Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

More problematic edits

This paragraph has bothered me since someone added it: "Griffin has served on the board of directors of the National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends, and is the founder and president of the Cancer Cure Foundation[15] (now the Cure Research Foundation)."

I'm in the library right now, so I can't cite all the specific things that are problematic about the edit. The top (and most important) on the list is the fact that we need some verifiably independent reliable sources to confirm that he was, in fact, on the Board of Directors of the National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends, etc." If he's the founder and president of the Cancer Cure Foundation, then citing their website as confirmation of the fact should be easy enough. I have no problem with that. But for the non-Griffin related organizations that are arguably self-promoting and self-serving, we really should have some independent sources (i.e., journalists or academics) per WP:SELFPUB. Taking his word for it is not the safe road, I'm afraid. J Readings (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight for Freedom Force International

Can someone please think of a good (read: policy-oriented) reason why we are giving undue weight to Freedom Force International in the form of its own section? No matter how hard I try, I cannot find an independent, third-party journalist who wrote about Freedom Force International, let alone several. If it's Griffin's "major achievement" or "lifetime work" as one new editor repeatedly alleges, one would think that it would be fairly easy to find at least one newspaper article which discusses it independently of the subject (i.e., other than Griffin) or his partisan supporters in the blogosphere. To their credit, neither John Bulten nor Orange Mike endorse the new section. I think that's the right attitude to adopt, to be perfectly honest. Unless some objective support can be provided, the fact that he founded this organization should be relegated to one simple, short sentence placed back in the economics category where it belongs. Wikipedia is not about propaganda or advertising. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I cannot see why that this group is notable in anyway based on a google newspaper archive search. If no reliable independent sources care to comment on this organization, why does it need a section? --Slp1 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest WP:BITE? The new editor has been swatted down several times but is scaling the learning curve acceptably, let's wait a bit and see what comes. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not fighting Orangemike on that last revert right now, it's in the history. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence from LewRockwell.com, both because Lew Rockwell is not generally regarded as a reliable source for controversial assertions, and because the sentence as quoted assumes as true a sweeping generalization which many editors consider a major NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE??? It is hardly bitey to discuss notability and undue weight on a talkpage, though I do appreciate John has been challenging Rdstone98 to come up with something substantive [1]. However, I think I can pretty much guarantee that if J Readings cannot come up with anything on a LexisNexis search, and I can't on a Factiva search, that there ain't much out there to find. Still I am willing to give Rdstone98 a day or two more....--Slp1 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm happy to wait a few more days, but I would be very surprised if the editor found anything that justifies the undue weight. As for reliable sources, I tend to use LexisNexis, Factiva, and Google News for a sweeping overview of notability and verifiability from reliable third-party sources. Between those three databases (and, BTW, be careful of false positives when searching!), it covers most reliably sourced newspapers and magazines in the English language. (There's a lot of overlap between LexisNexis and Factiva, so if you're going to invest in one don't bother investing in the other.) I'd also highly recommend JSTOR for academic journal articles--very much worth the trouble to use, IMHO. Finally, for books and book chapters, two very useful sources to use are Worldcat and Google Books. Google Books and Google News are both free and readily available on the internet for every editor here to use, the rest unfortunately aren't. The point is that if these six databases do *NOT* generate any useful material on a subject, it's difficult to turn around and argue that something (i.e., Freedom Force International) suddenly deserves its own section or article. That's what seems to be happening in this case. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Freedom Force separate section and undue weight....Everyone here has been very helpful. After much reading of Wikipedia content criteria and then research on Freedom Force as verifiable entity, evidence was found for individual members and chapters in the U.S. However, I agree that mainstream media has not yet covered it. Therefore, article should be reverted to Freedom Force as a sentence and not a section. I'm also learning Wikipedia topics where a strong political or worldview is held are hotbeds of critique, whereas apolitical non referenced articles can exist for months without discussion (e.g.,E. F. Schumacher Society). It's an interesting experience.Rdstone98 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rdstone98 for all your work searching and for actually reading the policies! I also appreciate you being so upfront and reasonable about your conclusion, too. I can't say all new editors react the same, so congrats! I totally agree that some articles can exist for months without any references, generally, as you point out, when they are non-controversial. But I don't think it is only that political articles are hot beds of critique, but also that they are hot beds for editors who would like to use the encyclopedia to publicize and promote their own preferred views, projects, candidates etc. As a result of the continual to and fro, editors on these pages tend to focus more on adherence to policies/guidelines, which at least provides some structure for these things. Otherwise things would be a free for all (which they often can be anyway!!). Obviously there are other articles that are subject to these kinds of pressures, and articles about companies can often have similar problems where the company wants to put out a sweetness and light message and other people with an axe to grind want to denigrate unreasonably. Anyway, thanks again, Rdstone98. Slp1 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

