In this, you have consistently failed to persuade.

Good luck with asking ArbCom to rule on a content issue. They don't do that. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is still open. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN the editor has the burden to explain why sources are good and we should assume good faith. I see atsme has done that. You say you oppose the sources, Atsme asked why, you said you already did I believe? Could you give a link so I can see? I have searched thru archives but might be missing something. Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of this talk page shows that Atsme's view has been rejected. The burden is not to state an incorrect view, it's to establish that article text is supported by WP:RS references. The consensus of editors is that no RS have been provided, only a collection of blogs and other invalid sources for these claims. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I hardly think I'm asking an unfair request. Popish Plot (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be a fair request if Atsme had explained why the sources are relevant for some material to be added, and if the sources had not been previously rejected as not reliable for much of anything. Both false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is incorrect in his statement that the history shows my view has been rejected. In fact, the opposite has been true including the results of the AfD regarding notability, and the RfC regarding compliance with NPOV as it effects BLP and reliable sources. It's easy to say an editor's views are wrong without any diffs to support such a statement. If one will simply take the time to review policy, RfC results, BLPN and RSN noticeboard results it becomes quite apparent that WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies prevail and that is the only view I hold in this regard. Read the policies first, then make a decision. Atsme☯^Consult 00:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you're going off-topic. This thread is neither about the AfD -- in which I had no opinion -- nor is it about the RfC concerning the lede. It's important to stick to the topic under discussion. Otherwise there is no chance of progress here and the article will stay as is for eternity or longer. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrBill3 - it is an improperly crafted RfC. Close it and focus on the poorly sourced contentious material in the lede or remove it. Finding RS to cite what is already written will prove far more productive than debating RS for passages that haven't been written, yet. Atsme☯^Consult 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course you do, because you want to include these junk sources and won't accept the consensus that keeps going against you, and have no interest in closing off that avenue of debate. I think the rest of us have had enough of your obduracy though, and some of us at least would like to see some of your perennially-rejected requests kicked into touch once and for all. Guy (Help!) 06:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

GA Status?

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

---

From reading this talk page, and the archives, one may come to believe that achieving GA status for this article means that it must be whitewashed of the facts concerning Griffin. Is this really the case? I cannot believe that PAG would insist on this, but clearly, there are editors who believe this? For clarity, should this be discussed here so that we are all reading from the same (fundie) hymn sheet? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss honestly. Here's the GA criteria WP:WIAGA. That's really the only hymm sheet that matters in regards to GA's.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just curious, Serialjoepsycho - how many GA reviews have you been through as a collaborator or nominator? What about FA reviews? DYK reviews? Did you by chance happen to look at the sources cited in the article now, or has your focus been on the vapor sources in this poorly formatted RfC? If you haven't checked those sources, would you mind very much looking at them? I'd like to hear your views regarding whether or not they support the contentious material stated in Wiki voice in the lead. Oh, and if you don't mind, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion regarding adherence of those sources to MEDRS as it relates to laetrile, amygdalin and/or B17, if you don't mind. Atsme☯^Consult 21:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You make a good case for the non-notability of the subject, and a very poor case for sanitising the reality in order to make a Nice Articled. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think GA status depends upon neutrality - so we're talking about shades of grey rather than all-or-nothing. The article shouldn't be "sanitized", nor should an editor's judgement of the perceived atrocities committed by the subject be forced down the reader's throat. The introduction is six sentences, only one of them neutral. The five remaining cover his conspiracy theories. So over 80% of the intro is about controversy, or negative, whilst the article itself is only a little more than 1/2 negative. This reads like a hit piece, not a proper WP article following WP:LEDE. I realize some editors have very negative emotions about the subject, because that has been expressed here on the talk page. Obviously, if a neutral article is the goal, it would help to bring in editors who have no feelings about him one way or the other. If this article is being used to smear a living person, as it does appear to be, then the problem clearly does not lie with Atsme, as is being asserted on various forums. Take a look at Charles Manson, famous murderer and psychopath. His intro is far less negative than Griffin's in terms of the percentage of space dedicated to his evil doings. Personally, I would sue the living F out of WP if it hosted a bio like this about me. petrarchan47คุก 00:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason the lede doesn't reflect the body is that even more "negative", sourced, statements are being removed or kept out from the body, even though it really is what he's known for. The article fails to note that Griffin promotes Laetrile (or amygdalin), "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history." (Quote from our article on amygdalin.) We cannot say that in the article, because there doesn't appear to be a single source which says that Griffin promotes Laetrile, and that it is the canonical quack cancer "cure". We can and should use that fact to discard anything favorable about Griffin's promotion of Laetrile. The difficulty in "balance" is finding a reliable source which says something favorable about Griffin. Perhaps Griffin is insufficiently notable to have a Good Article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There probably is too little about him for a GA. I suggest turning into a stub or better still deleting. There is no way we can pull together various articles that mention different aspects of Griffin's life and create a neutral article. The same applies to most of the articles about "libertarians", with a very few exceptions. TFD (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Shades of grey? He is known primarily for promoting the hard money fetishist view of the Federal Reserve, in a book that leads witht he antisemitic New World Order conspiracy theory; he also wrote a paean to cancer quackery in support of a fellow John Birch Society member who was prosecuted for medical fraud, he is a Truther, he promotes the chemtrail conspiracy theory, most of his work is self-published. He is an absolutely standard libertarian extremist crank. There's no grey here. Everything he says and writes, is in service of an extreme libertarian agenda. The man is practically a caricature of himself! Guy (Help!) 11:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just curious Atsme, Do you have ant relevant questions to ask? Any that are kind of, sort of, or even at a minimum of relevancy? I am absolutely sure that this article will be completed by its deadline. You are trying to to use the GA as a gambit in pushing for your changes. The problem however with your argument: 1)There is no urgency with GA. 2) The changes that you have promoted would make this article fail GA criteria. Alot of the rest of your response is a waste of time to respond to. But why not. I'm not going to answer those question but point out why they are completely irrelevant. Above I did not say or suggest this article currently meets GA criteria. It doesn't. The changes that you have proposed and failed to receive consensus for multiple times do nothing to change this. It actually makes it worse. MEDRS, you need another explanation? If I recall Guy and numerous other people have not only explained them but have also explained their application to this article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Manson bio. Contrary to what it says above about the lead, our Griffin lead is not far more negative than our Manson intro. The repetitive voices of whitewashers and their IDHT behaviour is tedious here, so perhaps we can now put to bed finally that in order to reach this artificial status we do not have to whitewash the article. I'm not sure that Griffin is notable enough for the effort to be worthwhile though, as any notability he has seems to be directly driven by his conspiracy theories. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think he's been well described here as a notable crank.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people) means "have received significant coverage in multiple published [reliable] secondary sources." But Griffin is generally only mentioned in sources in passing. See for example the SPLC website.[63] His name appears seven times, but only in passing. There is not even a thumbnail sketch. Even if we were to put all the mentions together, we would have no more than several paragraphs. TFD (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my memory is failing, but didn't we recently do an AfD? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it was no-consensus. The problem is that some people want an article but don't want the negative material that is inevitable if you rely on reliable independent sources. I still don't think Griffin is notable, I do think Creature is notable within the walled garden of hard-money crank literature, and we have plenty of sources for that, but mentions of Griffin are almost exclusively within articles on Creature. WP:RM might be a better way forward. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a proposal to convert this article over to being about that book is in order?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - what I'm reading in the comments above is that because there is nothing substantially negative written about Griffin in RS, he is not notable? Hmmm, so in order for a BLP to be notable something negative has to be mentioned, not just good things because then it's whitewashed and must be deleted? Atsme☯^Consult 04:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually above, like in the AfD, it has been suggested that Griffin himself isn't notable but it's his book that is, or rather that his book is more notable than he and most information should be about the book, with a minimum token effort write about the author. And the position has never been that good stuff shouldn't be written about the guy. The position has been that the poorly sourced positive information that is poorly sourced and seemingly amounts to white washing and should be excluded. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I think you are doing yourself a great disservice if you are genuinely implying that this is the argument being forwarded by others above. Because I just read through those comments and I don't see anything in the opinions supplied that even remotely matches that claim, and that kind of hyperbolic strawman argument is not going to win people over to seeing your view as objective. I'd summarize the actual opinions expressed above as such: some feel Griffin as a topic does not meet the minimum standards of notability for an article while others feel he does. But most all members of both camps agree that to the extent he is covered in sources, they largely regard him as a conspiracy theorist and a quack whose views are unsupported by any scientific evidence at best, if they are not in fact outright nonsensical gibberish. Now, I'm not saying that assessment of sources is correct, I'm just saying that this is the position being forwarded above, not "Sources are only valuable if they are negative", as you have suggested.

My personal take on the sources (having taken a closer look at them as a result of this discussion) is that they are utterly atrocious and for the most part untenable for reference purposes, be they used to support positive or negative claims (and honestly the degree of "negative" and "positive" discussion here has been rather missing the point; as editors, we shouldn't have any attachment to effect any claims we include have on the man's image and how he is received -- we should only be concerned with whether they accurately reflect the sources, without the influence of editorial interpretation). The truth is that the majority of the sources in this article fail to even approach WP:RS status and of those that do qualify for use on Wikipedia under some contexts, most are primary and are not acceptable for use in the kind of interpretive claims being made, many of which include substantial WP:COATRACK issues. This issue cuts two ways. On the one hand and in a roundabout way, it validates your suggestion of synthesis, because the recurrent formula seems to be "Griffin supports X" and "X is known to be quackery, as overwhelmingly supported by our sources"; Ergo "Griffin is a quack". Which may be a perfectly logical conclusion if you trust said sources, but that's just not the way we are meant to use sources on Wikipedia. We don't say a source supports a claim unless they directly validate that claim, without the need for editorial interpretation in the form of connecting the dots.