article in good shape now?

Judging from the article itself and the decreasing frequency of edits, I believe the article is in a fairly reasonable shape now - hey, nice job everybody :-) Are there still important issues to deal with, especially in terms of NPOV? Does it make sense to have the article rated? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely have it rated. JJB 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not entirely sure how to proceed, but I decided to give that peer reviewing thing WP:BIOPR a try. Sounded like that would be the first step. I'm not sure how many editors will answer. Would it be appropriate to contact some old friends who have contributed to the article at an earlier stage, like Arthur Rubin, Devil's Advocate, ..., in order to get some more comments? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Book cover

My quick reading of the above recent discussion about including the cover of Jekyll in this article is: I support it; Slp1 opposes it as not adding information; FeelFreeToBe could go either way; and JReadings opposed it because not knowing of other author articles which included book covers (but did not respond after being shown some). Discussion having quieted down, I'd like to preserve this orphan image and request a consensus for my reinserting it for the following reasons.

• Inclusion of the cover does markedly increase comprehension of the critical commentary of the book because it makes the book recognizable, gives the flavor of its presentation, and provides a useful anchor for emphasizing the book's greater notability than Griffin's other works (except perhaps Cancer).
• The book formerly had its own article, now deleted; it is therefore borderline notable in its own right and may be sustainable in the future depending on how edits to this page proceed.
• Book covers are not advertising when books are already borderline notable and only encyclopedic content is included.
• Consensus has established that the cover is not restricted to fair-use limits, so there is no argument from this being an author article.
• Finally, appropriate images improve any article.

Side point: on the inside cover, Griffin states that the Great Seal was chosen unedited because the eagle was more of a bird of prey than the vulture, and thus fitting to describe the Fed. Though interesting, I don't know if it is encyclopedic, but it does explain the cover clearly! JJB 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Though I'm also not sure how encyclopedic it is, I think it does convey some kind of information (Griffin's choice to use the Great Seal is an interesting one). For those who don't have the book, someone has posted the cover description on the internet. I think it provides the basis to be at least mentioned in some way (I replaced the caption, which was still about the dollar course, with a short sentence like that). Finally, discussing the cover in some (even though very short) way would provide a justification for using the image (whether free or not). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Links

This article has a few red links -- meaning there is no corresponding article at the other end of the hyperlink. I wasn't able to find it, but what is Wikipedia's policy (guideline?) on red links? Do we remove the hyperlinks or do we keep them as is? J Readings (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This help page here [2] just says: "Links to non-existing pages are common. They are typically created in preparation for creating the page, and/or to encourage other people to do so." Since I think neither of this is the case here (with our two links on journal titles), I removed them just for the sake of esthetics (though I wouldn't mind them...). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks much better. J Readings (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewer's comments

There's a first response on the Peer review page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/G. Edward Griffin
I tried to address those issues as good as I could right now, but I think especially the lead section could be improved further to better resemble the content of the article. The reviewer also suggests a restructuring of the article. Though I can see that this might be beneficial, right now I've absolutely no idea how to tackle that. I'd appreciate any other editor's thoughts and actions on that. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

new section for freedom force international?

I don't know how significant a news story on TBO is, but there's currently a story about a man who became violent and finally got killed, and there's a notion that it has something to do with his beliefs as being influenced by websites such as the freedom force international website. There's a second article describing freedom force international more detailed, clarifying that freedom force international is not supportive of violence. Include? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the two articles. Interesting developments. Yet, not much to work with outside of this negative incident on Freedom Force International. One or two sentences describing somewhere in the article what happened are probably fine (so long as they're in proportion to the everything in Griffin's life, so sure--no objection from me--but I can't speak for anyone else). That said, I'm still not convinced we should create an entire section yet. Hmmm. What about a subsection of a section? Maybe that would work better. Then again, not sure any type of section is appropriate yet. J Readings (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Very sad. I don't myself think that the incident is important enough to mention in Griffin's article at least based on current news reports, but the second article does include some information about Griffin and his opinions that might be usefully included in the article. But I agree that a section of FFI doesn't seem justified yet. --Slp1 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That second article is a lot of info from a reliable source. So much so that if I went ahead I'd waste too much time overdoing it. I'll throw it back to FeelFree for the nonce. Start with a paragraph or two and then see if it merits a subsection. I think it will at about the same time Jekyll becomes a subsection. The #1 New York Times and #1 Amazon bestseller cites Jekyll! JJB 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies! I tried my best to take all your concerns and suggestions into account, I just hope the paragraph about FFI is not already too much of a stretch. I tried to give a crisp and accurate description of FFI based on the information given in the second article. I think JJB's idea to create a subsection for Jekyll is doing the article a lot of good. I agree that a whole section for FFI would be too much. I think as long as we don't include that incident (first article) or possible future information, not even a subsection is required. I also agree we shouldn't include that incident, at least based on current information, as I believe that mentioning that a mother of a madman claims websites like that of FFI to be a cause is not encyclopedic content (if not investigated beyond the mere accusation). Ok, I feel like I've done my job, now FeelFreeToDoAnythingYouWantWithIt! FeelFreeToBe (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Year of Capitalist Conspiracy

Thanks to new User:Kcjenner. It looks like his year adjustment is correct and will stand. Appears that the book was 1971 and the video was 1972 (buried on the "how to cite" page so I didn't see it and assumed it was 1971). Keep up the good work. JJB 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding issues and question marks

1. What is Griffin's place of birth (for the infobox)?

 Done Thanks! J Readings (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

2. What is his current residency (if known)?

 Doing... Need to cross-check the current Who's Who to be certain of details. J Readings (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember that back then I could only find Griffin in the Who's Who between 1991 and 1994, and I think I had looked into the current ones as well. You might doublecheck, but sorry to destroy your hope :-( FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Can Youtube.com be used as a reliable source given the copyright issues, among other problems? What is Wikipedia's consensus on this issue? Need to check with the WP:RS noticeboard.
4. Words to Avoid: we should do a sweep of the article to make sure it conforms with WP:AVOID, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.
5. Is "geocities" considered a reliable source for the claims made?

 Done Thanks! J Readings (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other issues out there, but these are the few question marks that spring to mind. Best, J Readings (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Incidentally, it would be nice to get an upgrade for this article given everyone's hard work in making it comply with policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, we won't be able to even get a GA-status ranking without a picture of Griffin in the infobox, I'm afraid. Is there anyway we can find a free picture of Griffin? Has he failed to reply to Feel Free to Be's email? Shame, really. J Readings (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1.) Detroit (according to Who's Who reference)

2.) Who's Who says: Office: Am Media PO Box 4646 Thousand Oaks CA 91359-1646. However, that was 1994. I'm pretty sure, though, that it's still Thousand Oaks, since that's also the address of his organizations as far as I know, e.g. look here [3]. I can't prove it, but everything seems to point towards Thousand Oaks. If it helps, at the bottom of the freedom force page [4] there's a "point of verification". It doesn't display anything to me currently (maybe wrong browser settings?), but I remember when I was on the page for the first time, it contained some information, including an address. Maybe one of you is able to see it?

3.) Ok, to be honest, when I added that youtube reference, I was also wondering about that, but I just trusted the many eyes of the many editors that contribute to the Ron Paul 2008 article, where I took it from. Now that you raise the issue: The reliable source noticeboard has an entry here: [5]. It suggests to me that reliability is not an issue, rather copyright infringement. I'm not an expert and haven't looked too much into the guidelines now, but since the video shows a public speech in a Ron Paul rally I'm not worried about copyright in that case. If others are, fine for me.