I think the reason this state of affairs has persisted here is two-fold. First, the synthesis is not overt. Instead, both parts of the argument for equating Griffin to a quack are presented and the conclusion that results is just kind of left there, implied but unsaid, such that policy on synthesis is not directly being broken in most cases. Some would say that's just a matter of presenting the relevant information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions, but in a number of cases here, I believe there is a bit of "leading" involved. On the other hand, those who might want to reign in this activity but who want to preserve an article on Griffin are faced with a quandary; removing these sources and the claims they support would pretty much leave this article unsourced and obviously failing notability. And frankly, I think the topic just does fail notability guidelines. If this were and AfD discussion, I'm pretty certain I'd be !voting delete based on the present sources and the content that they are currently being used to support. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article does not say Griffin is a quack. It says that laetrile as a "cancer cure" is quackery. Big difference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes...and that's a fundamental principle of my own observations, so I'm wondering if you entirely understood the distinction I was making. We have an article to discuss laetrile's status as quackery -- it's laetrile. This is not really the place to be discussing that topic, unless we have valid reliable and secondary sources which discuss Griffin's relationship to it. From what I've seen we have exactly one such source. Which is better than nothing but warns us not to dwell on this element at length, per WP:WEIGHT. The rest of the sourcing are either primary sources used in a WP:synth manner or do not directly reference Griffin; they may be excellent sources for our laetrile article, but are less useful here. And this is all true whether the facts about laetrile are seen to exonerate Griffin or to definitively establish him as a quack, in the view of this or that editor. The question isn't whether our sources say laetrile is quackery (the judgement is most definitely in as a deafening "Yes"), it's whether this is the place to discuss that. With the sourcing we have, I say no. That's not an effort to whitewash anything -- I just think it's possible we don't have significant independent, secondary sourcing in the form of WP:reliable sources to be discussing the man in general. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR was a policy made for a situation like this. Policy and guideline are not strong nor weak in themselves, they are strong or weak based on their application. Application requires the use of common sense. You have to use common sense in how to apply them, when to apply them, and when not to apply them. These beliefs of Griffin in regards to Laetrile are fringe. They do have a place here. The question would be about weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Snow Rise for your eloquent elucidation. It was a refreshing read, indeed. Of course, I am not surprised by the suggestion that followed which attempts to justify all that is wrong with this BLP by claiming IAR to support the negativity of course which again brings up the issue of noncompliance with NPOV vs IAR. Hmmm. It has been with incredulousness that I've read some of the responses that justify the contentious material in Griffin, beginning back in December 2014. The non-neutral way some of the RfC's have been framed is another matter but despite it all we must live with consensus, and I will honor that decision by not editing this BLP. I prefer to not have my name attached to it as an example of my work. Instead, I'll use it as an example for what it actually represents. Regarding your thoughts on the notability of Griffin, a recent AfD resulted in a 15 to 5 response (approx count) that he was notable but the closer decided no consensus had been reached. [64]. I was going to challenge the close but decided to just leave it alone. WP has thousands of editors and thousands of different perspectives and I felt it best to just let the cards fall where they may. FWIW, I am of the mind that Griffin is indisputably a notable author who is widely cited by peers, and has created a significant well-known work or collective body of work (books and DVDs). I have read enough of his work to form the basis of biographical content which is what I thought BLPs were supposed to reflect. Instead, the RS sources I attempted to cite for the reception of his works were criticized as being too closely associated to the subject (his peers) or discredited because of political affiliation (libertarianism, tea party, JBS, etc) and the like including mention in Forbes, in radio interviews, at conferences and so on. However, the sources used to discredit this BLP in Wiki voice, including Popular Paranoia and Media Matters are supported by community consensus so there you have it. I just wanted to improve the article, and take it in the direction of a GA which is what its original collaborators had envisioned per the edit history. Bygones. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, IAR is not being used to support negativity. But if it was that would give you something to talk about. It's instead being used to support the use of common sense. I'm sorry my obvious statement has confused you, Atsme. WP:FRINGEBLP is pretty clear, "WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise." We don't need a source that says Griffin views are fringe. We need a source to show what Griffins views are and a source that suggests that those views are fringe. Fringe in this case is being denoted by the use of the word Quackery.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to add anything, Serialjoepsycho has explained their position and how FRINGEBLP's relevant requirements relate to the BLP policy. Plus it has turned personal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think what is more important is BLP policy which unequivocally states: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR Common sense tells me adhere strictly does not mean IAR. It also does not mean we can all of sudden use OR, or dismiss NPOV. Sorry to disagree with you, but those are the real facts, not assumptions. If you want contentious material in a BLP, find the high quality sources that support it. Atsme☯Consult 21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Of course you want to strictly adhere to the BLP, NPOV, V, and NOR. Because you want to get your way. Earlier you promoted changes that ignored such a strict adherence. But you wanted to get your way. Bit of a moving goal post. The only thing that can actually strictly adhere to is US law. BLP, NPOV, V, and NOR have to be applied based on common sense. The stance here for the uber strict adherence of V. That we must provide a source that says that that Griffins views that Laetrile, b17, ect are fringe, and that we cannot use a source that shows his views and a separate source that shows those views are fringe... This is not common sense. While you find it contentious you offer a weak basis. You don't like the use of the word quackery. You don't like media matters as a source. Here's a link to wp:rsn if you don't like it. You could also find a better source that shows his views on laetrile. It would probably take less time than finding a doctor from Nevada that uses integrative medicine and specifically laetrile. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I've asked you before to please focus on content, not me. This article is subject to DS, and Callanecc is the admin who oversees it. He also monitors this TP. Atsme☯Consult 05:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC on admissibility of additional sources

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing due to request in WP:ANRFC. Clear consensus for 1 yes, 2-6 no. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Based on statements above, I think these are the points on which Atsme would like clarification:

1. Is it accurate to characterise laetrile as quackery when there are clinics that use it? There are treatments in use today so if medical practitioners are legally prescribing amygdalin as integrative therapy, why should WP assume the position that it's quackery based on journal articles that are 30+ years old? [65], [66] (about those doctors: [67]); If it is quackery as what was stated in Wiki voice in the lead, why are the following medical centers allowed to use laetrile (amygdalin) as part of their prescribed integrative therapies?[68] [69].
2. Does a statement on a page of the International Myeloma Foundation materially affect the status of laetrile as it should be reflected in this article? Example text
3. Does the widespread use of laetrile invalidate the claim that is it quackery? If the therapy itself is worthless quackery, why is it still being used around the world? [70]
4. Does current research on amygdalin invalidate the stated fact that laetrile is quackery? Example text
5. Does this constitute a reliable source refuting the claim that laetrile is quackery? Why are RS still covering the issue 30+ years later? [71]
6. Does the date of the book's publication materially affect the characterisation of laetrile as portrayed in the book? Considering the first publication date of the book, is there a reason to exclude information regarding the 60 Minutes broadcast in 1974 titled "Laetrile: Cure or quackery" with Mike Wallace? [72]

Some of this is redundant to the ongoing RfC, in which consensus seems reasonably clear to me, but these are further, specific questions on which it seems reasonable to seek closure. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Roxy: We are here because I have a streak of Mary Poppins buried under my mean, heartless exterior. I like Atsme. I think it would be a shame to ship her off to topic-ban land, I would much prefer her to understand and accept that consensus is against her (and ideally recognise that her reasoning has been faulty). I think it is important that biographies - even of cranks - should comply with policy, and it is important to me that dissenting voices are heard, as long as they do not simply repeat the same refuted claims again and again. Atsme has made a small number of valid points about this article, such as not calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. What I would like is for each of Atsme's requests to be discussed politely, and for that discussion to come to a definite conclusion so we can move on. That's why I started the RfCs above, that's why I started this RfC. Call me naive, but I like to think that if Atsme's talking points can be teased out and discussed rationally, then she will abide by the outcome of that discussion, as we abide by the consensus not to call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is more suited for the article about laetrile than here. It's pretty clear that policies, guidelines and rules such as no synthesis, balancing aspects, biographies of living persons, coatrack, etc. rule out information about laetrile not found in any sources about the subject. While normally the fact that edits are against policy is a good reason not to make them, since many editors choose to ignore policy in the misguided belief that they are following the MEDRS guideline, I will provide a justification for the policies. Firstly, expertise in both Griffith's writings and the medical literature on laetrile are required for anyone to determine that what Griffith was talking about and what the literature describe is the same thing and furthermore that Griffith wrote his article at a time when laetrile was considered quackery. Secondly, we need to explain why all the sources about Griffith failed to mention quackery while the sources about laetrile failed to mention Griffith. It could well be that we are right where the experts are wrong, but that is certainly not the type of argument we want to have across numerous articles. Thirdly, accusing living persons of dishonesty when no such claims are made in sources is a bad idea. TFD (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So, the laetrile/Griffin connection is entirely OR. That would explain the use of sources which wouldn't normally be accepted in WP, as Atsme mentions below. petrarchan47คุก 23:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation, "Bert". I actually do understand how consensus works which is why I conceded as demonstrated by the absence of my edits. I have no desire to see anyone TB or blocked and hope that never happens, more so for you than me. Regarding article content, I appreciate and agree with what The Four Deuces stated above. The context of his statement is not too unlike what others have stated, including me, Srich32977, A1candidate, Carrite, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Nyttend, to name a few. I appreciate your attempts to arrest my concerns regarding the article's noncompliance with PAG because I believe you really do care about the topic, perhaps to the extreme. I also want to reiterate that my edits never pushed fringe ideas or conspiracy theories, especially to the degree the opposition has pushed a skeptic POV to the exclusion of all else. I write from a biographical perspective, not a fringe perspective because I'm not a qualified medical professional and I'm not aware of any other collaborating editors here who are, except for Pekay2 who has probably retreated after receiving some pretty vicious bites elsewhere. I will always be of the mind that if the article states (in Wiki voice which I disprove) that Griffin pushes quackery and conspiracy theories, we are obliged to inform readers the reason why per NPOV, regardless of whether his beliefs are right or wrong. We are supposed to provide material to inform readers not censor or judge information for them, the latter of which appears sanctimonious not encyclopedic. PAGs encourage inclusion of fringe views per FRINGEBLP, not censorship of them although we are cautioned to not give them undue weight. Experienced editors know that primary sources are not forbidden, just rarely used. In fact, articles related to the sciences can be based on a mixture of primary and secondary scholarly sources with some supporting material from high-quality lay press, which was recently explained to me by an admin who went on to explain, The use of primary sources isn't categorically forbidden, so long as they're not misused to contradict actual expert opinion or to make excessive or grandiose claims. [73]. What I find most disconcerting about this BLP is that the contentious material is cited to sources not considered to be reliable for such a purpose, including Popular Paranoia and Media Matters to name a few. Also troublesome is the use of 30+ year old primary sources for that same purpose, and the refusal to update to RS and neutral terminology in an effort to assume some sense of encyclopedic nature in compliance with NPOV, proper weight and balance per BLP. I realize there are far fewer editors who are willing to jump in and support my side of the argument, and I certainly cannot blame them based on the direction the tree is leaning in gale force winds. But it doesn't automatically validate either perspective as right or wrong. It's mostly just sad. I cannot envision this BLP ever achieving stability much less passing a GA review but I'm hard pressed to believe that was ever the goal for anyone but me. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 19:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan: It's suited tot his page because Atsme keeps pushing for these edits. Once Atsme accepts that consensus is against it and drops it, we can move on. We already have content at the article on amygdalin that shows it to be quackery. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:: You seem to have missed this source, which specifically mentions Griffin's promotion of laetrile (which is described as "exploitation"), his book, and calls out promotion of Laetrile as quackery. There is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH here. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's OR dated 1979. I must have missed mention of Griffin's name in that article as well. Please provide the chapter, para and page number and how about intext attribution as well? Atsme☯^Consult 22:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than having to be spoon-fed everything, why don't you try actually reading the article? Yobol (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did miss the source. It is easy to miss sources when editors decide to add something then search for sources to support their edit, when the correct approach is to identify the most relevant sources, then reflect what they say. Griffin is mentioned twice in the source. "McDonald required his patients...to see the Griffin filmstrip" (p. 1125) and a mention that Griffin and his wife wrote laetrile exploitation books published by Griffin's company (p. 1136). The article is 38 pages long. The filmstrip reference does not even mention which Griffin produced the film and Griffin's first name is not even mentioned. You would really have to be searching for what you wanted to find to come across this source, which violates "balancing aspects."