4.) Aren't we doing that constantly? ;-) Yeah, sure, can't hurt...

6.) image: I'm afraid I didn't get any reply from Griffin, nor did I find any uploaded image on wikimedia commons. Recently I also sent the email to griffin @ realityzone.com (I had overlooked that address for a while). The page says Please note, however, that his schedule prevents him from personally answering each contact. If you have specific questions you would like to address to him, either Mr. Griffin or someone from our staff will get back to you as soon as possible. Well, I'm also disappointed since he seemed to be really upset about the AFDs and even complained a bit that his picture is gone... If anyone likes to send him another email, feel free to do so! Alternatives? If the youtube video is free content, maybe we can take a screenshot and use it as image? Someone could paint an image - LOL. BTW, why do you think it's not possible to upgrade the article without the image? I don't see a good reason behind that, since it's not something we have much influence on. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to GA-requirements (don't have the link in front of me), we're required to provide multiple relevant images to aid the reader. Does the photo matter for the biography? I would think so, yes. J Readings (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link for the GA requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_Articles Be sure to look at the biographies. I haven't looked at them all yet, but most have a picture of the subject in the infobox. I'm pretty sure we're going to be asked for one. J Readings (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! In the criteria they say: "It is illustrated, where possible, by images". My position is that if copyright prevents it, then it's simply not possible. I absolutely agree that it's desirable, and to be fair at least I haven't seen a single featured biography without image so far (and I've looked at quite some - I wish there was a search tool that allowed to search for a FA or GA biography with no free image...). But I still don't see that having no free image would be an unsurpassable obstacle to GA. But I'll trust your bigger experience with that. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:GVF says about GA status: Images. Appropriate with fair use rationale. Images are provided where possible, but lack of images is not failing criterion. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, have we ever checked if an image taken from Griffin's page could be used in compliance with the 10 criteria of WP:FAIR? I think in our case it depends on criteria #1 and #8. While I think, #8 is met (for example, check out [6] and the justification for that image: The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject.), #1 might not be met, since Griffin is still alive and therefore it's at least possible that someone takes a picture of him and uploads it. Any thoughts on that? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here, finally some examples of GAs without free image of the person: Michael Savage (commentator), John Baird (Canadian politician), Norman Hsu FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Both my logitech wireless keyboard and mouse decided to die on me last night. No way to type a reply, so I had to wait until I purchased new hardware today.

Anyway, problem solved so back to the article. I had a look at the links you mentioned (thanks). Reading the GA-reviews, I noticed these three cases are really exceptions that prove the rule, and even the Norman Hsu article originally had a photo in the infobox (it just failed the free-content test, so it was removed.) Also, a start-class rated article is required to have an infobox for the biography, but you might be right after all that they'll cut us a break for a GA-rating. One thing is for certain: we need to add a Griffin photo before trying for an FA-rating but that's well off into the future, I think. Let's see what the GA-reviewer says. I have some more comments below. J Readings (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

5.) JR, could you please point to which source you mean? Can't find it right away. Thanks FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnote #27. J Readings (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough one but I think I can come up with a satisfying answer. According to this source here [7], Flaherty had a different page (with the same title) that is not accessible any more. But luckily, this high quality (academic) source here [8] (just download the pdf) cites Flaherty and refers to the geocities page (see second to last page of article)! So I think we can safely do it as well. If you're question is rather whether Flaherty's voice is a significant one from the professional world of economy, we've already had a discussion about that (see section "like-resume" on this talk page). At least it's the best that we currently have. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It'll come up during a GA-review. I know it will. Somebody is going to say something about using geocities as a source. J Readings (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I replaced the geocities reference with one from PublicEye.org, that appears to have the same content. Hope that's any better. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