You are hitting readers with a sledgehammer. If I want to read a series of articles about people on the extreme right, I do not need to be told in every article that each and every theory they advance is outside the mainstream. It makes me feel I am being lectured to and it is extremely repetitive.

TFD (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I did - did you read Griffin's book, which happens to be the topic of this BLP, not the cited 35+ year old article. If you did, then clarify how that source relates to what Griffin actually wrote in his book. What I'm seeing is SYNTH. Atsme☯^Consult 23:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: You also missed "The promoters of laetrile falsely claim that the drug is legal and freely prescribed in many countries (for example, in the exploi-tation book World Without Cancer-the Story of Vitamin B17)" (pg 1135). The mention of Griffin clearly shows it isn't WP:OR to state that Griffin's views are widely considered quackery. While I understand where you are coming from with regards to not trying to be too dramatic with terminology, it is clear from the relevant scholarly literature that laetrile/amygdalin is widely considered quackery (and not just quackery, but the canonical example of cancer quackery). A neutral contextual description of Griffin's view of laetrile has to incorporate that mainstream opinion. Yobol (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, what you seem to be missing is that Griffin's book is about amygdalin, the natural substance, not the banned trademarked Laetrile developed by Krebbs which was a synthetic compound that included the natural substance, amygdalin. The book clearly states: This anti-tumor agent is AMYGDALIN (commonly known as Laetrile). AMYGDALIN is a natural substance that can be found in a variety of species in the vegetable kingdom. The greatest concentration is found in the seeds of the rosaceous fruits, such as the apricot pits and other biter nuts. There are many seeds, cereals and vegetables that contain minimal quantities of Amygdalin and form part of our daily diet. Amygdalin is legal and it is sold everywhere, even in the U.S. The references cited calling laetrile quackery are talking about the patented DRUG, Laetrile, not amygdalin or the therapies used today in CAM treatments here in the U.S. You are talking about two different things. You just grabbed up a couple of 35+ year old OR articles about the patented Laetrile and that's what your using as RS to discredit Griffin's book? How about verifying the sources to see if they even referred to what he advocates in his book? Laetrile the drug is what was banned by the FDA, not amygdalin. You are mixing apples and oranges. [74] Atsme☯^Consult 00:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Amygdalin" and "laetrile" are almost always used interchangably, and there is no indication either has any real effect on cancer. Both are considered quackery, and both should not be promoted here. If you want to discuss it further, please take it to the amygdalin talk page because this talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this. Yobol (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this discussion is about Griffin's book which just happens to be about amygdalin and the sources that were cited so it actually is the appropriate place to discuss it or do you have some sort of special privileges to discuss it with TFD that no one else has? Atsme☯^Consult 01:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this discussion is about Griffin's book, which is called "exploitation" and compared to quackery by a scholarly source, so take your WP:OR defense of amygdalin somewhere more appropriate. Yobol (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not about amygdalin, it is about the non-existent "vitamin B17". As an analogy: I could write a book saying that cancer is caused by a lack of Vitamin R, so supplementation with Vitamin R cures cancer, and identify Vitamin R as ionising radiation, and by your argument the fact that radiotherapy is a valid adjuvant therapy for cancer would make my claim legitimate. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, instead of looking for evidence to support what you want in the article, let the sources determine what should be in it. Read "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Your approach is similar to the anti-aspartame editors. They insist on adding sources questioning the safety of aspartame, despite the fact that review articles on the safety of aspartame either dismiss or ignore them. We ignore them not because they are not reliable sources, but because the experts choose to ignore them. The sources on Griffin say nothing about quackery. Even if you find one that does, the fact remains that most sources say nothing.

As for missing the mention of Griffin's book, the suggestion that editors should read through 38 page science articles that briefly mention the subject is absurd. How long do you think it would take to write an article about someone who was relatively well known?

TFD (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your analogy to aspartame is that there does not to appear to be any significant in-depth coverage of Griffin's promotion of laetrile in any one source. As we seem to be cobbling together mentions from various sources, all details from all sources become potentially significant; we can't use the lack of appearance in multiple secondary sources as a WP:WEIGHT argument in this case because of the lack of multiple high quality secondary sources about Griffin's position. I agree that we should not go into any significant detail in debunking his belief, but a brief statement that places his promotion in context would not seem to be a WP:WEIGHT problem, especially when a scholarly source places that context itself. Yobol (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses

User:Roxy the dog:

1. . yes it is accurate to characterise laetrile as quackery.
2. . no
3. . no
4. . no
5. . no
6. . no

Why are we going over this over and over again. It is very very clear that Laetrile is undiluted first class quackery. Any remaining editor that doesn't understand this in their bones is far far over the line in the sand that defines tendentiousnessness and disruptivenessness. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 13:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:JzG

1. Yes. The claim that this practice is legal, is problematic. There are ongoing prosecutions for promotion of laetrile as a cure for cancer, and enforcement actions against importers ([75], [76]). The sources provided are primary and unreliable. The existence of a clinic using an alternative treatment cannot be taken as a reliable source for the legality or validity of that treatment. Most of the clinics offering laetrile are in Mexico, there is a good reason for that. Sources describe the laetrile trade as illegal and note that the courts have backed the FDA's efforts to close the trade down. There is no mechanism by whihc it could become legal other than through FDA approval, which it does not have. In the presence of conclusive evidence of successful prosecutions and in the absence of any credible evidence of any change in its legal status, it would be impermissible WP:OR to declare the trade legal or supportable on this basis. The problem with alternative clinics promoting bogus therapies is well known: that is why they are called alternative, after all.
2. No. This is not a statement by the Myeloma Foundation, it is a tribute sent in by a family member in memory of a loved one who was treated with laetrile. There are numerous statements by national level bodies stating that it does not work, and this is not a statement by the body itself.
3. No. See argumentum ad populum. Note that homeopathy is used by millions despite being completely bogus.
4. No. We have already been through this. The claim in World Without Cancer, and the claim of laetrile proponents, is that amygdalin contains a vitamin, Vitamin B17, deficiency of which is the One True Cause of cancer and supplementation with which is the One True Cure. The current limted findings doe not validate any part of this.
5. No. That story is based on the claims of Ralph W. Moss as repeated by Eric Merola in his film Second Opinion. Merola is (and you might sense a theme emerging here) a Truther and a conspiracy nut. He was the art director of the Zeitgeist franchise, directed by his brother Peter. He has also made two propaganda films pimping the Houston cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski, who has a different and mutually inconsistent One True Cause and One True Cure. At best, these show the common error conflating mildly promising in-vitro results with extravagant claims that are extrapolated well beyond the bounds of defensibility - an error you yourself have made.
6. No, but at least this question is a valid and reasonable one. The reason the date doesn't make a difference is this: "The promotion gained some momentum with the appearance of a Canadian adventurer,Andrew McNaughton,Jr.,and the opening of a classic "border clinic" by a Mexican pathologist, Dr. Ernesto Contreras. The phenomenon was largely confined to the West Coast and Mexico until the 1972 full-scale entry into the controversy by John Birch Society members, in support of Birch activist, Dr. John Richardson. Dr. Richardson had been arrested for selling laetrile in violation of California law." So this shows that laetrile was already illegal and subject to enforcement action in 1972, whereas the book was published in 1974.

Guy (Help!) 13:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise

1. Yes - Even were laetrile used by a significant number of clinics in a prescriptive or therapeutic fashion (a claim not supported by the balance of our sources, as Guy has thoroughly demonstrated), it would still be clear WP:SYNTH to try to claim that this usage equated to a refutation of the braoder medical community's stance that laetril's use in treating cancer is quackery, a stance which is directly supported by the vast majority of our reliable sources on the matter.
2. No - Clearly if this was not a statement by the Myeloma Foundation itself, but rather a testimonial, then it is not a formal endorsement, not valid in any note-worthy way to establishing the empirical efficacy laetrile, and, in any event, nothing remotely like a WP:reliable source.
3. No - Clearly this would be original research/synthesis. There is no direct and absolute correlation between these two notions, and many questionable healthcare practices have been known to persist despite a lack of support in medical research. What would be called for here is substantial sourcing that directly refutes the mountain of current refs we have on the subject matter which say it is quackery, whether said new sources based it upon this "widespread" use or other evidence altogether. Such reliable sources do not seem likely to be forthcoming, and certainly not in the numbers necessary to establish the weigh that would be needed to so directly contravene the bulk of our present articles.
4. No - To be clear, this one depends very much on the research in question, but no source, primary or secondary, that has been put forth so far supports this claim. And the mere fact that there is such research does not of course validate this a viable treatment as recognized by our sources.
5. Yes and No - The ref itself meets the criteria for a reliable source under general Wikipedia terms, but it is still unusable for this purpose, per WP:WEIGHT. Ross is not a scientific authority doing any kind of validated research in this area, regardless of lengthy background writing on the topic. So any inclusion of his perspectives on the matter as juxtaposed against overwhelming consensus in our sources would have to be highly context sensitive and require very clear attribution with regard to the claim being made and the authority behind the claim. For example, the citation in question would be fine for use in the article on Moss himself, if used for the narrow purpose of establishing his views (but even in that case, it would need to be followed by a note that said medical views run counter to general medical-scientific consensus, as indeed is the approach presently taken in his article with regard to similar sources) but using it here in an unrelated article to try to suggest a counter-current in mainstream regard to laetrile would clearly be WP:UNDUE (and an example of the same principle which guides the need for WP:COATRACK, though we are talking about a claim as opposed to a full article in this instance).
6. No - Not by definition anyway. This is a point which reflects a lot of overwhelming community consensus on WP:MEDRS sources over the years. Older perspectives can be overturned by latter consensus in the sources, clearly, but a source's age is not in and of itself grounds to doubt its assertions; point in fact, many times older sources remain the definitive ones on a given topic, including many within the vein of medical science. Regardless, any source must be evaluated against, and within the context of, the preponderance of claims in our sources broadly, and the source in question (which clearly meets all RS standards and informs considerably on this subject, and has been highly regarded for its role therein) is only used to support claims which are consistent with our other sources.

Snow ^{let's rap} 01:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User MrBill3

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No

Per JZG with a nod to snow. Very clear policy based rationale provided for the umpteenth time. Courts and leading scientific journal support vs NonRS. Theoretical basis not sound. Some element of a related/component ingredient being currently researched does not support extreme claims for non existent vitamin as cause/cure for cancer. etc. etc. as explained above and previously. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• #1 – Yes: the fact that it is medical quackery is not altered by the fact that people continue to try it, nor by any economic or political success experienced by its practitioners or defenders.

  #2–6 are substantially irrelevant: The article is a biography of G. Edward Griffin, and the indicated sources are not substantially (or at all) about him. The place to provide encyclopedic information about the putative cancer treatment is in the Laetrile/Amygdalin article. Griffin is not a medical researcher or practitioner: what is pertinent about his book, for encyclopedic purposes, is not his unqualified medical opinion, it is his theory about suppression by the powers that be. The present article covers this aspect reasonably well. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Formally, then, that is a No on the other items. I certainly agree that the conspiracy theory is the salient point. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Very well put. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1) yes; it doesn't matter who is using it, it matters what reliable sources say about it.
• 2) no. the "International myleoma foundation" is not a "major medical or scientific body" per MEDRS
• 3) no (isn't this the same as 1?)
• 4) no, preclinical research is just that. the clinical evidence we have is that using laetrile to treat cancer now is quackery.
• 5) no, the new documentary is not MEDRS (also is by erica merola who also did a documentary praising the quackery-pitching Burzynski Clinic.
• 6) i don't understand the question. has griffin at some point stopped advocating that people take laetrile for cancer or that there really is no conspiracy of the FDA/pharma etc? Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1) yes. However certain aspects of Amygdalin are not and would not be considered quackery. This may be a part of the misunderstanding. The study of the substance in hopes of one day developing treatments, meds, and ect is not fringe. This is science. The only fruit these studies have bore are the need for more studies. No legitimate treatments have come from this.
• 2-6. No. This is about about Griffin. This is not about Amygdalin. These source are bunk. The ones that aren't only have an application in original research, which would be prohibited. Griffin can legitimize his positions himself. He does not need wikipedia to do so.
• How about a snow close?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes to #1, No to 2-6, per the multiple reasons cited above. The POV pushing for laetrile here needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• What? What POV pushing for laetrile? Atsme☯^Consult 22:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yours. Yobol (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I'm not pushing any POV except WP:PAG. Atsme☯^Consult 03:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you are pushing a POV backed by your reading of PAG. Every time you make a specific statement that X, Y or Z is required by PAG, consensus is against you. Sometimes when everybody tells you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out the results on Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC_on_laetrile have been qualified. The consensus there is: It is reasonable to describe Griffin's thesis in respect of amygdalin as scientifically unsupported. It is reasonable to characterise the vitamin B17 / laetrile scam, as quackery, in Wikipedia's voice. Recent research suggesting a possible therapeutic benefit for amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy, does not cast sufficient doubt on the consensus. There is also a rough consensus that: It is not reasonable to include a brief mention of ongoing scientific research regarding amygdalin as that should be done in the article on amygdalin.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, no to 2,3,4,5,6. Amygdalin and Laetrile were quack treatments 30 years ago, and still are. Unfortunately there are quacks still operating. My only reservation: I see no evidence that Griffin still "argues that cancer is a nutritional deficiency". Maybe he has changed his mind. I would prefer "Griffin has argued ..." in the lead. Maproom (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• I was called here by LegoBot, but I see my answer (1:Y; 2-6:N) has been well articulated and explained already. Let sanity prevail. --Slashme (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, no to 2-6. Guy and snow pretty much outlined what I think, so I'll save space by referring to their posts. The most recent reliable scientific sources describe it was quackery, fringe, etc., so we should follow policy per WP:NPOV and follow suit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, no to 2-6, as per User:Ningauble. Flat Out talk to me 06:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Only here for the Bot. I suppose I'm getting old. After I don't know how many attempts at quackery quashing in the face of halfwits begging to be fleeced, mocked, and eventually killed by the parasites that push the stuff, the savour of warning and instructing people who need it, but in spite of their appeals for information, don't want information, has become so diluted that it is more of a penance than a pleasure. PITY me! Oh well, yet once more unto the breach...
  
  • 1 Yes, journal articles do not lapse after 30 years; they lapse after they are shown to be invalid or dishonest, whether after 30 minutes or 3000 years. The ones that were shown to be invalid or dishonest or both were the ones that incompetently suggested or supported the idea that toxic amygdalin and its derivatives were worth so much as a cup of cold spit, medically, nutritionally, or pharmacologically speaking. The fact that they were insultingly inept in their biochemistry, let alone simple logic, explains much, but excuses nothing. As for why the "medical centers" are "allowed" to prescribe or sell the stuff, that does not affect the question of whether it is quackery; the fact is that quackery pays and prosecuting quackery is expensive as well as demanding and tedious. That explains enough already. It is no part of WP's duty to re-explain it before each and every occasion for making valid encyclopaedic statements on the matter.
  • 2 Is this question a joke? Get real! Certainly not!
  • 3 Equally not. Why is it still being used around the world? You should be able work that one out for yourself. Crooks are pushing it for cash and fools are buying the stuff in desperation and for comfort in hopelessness.
  • 4 No. Talk sense! Do you know what "current research" is? If you think you do, then kindly explain what "current research" has to do with whether the subject is quackery or not.
  • 5&6 No, and if it did, that would not affect the status of the relevant WP articles
    

And for what it is worth I do not take kindly to this so-called RfC. I have responded as a matter of courtesy, but I see it as a matter of discourtesy that the RfC channel should be abused in this way, insulting the intelligence of the participants and wasting their time that at the very least could be better spent. JonRichfield (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Do we have an article about laetrile? SamuelDay1 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Laetrile. You are welcome. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC) -

1. Yes, qualified medical professionals, the FDA, and multiple peer reviewed sources have concluded that laetrile is quackery.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Clear consensus

The consensus seems rather clear. It doesn't seem necessary to get an official close. Does anyone disagree?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Questions

Could somebody please help me understand why conspiracy theory is so prominently and repetitiously linked and referenced in this article of a man who definitely did not have a say in the matter? Please allow me to describe further...

1:

"Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies..."

2:

"...it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies..."

How can one ascertain which of the two definitions you are referencing?

It is either derogatory, (blatant or unintended) -or it is humor. This definitely cannot be Wikipedia's version of fair, unbiased and impartial fact reporting.
I would like to see proper editing done to remove the redundancy, because calling somebody a "conspiracy theorist" today, is 100% of the time taken as an insult. And whomever is responsible for this article made this mistake egregiously. It's embarrassing, actually.Brokor (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please review the talk page history and archives. There was extensive discussion of this matter and clear consensus that the current text reflects mainstream Reliable Source references. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I read it all and this still does not answer my question (and it was never answered satisfactorily), but I am willing to let this go if you are telling me to drop this matter since nothing is going to be done about it. I happen to agree with the consensus that the references are (mostly) correct, and I would be willing to accept a single reference to conspiracy theorist, but it's blatantly obvious to me how insulting this is to myself, let alone Mr. Griffin. I will, however, be contacting the man this pertains to and will provide feedback if/when he responds. I figure, it's the least I can do. Thanks. Brokor (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition, is there anything that can be done about this reference by chance (I did not see it mentioned on talk page yet)?

Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). "Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve?". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2015-03-10. "On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck presented author G. Edward Griffin as a credible authority on the Federal Reserve. But Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories, including the notions that HIV does not exist and that cancer is a dietary deficiency that can be cured with 'an essential food compound'."

From "But Griffin has an extensive history..." onward is a fallacious argument, I do believe it is a red-herring. Is the purpose to cite a reference or justify some personal vendetta? Brokor (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the previous discussion on this in the talk page archives? Near the top of the talk page you'll find a list of the previous archives plus a search box that can help. Remember, Wikipedia works on secondary reliable sources, using the terms they generally use. If good secondary sources generally describe him as promoting conspiracy theories, that's what we use. Ravensfire (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ravensfire. If you've reviewed my previous statement, I said I read through it all. Would you like me to stop asking questions here? I will if you just say so. I wasn't judging anybody, I am just shocked. I would edit this personally, but it would just be re-edited/reverted and won't go anywhere. Besides, I admit, I am biased on this particular case, but in the opposite direction. I was wondering what you kind folks thought about people who actually know the man personally. To me, logic would dictate that a secondary source, who may be unqualified and wouldn't even know the man would fall short compared to a friend or family member, or the man himself. I see it like this --he's a human being, but he's under character assassination because of the business he's in and ideas, concepts or information he shares. I see more information on the Wiki pertaining to his outlandish conspiracy theories than the credible work he has done in his life. Or is it to be assumed that he's just a crazy man? If Wikipedia is supposed to, through its membership and staff, accurately and in neutral fashion describe somebody, then why is the information leaning so far opposite from what so many, like myself see as normal? I think this is a fair question to ask. (I think I will stick to perusing the archives and leave you folks to this madness.)Brokor (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You are wise not to edit the article until you've read the archives and the applicable policies. Thanks for your restraint. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I am 41 years old, retired veteran, and I am never fond of policies, because that's what corporations obey, and I despise corporate America. Love (and miss) the good 'ol days, though. I like to lurk and apparently bother you nice people in the talk. Thanks again. I'm out. Brokor (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Decimation of text by IP

An IP editor, new to wikipedia apparently, is currently decimating the article. I've reverted once, but am going to wait a bit, before issuing a welcome note. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted once as well -- and I left a note suggesting use of the talk page. To no apparent effect... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

More on the word "conspiracy"

Regarding a recent edit to the article by an anonymous user: The proper role as a Wikipedia editor is not to remove material from articles on the basis that the material includes “bad character insinuations”. An encyclopedia is full of information about individuals, some of which is favorable and some of which is unfavorable to the referenced person. Material that is properly sourced and is presented from a Neutral Point of View is not objectionable merely because the material constitutes “bad character insinuations.” If the contrary were the case, Wikipedia could not accurately report, for example, that a particular person was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, since the mere mention of such a fact would constitute a “bad character insinuation.”