7.) I always wondered whether the lead section should contain expressions like "plain vanilla researcher" or "crusader rabbit". Actually I'm also a bit frustrated about these terms because I just don't understand them (maybe due to language on my account). Is there a way we can get rid of those, or to give me a clue what they mean? Thanks in advance. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lead section still needs some work before we request a review. Per WP:LEAD, we're supposed to briefly introduce everything that is discussed in the article. I need to go back and re-read the entire article to get a sense for what could it improve the lead. Personally, I like the quotes but they don't necessarily have to be in the lead section. I think John was trying to add some balance in the beginning because the perception was that the article was too biased one way or the other. J Readings (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section's on his "early life" and "Noah's" Ark should be briefly mentioned in the lead section per WP:LEAD. It might be helpful to break up the lead section into organizational paragraphs. Just a thought, J Readings (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

8.) Citation format: we need to check those carefully. The citation templates should be consistently used. Some articles with web links, for example, are missing "Retrieved on 24 November 2024" with the "access date=" function, etc. I'll try to have a look there, too. Thanks again,J Readings (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
9.) Do we have any background information on his parents, family, etc.? Perhaps we can cite something from one of his official websites or Who's Who? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we need to cite a third-party source for something like that provided that it's not controversial. If he has any degrees and academic credentials that might also be useful in that section, though I'm not sure if we're allowed to cite him. Need to check that with the noticeboard. What do others think? J Readings (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember there was some information about parents and children in Who's Who. Shame on me, but unfortunately I don't have the source any more. I'm not sure if I still have access, I need to check it out. Actually I'm wondering whether we should include information like that. Doesn't WP:NPF apply in Griffin's case? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we run it by one of the noticeboards in order to see what they advise? I'm just not sure which noticeboard would be appropriate--the reliable source noticeboard or the biography of living persons noticeboard? Hmmm. Heck, I'll post it on both and see what they advise. Thanks for the link. J Readings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

10.) Just so that we don't forget that: Have all of Yannismarou's concerns on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/G. Edward Griffin already been addressed sufficiently? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Think it's time to start a new section for only discussing how to improve the lead section. JR's notion that the lead should also contain something from the early life section made me think a lot about it, and I like to share some thoughts and ideas: It's my impression that most lead sections of biographical articles do include the kind of information that we have in the early life section. Further I think that an early life section is usually used in cases of famous persons, and may not even be appropriate for a less well-known person like Griffin. Because Griffin's early life is neither really contributing to notability nor of much significance by its own (except for giving an idea about the subject itself), I think a section about his early life is not needed, but the relevant information could be included in the lead section instead. I tried to basically paste the early life section into the lead, and add the "essence" of each of the other sections. At the moment it's probably inaccurate, unsourced, weasely, POV, and what not, but before spending more time on that I like to know if something along those lines could be appropriate as lead section:

G. Edward Griffin (b. November 7 1931) is an American film producer, publisher, author, and political lecturer. Born in Detroit, Michigan, he became a child actor on local radio in 1942. By 1947 he was emceeing at WJR (CBS), and continued as announcer at WUOM and station manager at WWJ-TV (NBC), 1950–1955. He earned his bachelor's from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1953, majoring in speech and communications. Griffin served in the U.S. Army from 1954 to 1956, reaching the rank of sergeant.

When George Wallace ran for U.S. president in 1968, Griffin served as a writer for Wallace's vice presidential candidate, Curtis LeMay. In the next year, Griffin began producing films for American Media of Los Angeles (later moving to Thousand Oaks and Westlake Village, California), of which he is president.

While he describes his documentaries on controversial topics like the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, cancer, archaeology, history, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy as the output of "a plain vanilla researcher", he also agrees with the Los Angeles Daily News characterizing him as "Crusader Rabbit".

Some of his better known works are the books The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), in which Griffin charges the Federal Reserve System with being a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism, World without Cancer (1974), claiming that an efficient cancer cure has already been found but suppressed by organizations depending on the cancer business, or his documentary The Discovery of Noah's Ark. While he is not alone with his call for abolishing the Fed, Griffin's promotion and advocacy of Laetrile as a killer of cancer cells has not been accepted by the majority of the scientific community, and the alleged "Noah's Ark" has later been found to be a hoax.