The editor also used the term “far left snowflake crap." That term would be more properly used to describe the rantings of -- well -- "snowflake individuals." In that context, a “snowflake” individual (whether on the left or right) could be described as someone who has a pathological, contextually inappropriate over-sensitivity to being exposed to information with which he or she disagrees, or information which is offensive. The reports in the national media are replete with stories of people like this -- for example, the report about the young woman who was caught on video several weeks ago, having something close to a nervous breakdown in a confrontation with a young man whose display of his hair style constituted, in her mind, an “appropriation of her culture” -- which she incorrectly deemed to be somehow morally wrong in some way.

By contrast, accurately describing G. Edward Griffin, a person who espouses conspiracy theories, as being a conspiracy theorist is not “snowflake crap” of either the left or right variety. The article clearly describes some of his conspiracy theories. The information in the introduction is a summary of the material that follows in the body of the article. The mere fact that you or I might agree with what Griffin writes does not make the use of that term objectionable. Further, the fact that the term “conspiracy theorist” has negative connotations (which it certainly does have) does not in and of itself make the use of that term objectionable. Famspear (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This might help:

[to] conspire (verb): "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 243, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976) (bolding added).

conspiracy (noun): "the act of conspiring together...an agreement among conspirators...." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 243, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976). Famspear (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"Further, the fact that the term 'conspiracy theorist' has negative connotations (which it certainly does have) does not in and of itself make the use of that term objectionable."
It sure as hell does have negative connotations. It is a term that was crafted by the CIA and "deployed" in the 1960s specifically to discredit and ridicule individuals who might have an alternative view or might be critical of misdeeds carried out by government by labeling them as "kooks". The individual words "conspiracy" and "theorist" have been around much longer, but the specific combination "conspiracy theorist" is similar to the therm "political correctness", a toxin that was released into the public consciousness in the mid-1950s by the Frankfurt School. Do your homework and don't take other Wikipedians to be ignoramuses. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 18:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The content is very well sourced and complies with NPOV. Please see your talk page for the rest. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on G. Edward Griffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kycnews.com/message_board_detail.asp?id=15001&page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127073140/http://www.jbs.org/index.php/robert-welch to http://www.jbs.org/index.php/robert-welch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Use of "false"

Why is this sentence worded like this?:

"He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes false theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System"

"Promotes false theories" is not a neutral statement, nor can it be proven. Using the word "false" is a deliberate attempt to cause unnecessary bias in the mind of the reader. Until now, I didn't expect this from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8015:8320:808A:EE93:6566:71F5 (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that the use of the word "false" in this context is problematic, and I removed it. Although the use of the term is not denotatively "neutral", that's not the real problem with it. The problem is that Wikipedia itself cannot take the position that Griffin's theories are "false." If a reliable source says a Griffin theory is false, Wikipedia can include that. However, about the strongest language in the article right now basically says that Griffin's work on the Federal Reserve System has been described by a source as being "paranoid", "amateurish", and "academically suspect". That's pretty strong language, but it's not quite the same as saying that Griffin's theories are false. If the reliable source actually goes further and says that Griffin's theories are false, then the word "false" can properly used in the article -- with citation to the source. I will try to find the source material and see if the word "false" should be added back. (I rather suspect that the source actually does support the use of that term, but I don't know that for a fact -- yet.) Famspear (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: Under the rules, Wikipedia itself does not have to "prove" that Griffin's theories are false. The reliable source also does not have to "prove" that Griffin's theories are false. Wikipedia rules provide that Wikipedia may present opposing points of view -- but without writing an article in such a way that Wikipedia itself is taking a position. Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia does not mean "absence of points of view." Famspear (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that SPECIFICO, has reverted my edit -- for what I argue is the wrong reason.

I agree that Griffin's theories are conspiracy theories -- but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the source -- and the introduction to the article -- supports the use of the term "false." The intro uses the term "false," but the body of the article does not.

Just based on the article, I strongly suspect that Griffin does promote FALSE theories about the Federal Reserve System. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether the article itself, as worded, supports the use of the term "false." Famspear (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: here is the strongest wording I have found in the source material cited in the article:

""G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. His amateurish take on history is highly suspect, however. 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. Instead of reproducing Rough's work here, I offer the reader a substantially more accurate view of the events leading up to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. To get a proper historical perspective, the story of begins just prior to the Civil War..."

[ . . . ]

" Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve."

(bolding added).

Again, the source uses the term "conspiracy theorist" and described Griffin's work as "amateurish," etc. The Wikipedia article is not problematic on those points, as the article accurately summarizes the source. The problem is that Wikipedia (as currently written) goes farther than the source does in labeling Griffin's work. There is really no need to overstate the case made by the source. Famspear (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a grain of truth (the meeting happened) and all a lot of exaggeration about what led to it and what happened after, in which false claims are made about motivations and actions. I think "false" is appropriate. I would be interested to hear what you would suggest instead - -offering an alternative is often a quicker way to reach agreement than just saying "no". Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC) (fixed typo Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC))

Wikipedia itself does not need to take its own position in the introduction to an article that goes further than what is found in the body of the text. Just delete the word "false." Or, to reflect what the article actually says, an alternative could be "discredited theories." Look at what the sources themselves are saying, then summarize those sources in the article (which has already been done) and, finally, summarize the article in the introduction. But, don't go beyond that.

For years, I have been editing the articles on taxation and, in particular, the articles on tax protesters. These are people who push absolutely false theories about U.S. Federal income tax law. These theories are absolutely false, and have been ruled in court to be false in every single case in which they come up. Yet, in the articles on tax protesters, we in Wikipedia try not to inject our own conclusions. We simply summarize what the reliable sources (in that case, the legal academics and court decisions) say about tax protester theories. Wikipedia itself does not say "the tax protesters are wrong" or "the tax protester theories are false" (although they most certainly are false). Famspear (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's a difference between ignorant fools such as tax deniers and stone-crazy racist conspiracy theorists such as Griffin. He's a nutball who promotes conspiracy theories and they are false and the Jekyll Island stuff is false. Find a RS that satisfies you if you wish, but please pick your battles. This one's a loser and not a good use of anyone's time. It will attract POV rewrites of the whole article after years of hard work. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I might disagree on one point. I've never read any of Griffin's writings. I can tell you that I have been dealing with tax protesters (on the internet) for over 12 years. Many, many of these people have perceptions about American law and the U.S. legal system that bear almost no connection to reality. Talk about conspiracy theorists!

Again, this discussion is about a Wikipedia policy. For the article intro, we do not need to look for a Reliable Source that says Griffin's theories are not false. If we want to say that his theories are false, then we need a reliable source that says that his theories ARE false. And, more to the point: in Wikipedia, we aren't supposed to state something in the introduction than is not supported by the text of the article.

This isn't a "battle." I responded to Editor Jytdog, and I am pointing out that the use of the term "false" in the intro does not appear to be supported by the text of the article -- as currently written. Now, if the use of the word "false" in the introduction is already Wikipedia consensus, then OK. Famspear (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: Regarding my comments about Griffin's theories, I reiterate that am talking about his theories on the Federal Reserve System. The intro materials on other kinds of theories that Griffin has are indeed supported by the text of the article.

If I just had the time right now (I'm in the middle of tax season), I might be able to find more commentary on the "validity" of Griffin's theories about the Federal Reserve System. SPECIFICO, as you may recall, I probably know a little bit more about banking -- based on actual formal education, training, and real world bank experience -- than does Griffin. But, reading up on Griffin would have to wait. Famspear (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes it is established consensus. Thanks for sharing your view. Griffin is a clown. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! At the risk of drifting off a bit (said Famspear, as he set up his soapbox and stepped up to stand on said soapbox....): There is something (or perhaps some things) about the subjects of both banking and taxation that attracts some people to embrace very foolish conspiracy theories, foolish thoughts and foolish beliefs, to engage in clownish behavior, and particularly in the case of many tax protesters (also known as tax deniers), to engage in self-destructive behavior. Another common thread with these people is arrogance. They arrogate -- they falsely claim to have knowledge, understanding, expertise, etc., that they do not have. Many of them suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Famspear (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

far right in 1st sentence

I just went through the history, and far right was added in [this diff by 174.138.221.160 on 18 March 2017, and it has been unstable there ever since. Not sure what to do with that...Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased and Unbalanced

As of 25 July 2018 this is openly a smear piece on its subject. Things that some editors disbelieve are deemed false by definition -- and treated in an equally unbalanced fashion. -- 97.94.196.110 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

well sourced negative content is fine in WP. WP:NPOV does not mean "balanced" nor does it mean "not negative". Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In the first paragraph the author states the subject put forth false theories regarding motives of participants on Jekyll Island. How in the world could theories of motives be falsified? The whole character of the introduction to this article is ad hominem in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1303:853B:0:1E9E:77A6:A373 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Because all reliable sources agree that his theories are false, and no reliable sources agree with his theories. "Balanced" does not mean we have to take his claims seriously when no reliable sources do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear anonymous contributor: A false theory is a theory (for example, a theory regarding someone's motivation) that is not correct -- a theory that is not true.

Stating that someone has a false theory about someone else's motive (or that someone has a false theory about anything else, for that matter) is not an ad hominem argument or position. In terms of what you call the "whole character of the introduction" in the article being ad hominem, you need to be more specific. Famspear (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic. This is a hit piece.

"[The Creature from Jekyll Island] promotes false theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System".

The book _The Creature from Jekyll Island_ is factual and sourced. At very MOST you might get away with "disputed theories" or "controversial theories". But "false theories"?

This article at minimum needs a disclaimer paragraph that it is charged with being subjectively and nonfactually critical.66.190.68.37 (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read the chapter directly above this one. Your argument has already been answered there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Which has now been archived. See Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 10#Biased and Unbalanced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No it has NOT been answered - what in the heavens are you even talking about - and did you then remove content by another which calls into question the invalidity of the article??? What sort of agenda are you on, to perform actions contrary to the factual foundation of Wikipedia's content?

Wikipedia administration: I recommend that this editor's privileges be banned. Not only is he violating the encyclopedic intent of Wikipedia _per se_, but he is abusing his authority to prevent honest exchange of information. At minimum, please AUDIT him.

Moreover, "the problem is that Wikipedia itself cannot take the position that Griffin's theories are 'false.'" I believe I read that somewhere.2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:5DBC:E692:4BBB:1414 (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it has been answered. In Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 10#Biased and Unbalanced, OrangeMike answered it thus: "Because all reliable sources agree that his theories are false, and no reliable sources agree with his theories."

You are confused. I have no idea what you mean by "did you then remove content by another". Can you give a link to that alleged removal? Probably not, because if you could, you could tell from the link whether it was me or somebody else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Those who are aware of G. Edward Griffin's integrity and commitment to the truth should rejoice that such a lamentable hatchet job as this article currently represents will make the curious newcomer wish to familiarize themselves with his work. As with the recent mass censorship of YouTube it only encourages people to find out more about those who are being censored and falsely defamed. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? This is what this Talk page is for.

BTW, integrity and commitment to the truth are not enough for finding it. One also has to be competent enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The article clearly does not even make any pretense at objectivity. It is simply a smear piece. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's weird how you refer to yourself as "the article." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone besides Hob Gadling needs to review this Talk page, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility

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

---

I am calling into question his objectivity. For the sake of Wikipedia not being or becoming a joke instead of a reputable encyclopedic source, please, have someone neutral review issues presented on this talk page. Please.

Besides, he's archiving Talk articles so that previous discussions are no longer "visible" in a sense. It that's not overtly deceitful, at least take a close look at it. Looked at FROM ABOVE, not by Hob Gadling.2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:E898:2EDB:3FB1:44E4 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

From Above??? What on earth do you mean? You actually can't get much lower than Hob. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "archiving Talk articles"? I haven't done that for a while. Could you give a link where I am doing it? Like this: Lowercase sigmabot III archiving this Talk page. Accusations should always be backed up by evidence. (Of course, there is nothing "deceitful" about archiving Talk pages; it is not much of an accusation.)

But maybe you just do not know the right words because you have no idea how Wikipedia works? After all, there is no such thing as a "Talk article". Maybe you mean deleting contributions that do not belong on Talk pages because they are not about improving the article? Nothing wrong with that either, but still, I'd like a link. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Per the above request, I carefully reviewed the article, all of the sources in the article, and all of the comment on this talk page, including the ones that have been archived.

BTW, the archiving was done by a robot, not Hob Gadling. This page, like many pages on Wikipedia, has a 'bot that archives old discussions.

I walked into this having never heard of G. Edward Griffin and having pretty much no opinion about the federal reserve or any other political entity (I find politics to be boring, I have an equally low opinion of politicians on both sides, and I wish that those who think their political side is full of truth and goodness while the other political side is evil and likes hurting people would just go away and leave Wikipedia alone.)

I find that the article accurately describes the positions of G. Edward Griffin and the reception his theories have received by pretty much every expert in the field. I find that Hob Gadling did nothing wrong other than tell the IP editor that his conspiracy theories are not welcome here. I will now await the IP saying that I too lack objectivity and asking that my comments be reviewed... --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Article needs a disclaimer paragraph that its characterizations are subjective and disputed

The fact is that there has been editorializing to the detriment of fact, and perhaps censoring in a technical sense. I am pointing this out to protect the veracity of the article, and the reputation of wikipedia - and not to point out any incompetence or dishonesty that led to it. This is not an attack on individuals, no matter how clearly they show they earn such; this is about having an honest and truthful article, and the concomitant serious issue of wikipedia's credibility, which I have fought hard to protect.

This is not an "attack" on individual editors. This is pointing out error in the article. Moreover, since discussion was locked out in the latest talk section, how could I even make this response? That was an unproductive and I suggest deliberately offensively provoking action to lock out reasonable, civil and intelligent discussion. For future reference, that was not a beneficial and productive choice.

The fact is that, without singling out the two individual editors whose words and actions on this talk page speak for themselves, the article stunningly merits a disclaimer paragraph atop saying that the submission and characterizations of the subject topic are disputed and that the article has been charged as being subjective.

Moreover, a legitimate impartial review has not been performed. The simple fact that the "reviewer" considers the article subject "political" shows resoundingly that no legitimate review was performed. It's not even remotely political. (I struggle to refrain from saying "Nice try.")

Moreover, the clear sarcastic vagueness of the "review report" suggests improper review. I ask again, that someone who is truly impartial (and doesn't laughably claim to be impartial) review this.

How much more needs to be done to demonstrate that the subjective characterizations of the article are disputed? Because either I'll provide it, and watch for an army behind me to do the same. Unless wikipedia simple WANTS a s***-storm and accompanying worldwide controversy, how about taking this charge seriously, and doing the right thing. Please.

(By the way, I apologize for misattributing the earlier archiving, which in a seemingly one in a trillion coincidence, occurred almost the same moment as one particular editor was barking about it. The odds of its archiving being done by a bot at that moment instead of the individual seem astronomical, but the record speaks for itself. Sorry. Sever that error from everything else though, please. It doesn't change anything else.)2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:9:7DCF:40EA:CABD (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Which claims in particular do you dispute? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do disclaimers, even if you were right, which you are not. Guy (Help!) 01:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by “barking”? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"False" Theories

For the sentence in the lead section "He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes false theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System", none of the sources provided support the assertion that the theories are "false". The word "false" should be removed per WP:Burden. Wikitam331 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm content to paraphrase using the word "false" on the basis of the following quote from the Daily Beast source: "The fatal flaw in Griffin’s analysis and breathless fear-mongering is, as is the case with so many prevalent conspiracy theories, that it takes a grain of truth and turns it into a salt mine of utterly laughable bullshit." Now, if you prefer, we could stick more closely to the sources and use "salt mine of utterly laughable bullshit". But I figure "false" is better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

One author’s opinion “that it takes a grain of truth and turns it into a salt mine of utterly laughable bullshit” is not proof whatsoever that the theories are “false”. Wikitam331 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not need "proof". Otherwise all its articles except those on mathematics would be empty. All we need is reliable sources. I like "salt mine of utterly laughable bullshit", though I agree that "false" is better.

But if you insist that is does not follow from "salt mine of utterly laughable bullshit", I guess we will have to use the direct quote instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The source presents biased opinion that should not be asserted as fact per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. The word “false” should be removed. Wikitam331 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Read guy's comment in the section above. He's right. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No he’s not. Read my comment you replied to. Wikitam331 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I prefer "salt mine of utterly laughable bullshit" to "false" anyway. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now now, the fair and balanced way to paraphrase that quote is obviously "a grain of truth". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a biased opinion that should not be asserted as fact per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Wikitam331 (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

But ""salt mine of utterly laughable bullshit" is more accurate. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s just your opinion and does not refute my argument in any way. Wikitam331 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What argument? The only thing you ever say is "that’s just your opinion". That's not an argument. Reliable sources are unanimous that Griffin is wrong. If you disagree, you'll have to present one that agrees with him. Until then, when you say, "that’s just your opinion", that's just your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That is untrue. My argument has been clearly articulated and that is not the only thing I've said. Reliable sources are not unanimous that Griffin "is wrong" about his theories in The Creature from Jekyll Island. In fact, the Mediamatters source does not support this claim whatsoever, and using it as a credible source to support the claim that his theories in The Creature from Jekyll Island are "false" is purely an ad hominem attack on Griffin. Calling it "false" is a biased statement of opinion made only by the author of the Daily Beast article, yet it is being asserted as factual on Wikipedia per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. The word "false" should be removed. Wikitam331 (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty of searching for more info about this book, and among dozens of Amazon, Booktopia and similar listings I found this article on the Melville House website. The salient point is this quote about Griffith's ideas none of it is true. It is all bullshit, sounds false to me. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote, "None of it is true. It is all bullshit," is a biased statement of opinion being asserted as factual, which is against the rules per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Wikitam331 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That would be true if it were not for the fact that none of it is true, it's all bullshit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove the word "false". Not only does the MediaMatters citation not support this claim, but calling it "false" is a biased statement of opinion made only by the author of the Daily Beast citation. Despite this, it is an opinion being asserted as factual on Wikipedia. This is against the rules per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Wikitam331 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussions are not votes. When someone promotes a number of unusual ideas that contradict all evidence, WP:REDFLAG applies. In brief, gold-plated sources are not required to contradict outlier speculation, and readers should not be misled by omission of key words such as "false". Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Reason source contradicts the claim that the theories are “false”: Jesse Walker, the books editor for Reason magazine, says the book has grains of truth but "reduce[s] things too much to a certain narrative, where the mustache-twirlers are behind everything."[5] There is no consensus among the sources already provided that the theories are “false”. The word “false” is misleading and should be removed from that sentence. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's quite the same definition as for conspiracy theories (and a good way to summarize would be "unsubstantiated", or "for which there is no credible evidence"). Do you think this would be a good compromise to "false"? So far I see no consensus about removing "false" above, though. —PaleoNeonate – 14:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think replacing the word “false” with the phrase “some unsubstantiated” would be a good compromise. The Reason source should be cited here, and the MediaMatters source should be removed for reasons previously stated. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we continue to discuss this. The consensus view here is: include "false". No new arguments are being presented; it's the same repetition of an assertion most editors reject. Why respond?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No such consensus exists and a new argument was just presented. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That statement is what is known in the Wikipedia game as I didn't hear that. Time for you to drop the stick. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wikitam331, Sure, just as soon as we have reality-based reliable sources that describe his theories as anything else. Guy (help!) 12:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The entire article on G. Edward Griffin appears to be a hit piece with little to no substantiation supporting accusations and derogatory opinions, except those of similar opinionated entities.

Apparently, the author has not read Griffin's works entirely, otherwise, the writer would offer, at the minimum, a more balanced approached. All Griffin's presentations are footnoted with historical records and/or studies, as in the case of the cancer book, in which Griffin shows the alteration of the medical utilization study on amygdalin, by Sloan-Kettering. "The Creature..." has voluminous amounts of historical, congressional, and publications footnoted following each major issue. Hard to claim conspiracy with actual verification of historical events.

It is sad to see such ruinous vitriol displayed here when anyone with a brain is able to see that the Federal Reserve banking system has an underlying problem. No longer are people able to interchange their Federal Reserve Notes that represent a dollar for a dollar. Now, it takes over seventeen of their issued currencies to equal one dollar. If that is not apparent to the author, then, please just have all his works that he has authored reviewed and replaced as insufficient on their face.

Here is the best exchange I am able to currently find for reference: https://coinspesso.com/products/2020-american-silver-eagle-coin-bu?variant=32738479865900&currency=USD

I am not associated with them, nor have any financial connections to them. It is just a source needed to support the evidence that is so clearly apparent. There has been a lack of discernment of the reference footnotes that Griffin has graciously provided throughout all his publications that has created such a biased and derogatory article that all articles that this author has touched apparently needs to be reviewed for accuracy. A Discerning Man (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So the best "reference" you can offer is a price quote from a dealer site. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• It may help to gather a list of indisputable primary sources (here, not in the article) to throw back at fanboys who post this crap, to which if they respond with "nuh-uh," one can just WP:NOTHERE them. We're already doing that at Talk:Alex Jones and starting to get there at Talk:Mark Dice. Though if they argue we're taking him out of context, I suppose we're still obliged to point to the non-primary sources in the article and then ask if they've got better. At the very least, clearing out the "nuh-uh's" does dramatically reduce the volume of fanboys. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ian.thomson, I call this "argumentum ad Petersonum", after the protoype for this line of "reasoning". Fanbois of Jordan Peterson were I think the first to settle on the universal position that anyone who did not believe him to be the sage of all ages simply hadn't read or understood his word salad. Guy (help!) 23:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  See also Courtier's reply. The Gish gallop is somehow related too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Pranksters ref

@Jzio:

Here's page 181. In particular, this paragraph seems to be the one cited:

Paul's endosement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve–along with several other positions he holds–has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin's book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul's blurb for The Creature from Jekyll Island, he calls it "a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." It sure is. The congressman is a principled libertarian conservative whose positions on civil liberties, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the legalization of drugs overlap with those of many people on the left. He is a learned man and not a nut. However, when this congressman appears on Alex Jones's show, endorses Bircher books about a Federal Reserve conspiracy, and warns of nonexistent plans for a NAFTA Superhighway, it shows how the fringe ideas discussed throughout this book have infiltrated substantial parts of the political mainstream.

This would appear to discuss and mention the Creature from Jekyll Island, despite your claims that it does not.

Your claim is that it "Debunks" the book and that this is a work of "conspiracy theories". Less than 100 words of "discussion" is a very low bar for such a burden of proof. Justin (talk)

Oh, wait, you did eventually admit that it did. Guess you finally decided to actually check the source?

I am the only person to ever check this source. And it does not credibly debunk any idea. Justin (talk)

It puts the book in the category of "nutty," and describes it as a standard issue NWO conspiracy theorist pablum. Any book claiming the Bavarian Illuminati were active in any way after year 1800 is automatically wrong. Any book trying to connect the Illuminati, the Rothschild family, and the CFR is automatically insane. Stop edit warring to whitewash the article in a way that promotes a conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I referenced page 118, to demonstrate this is the only single instance the book mentions Jekyll Island. This is not a discussion of the book. This is name calling, in a single paragraph, on a single page. This is a very low bar. Justin (talk)

"Known For" metadata is deliberately Inaccurate

Media Matters isn't paying staff to do opposition research on G._Edward_Griffin because of his Noahs Ark research. He is known for one thing and one thing only. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island. Anything else written in this section is designed to deliberately mislead people. Justin (talk)

Ok, the biggest problem here comes from you jumping to (rather conspiracy minded) conclusions instead of showing any willing to learn a damn thing about how the site works.

Wikimedia's staff only focus on keeping the site running, they don't deal with content.

The editors and even admins here are volunteers.

To keep editors from just promoting their own opinions, all we do is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. That's it. If you don't want to do that, there are other sites for you to crusade for Griffin on. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Where is your evidence that MMA has anything whatsoever to do with this? The article has more or less in its current form for over six years, despite occasional surges of POV-editing by obvious True Believers, and, with the exception of the originalk incarnation (also written by a True Believer) most of it is the work of long-established Wikipedia editors. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography removed for no reason

I restored a bibliography from a previous Diff [77]. Since Media Matters has become politically involved with this article, Over time this article has morphed from an encyclopedia article an an author to an ad hominem attack. Edward Griffin is an Author. You may disagree with him, but you can't take away his bibliography. His Bibliography should be restored. Justin (talk)

These are not books discussed by reliable independent secondary sources. They are self-published. Wikipedia is not a directory of self-published books, we are not here to promote conspiracy theories and other fringe nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: his stated intention to ignore 3RR led to an indefinite block, which I support. Why he thinks MM is editing this article I have no idea. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I think we won't get any peace until he is blocked from this talk page as well, or TBANned. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: he was blocked from the article only a couple of hours ago, and he hasn't edited here yet. Let's see what happens. Ping me if I need to be told anything. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is in violation of Biography of living persons policy

This article gives disproportionate amount of space, to criticism of Edward Griffin, ignoring his major contributions to understanding the federal reserve and our banking system. This understanding is critical to explaining the mechanisms of wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and how we are living through the biggest wealth transfer in human history in the midst of a synchronized global recession. Media Matters is not a reliable source and this article amounts to what can be described as an ad hominem attack, used to discredit his book on the banking system. The New York Times review - is a movie review.

Its in violation of "Balance"

Balance > Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:87D0:A850:2945:CF09:86F0:B6D3 (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources to support your view? Who called his work "a major contribution to understanding the federal reserve and our banking system"? Retimuko (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The standard is very low. The references or "reliable secondary sources" that "debunk" does not even discuss the book for more than a single paragraph. The "reliable secondary sources" are funded by media matters, in order to attack the Edward Griffin personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jzio: That last line in your post is a conspiracy theory. If you aren't interested in summarizing mainstream sources, you can leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Its not a summary, it's the full amount of text that addresses the Creature of Jekyll Island. T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

New User Here

Hello, my name is Justin Zollars. This is third day on wikipedia, I'm a professional living in Silicon Valley and I'm a former Hillary Clinton DNC delegate. I have no interest in wikipedia other than to correct this particular article, because its an egregious personal attack funded by Media Matters and misleading.

It has not been a welcome community. I am unable to edit this page. None of my edits have been accepted in favor of biased, disinformation. Wikipedia's principal is that anyone should be able to edit a page, given evidence advanced. I have demonstrated that the reference which claims to debunk this work, doesn't even discuss this work.

Moreover, this page has been heavily edited by political opponents with ad hominem attacks. Its ridiculous that I'm unable to make a legitimate edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs)

New stuff goes at the bottom. If all the traffic is heading your way, you're in the wrong lane. To claim that it doesn't discuss the work suggests you haven't looked at the reference in question. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you please show me a page in the book that discusses The Creature of Jekyll Island? I'll help, he mentions it one time - less than 100 words are spent discussing the book. I shouldn't have to prove a negative. This is a strategy of disinformation— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs)

It has already been quoted, you've acknowledged this, stop being tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I am the person that researched to produce the quote on google books, the topic is hardly addressed and is not sufficient to conclude it is debunked. This is not a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You're the one who produced the quote? Even though I'm the one who posted it, and you previously claimed the ref doesn't mention Jekyll Island? Gaslighting doesn't work here, neither do your variations on "nuh-uh!" Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

a "Debunked" reference with a word count less than 100

That's a new record. But seriously, this should not be the authoritative reference that the book was debunked.

This article states that The Creature of Jekyll Island is Debunked by Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World. The Creature of Jekyll Island is mentioned only once, in Reference to Ron Paul, and is otherwise not addressed. It certainly doesn't debunk this work, the book mentions The Creature of Jekyll Island in one paragraph. Just one. I can sympathize that people hate the opinions of Edward Griffin but let's try to be more honest with our references.

https://books.google.com/books?id=DBvPAgAAQBAJ&q=edward+griffin#v=onepage&q=jekyll&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, ridiculous claims require ridiculously little to debunk. Any book that claims the Bavarian Illuminati were active after 1800 is wrong, period. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a clear example of a double standard. Improvements to this page require extraordinary evidence, while slander of Edward Griffin "require ridiculously little to debunk". You are abusing your privileges as an administrator to enforce a double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Only if the "improvements" are extraordinary claims. You can improve the article by adding ordinary statements from reliable sources, there is no problem with that.

On the other hand, any "slander of Edward Griffin" which is at the same time an extraordinary claim, such as "Edward Griffin is a reptiloid", would also require extraordinary evidence.

By the way, something needs to be false in order to constitute slander. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section - "According to Media Matters for America..."

Media Matters for America is a politically left-leaning organization that is a biased or opinionated source according to WP:RSP. Having this sentence in the lead section does not represent a neutral point of view and thus violates WP:MOSLEAD and WP:NPOV. It should be moved to the "Cancer, chemtrails, and AIDS denial" section. section. Swmpshield2 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This is unclear. The only content in the lead sourced to Media Matters is the factual "He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994)". (The following clause in the sentence, "which advances debunked conspiracy theories", is sourced to a New York University Press book). Which sentence are you suggesting should be moved? Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, you didn't wait for discussion and made the change you wanted. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In any case, we commonly put material like that in articles, and as RealityZone is his own website, we can use it - see WP:ABOUTSELF. But you've ignored the problem with the lead, ie that it doesn't cover all the important aspects of the article, eg the John Birch Society. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

::::Neither of the sources provided support the claim that he believes the ark is "located at the Durupınar site in Turkey", so this needs to change. Regardless of what should be in the lead section, there is no doubt that MM sentence does not belong there. Swmpshield2 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Please discuss on the talk page before reverting" - You got it wrong. Please read WP:BRD and WP:WAR, then revert your revert of Doug's revert. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Struck through sockpuppet's edits. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"False" theories

This assertion is supported by only one source, The Daily Beast. From WP:RSP: "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The Daily Beast article is not a news article, it is a biased opinion piece making a controversial statement of fact related to a living person. It is not a reliable source in this context and should be removed, along with the word "false". Swmpshield2 (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2, replaced it with the New York Times calling it debunked. Odd though: for his "signature work", virtually no reality-based sources discuss it at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

::jzG, That's better, but The Hill source says the book "still raised some very good points that deserve serious consideration", directly contradicting the NYT source that says the book "has been debunked". Asserting that the book "has been debunked", which is a controversial statement of fact, in the lead section violates WP:NPOV. The word "debunked" should be removed from that sentence, but the NYT source should be quoted in the section specifically about the book. Swmpshield2 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2, but The Hill is an opinon-based tabloid article, and the fact is that nobody sane takes it remotely seriously. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

::::jzG The NYT article is an opinion piece written by a movie reviewer. WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. The word "debunked" should be removed from that sentence, but the NYT source should be quoted in the section specifically about the book. Swmpshield2 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2, It is at least in a serious newspaper. The Hill is a tabloid. But feel free to quote serious reviews in reliable sourcesif you can find them. As I said, it's remarkable that what is supposedly his signature work is pretty much entirely ignored by reliable sources. Almost as if it is worthless nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Which it is, of course. [78] Retimuko (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's for the reader to decide Justin (talk)

No, it's really not. We reflect the consensus view of reliable independent sources. In as much as sources even look at Griffin's writing, they point and laugh. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Struck through sock edits. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

First, the "consensus" can be and often is wrong. Particularly in political and social subjects, wikipedia is grossly biased and often wrong. Even in technical areas, wikipedia has flaws. Some years ago, I as a recognized expert in my field edited a technical article and it was rejected by a later moderator because I did not reference internet sources, the fact I was the expert in a cutting edge field was irrelevant. I asked the other mod if I published a blog with the same comments and linked to it, would that be ok? He said yes. Utter stupidity. Second, G. Edward Griffin was amazingly correct and more people every day are watching his 1969 video, he exactly predicted what would happen, which actually means the communist playbook was executed perfectly. Aseidave (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Then go to the Wikipedia rule pages and convince people to change them so consensus of reliable independent sources is replaced by your opinion as a recognized expert. (BTW, new contributions go to the bottom.) Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" is not an occupation

"Conspiracy theorist" is not an occupation. It is a weaponized phrase that has no place in an encyclopedia, and smacks of bias and hostility Donn Edwards (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody claims it is an occupation. It is an accurate description of who he is and what he does, fully backed by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist." That makes it sound like an occupation. Why are there no references given for the above? Also, conspiracy theorist has no scientific meaning. It seems judgmental. 2001:1C00:1E31:5F00:D486:7EF4:F82F:CC62 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

By policy, we do not need to use citations in the lead of an article, as the lead is just a summary of the body text. The body text is clearly well supported, per OrangeMike's comment above. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The introductory sentence is not necessarily about your occupation. It's about your claim to fame, why you are notable. Griffin is notable as an author, a filmmaker, and a conspiracy theorist. Two of those happen to be occupations. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

“Debunked” citation

“Debunked” citation links to random book that “rescues the critically important art of the prank”. It’s a book about pranks. 50.234.77.161 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A search on "Griffin" in the book (via google books) establishes that Griffin is in fact discussed in the book. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Literally nothing in this random book about pranks debunks anything, even if they decided to mention him in their book for some reason. How can this be the citation for “debunked”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.77.161 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not change your contributions after they have been responded to. It distorts the discussion because it make it look as if the responses were to something else than they were.

I moved your new text to a new contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

the word "debunked" should be removed from this page. It expresses an opinion rather than a fact. 71.53.157.187 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

For context, here is the entire text relating to Griffin in the book cited (Pranksters by Kembrew McLeod, on page 181):

[Ron] Paul’s endorsement of G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin’s book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul’s blurb for The Creature from Jekyll Island, he calls it “a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.” It sure is.

The book is generally well-referenced and published by a university press, but is also informal—sometimes even sarcastic—and the author is quite happy in places to include his own value judgements with no further analysis or supporting citations, as is the case here. The above quotation seems to me to be a superficial assessment of Griffin's book, that is mentioned in passing in a chapter on conspiracy theories in US politics. I agree that this source is insufficient for the statement in the lede that CJI "advances debunked conspiracy theories". Adda'r Yw (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Relocation of refs to Griffin's own work

We don't accept primary sources. Some references are links to books or programs that Griffin wrote or appeared in. They don't need citations (although any secondary or tertiary ones that are available are helpful). Instead, they should be moved to a bibliography section rather than the body of the article. I took care of this as best I can tell.

There's a lot of repetition in the article with even more in the references, using loooooong quotes. The long quotes are unnecessary, because

1. the content is already included in the article, which is the correct thing to do
2. it isn't consistent with the WP:MOS

I don't want to mess with this article any further, as I don't know anything about the subject matter.--FeralOink (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the source and statement of "advances debunked conspiracy theories" in the Lead Paragraph.

I'm new to contributing and have done my best to follow guidelines. I hope that this can help consolidate the discussion around this statement in the lead paragraph. Summary of what I'm trying to discuss is below:

1. This is the only sentence I'm calling into question. I am not arguing against Griffin being attributed to conspiracy theories:

He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which advances debunked conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.

2. The source for the claim "advances debunked conspiracy theories" is:

McLeod, Kembrew (2014). Pranksters : making mischief in the modern world. New York: New York University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-8147-6436-7. OCLC 895709009.

3. The quote in the book that refences "The Creature from Jekyll Island":

Paul's endosement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve–along with several other positions he holds–has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin's book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul's blurb for The Creature from Jekyll Island, he calls it "a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." It sure is. The congressman is a principled libertarian conservative whose positions on civil liberties, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the legalization of drugs overlap with those of many people on the left. He is a learned man and not a nut. However, when this congressman appears on Alex Jones's show, endorses Bircher books about a Federal Reserve conspiracy, and warns of nonexistent plans for a NAFTA Superhighway, it shows how the fringe ideas discussed throughout this book have infiltrated substantial parts of the political mainstream.

4. This sentence at minimum should be changed to:

He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994) about the Federal Reserve System.

5. Reasoning:

The source is in no way stating that "the Creature from Jekyll Island advances debunked conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System".

I spent the time to read through all of Archive 10 which has multiple discussions on this topic. The most recent one was here but more are found in the archive: Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 10#“Debunked” citation

All of these discussions tend to agree that this is not an appropriate source (except for one main example I'll link below). I don't see any valid reason that this sentence should stand as it is today on the article.

6. Attempting to find arguments for keeping this sentance

I've tried my best to find any reasoning that this sentence should stand as it is on the article. However, most of the comments in Archive 10 that are in favor of keeping this are extremely un-intellectual and passionate. An example is here.

In this post multiple users repeatedly reuse the same expression of just saying its all bullshit with random other links that could hardly be described as credible or at least addressing the sentence being discussed. I was very disheartened to see that these are the types of conversations occurring behind the scenes as they are not productive or addressing the cited source.

If another credible source can be used to substantiate the claim...

The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which advances debunked conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.

...then the article should be updated with an alternate source. However, the one currently listed is not suitable for justifying the claim. Christianjamesscott (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that that thread got way nastier than it should have, the consensus at it is pretty clear. The veteran editors there, particularly User:Nomoskedasticity, User:Hob Gadling, and User:Roxy the dog, seem to couch their explanations in WP:BLUE, which basically say we don't need to go overboard sourcing a claim that the sky is blue just because some people insist the sky is neon green.

To me, the problem is with the source, not our claim. Is it true that Griffin's book "advances debunked conspiracy theories?" Yes. Does the source we have verify that claim? No. And while I think the article from The Daily Beast by Asawin Suebsaeng is extremely iffy when it comes to its editorializing, its reporting and analysis read as reliable. If I were the unquestionable tyrant of this page, I'd drop the McLeod cite and use the Suebsaeng one. CityOfSilver 21:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm really confused by this reply. Here are my main reasons but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Thanks again for your help starting this discussion.

First of all, your claim that The Daily Beast article's reporting and analysis read as reliable is incredible confusing. What are you using as the criterion for this? The article from my reading has absolutely zero analisys. It begins with attacking right wing politics, in the middle it summarizes the book, and at the end just says "It's BS" gives quotes from two unverifiable sources with 0 reasoning or facts just claims that it's BS.

I'm attempting to approach this article via the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Thinking that article has any substance would require a non-neutral and anti-right points of view.

Second, your reply to me clearly violates this core principle of Wikepedia:

Wikipedia:Verifiability

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

It appears that you are trying to say that the claim

The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which advances debunked conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.

is equivalent to saying

sky is blue

You are explicitly doing this in your reply:

Is it true that Griffin's book "advances debunked conspiracy theories?" Yes.

That requires a tremendous amount of editorial bias. As the rule states, even if you are sure something is true, it has to be verifiable. I can't find a single source still that's pointing to this being something that is clearly true.

Third, You are once again missing the important part of my post. There is a source being listed that is entirely inaccurate. Nothing in the source in anyway claims that the content of the book:

A: advances conspiracy theories

B: that those advanced theories are debunked.

The editorial bias (which is my first/ second concern) is continually being raised to avoid addressing the second issue. Regardless of the bias, incorrectly listing a source should be fixed.

Fourth and finally, this is slightly off topic but is there a Wikipedia policy that "veteran editors" have priority in their claims over others? If so I'd like to see that as it would be very distressing. Christianjamesscott (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to simplify your TLDR screed to it's essence in say, three, small sentences? Thanks. - Roxy the dog 05:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

the obvious bias in this entire post demonstrates the unreliable purpose of wikipedia. Are these "debunked" theories ever revisited as they become true? Or is history being written by enemies of truth as it happens? 2600:1700:84DA:7800:1C6:CF33:71D3:59A4 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If those "theories become true", whatever that means, you can come here and present the reliable sources that say it, and it will be revisited. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As several of the alleged "conspiracy theories" have now been proved to be true...

... should we not revisit this, and remove the inappropriate language, and obviously political labelling? 37.189.169.148 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Your sources? Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." JimRenge (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Careful, you'll get banned for a week like I did. 72.36.47.247 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Jim's response is more to the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire article is radical communist leftist nonsense with no references or facts to support any claims. 2601:2C3:867F:4760:397D:805C:C5AD:7B81 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, unsupported statement, following by bizarre ad hominem, followed by "COMMIES!", and not a single actual source or reference, just abuse. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)