Maybe it's too long, but I believe a reasonable length could be obtained by getting rid of that crusader rabbitt stuff, and maybe some not relevant detail on early life, or by shortening the last paragraph. What do you think about merging lead and early life? Should a mention of those organizations that he founded appear in the lead? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging lead and early life would be strongly discouraged by lead-writing guidelines (please read fully). Adding a sentence about early life and/or one about orgs founded would be fine. However, I think it's OK as is: it establishes context, establishes the range of the body of work and its controversial reception (the vanilla/crusader distinction is very useful for that, although it's possible for it to move down), and establishes the two biggest projects as the Fed and cancer. (As a side point, since we worked out a compromise for expressing the 3 major Ark POVs, it would be unwise to favor one or two of them in the lead; and archaeology and history are not the controversial topics.) We should retain an early life section in any case because it has several noted activities and serves as the "resume before he got famous" section (another example of this type of section is the perhaps poorly named John H. Cox#Biography). If you're looking at other biographies that contradict this, let us know, they might be more subject to improvement than this article is. Generally, early life not contributing to notability is an excellent reason it should not go in the lead. JJB 19:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and the controversy has to go into the lead section, John. It's an entire section that's been excluded from the lead section in defiance of WP:LEAD. We cannot justify it not being there. At least one or two sentences need to be added, I think J Readings (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum) Incidentally, I just wanted to say that I also agree with John that it’s a good idea to look at other articles for how they deal with the “early life” of not-so-famous subjects notable for a limited range of things. The problem is that we should really try to focus on finding a few GA-, A-, or FA-rated biographies. The one John mentioned, while appreciated, is a start-class entry. I've had a look--nothing so far. Also, I agree that it’s probably not a good idea to move the entire “early life” section into the lead for the reasons already mentioned. It should stay where it is. Perhaps one or two sentences (place of birth, etc.) could be included in the lead, though. J Readings (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A list of good articles can be found on WP:good articles. For example check out these, though I'm not sure how helpful they are: Anna Politkovskaya, Emmett Watson, Jay Barbree, Mark Kellogg (reporter). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I agree that just pasting the early life into the lead is not justified. However, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section serves also as an introduction, and that's exactly how I see the "early life" section as well. There's not a huge difference between the purposes of writing a "resume before he got famous", "introduction", or to "establish context". I agree that with the current amount of early life material, we're better off with a section, but I'm still not convinced that the article actually should contain that much detail, out of two reasons: WP:NPF, and the fact that the only information we have appears to be self-published, meaning that nobody out there (in terms of media coverage) really cares about whether he was a child actor or seargant. However, for me, the way we treat is, is also fine, maybe it adds some nice flavor to have that kind of information as well.

One motivation for my draft was also to provide a better overview / summary of the three major topics. I think currently that part is still a bit mystifying and a little clumsy (especially the laetrile sentence lacks context). Of course the challenge would be to find a very crisp summarizing description without favoring one opinion over the other, and I'm aware that my draft is not fulfilling that requirement yet. I was just posting it to see whether improvement in that direction was possible. Mentioning "archaeology" and "history" was an attempt to find broader topics descriptions, inspired by ref. #6. It's not clear to me how those two topics are less controversial than topics like the Supreme Court or cancer. In fact, controversial discussions are at the core of any scientific or political progress, in any field! To come back to the article, at least in the case of "history", we have Flaherty calling The Creature an "amateurish take on history", and (on his website) Griffin published many historical essays that can be called controversial, for example I don't believe his views on JFK assassination, or Pearl Harbor reflect scientific consensus. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If this article ever goes before a GA-review, we will naturally be asked to comply with WP:LEAD. Accordingly, The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. I suppose one could argue that his "early life" is irrelevant in toto as an "important aspect of the article's topic," to which I would say, why are some editors still requesting we include one? Answer: because that's usually the standard. I'm just wondering how this would play out for those of us who seriously would like to see this article upgraded.

I've been privately chatting with a few experienced editors off-line about this article, having posted my questions on the BLP noticeboard. I'm sad to report that the feedback has been largely negative. The main criticism seems to be the G. Edward Griffin article does not give a full picture of the man based on independent, third-party reliable sources. My reply was (and continues to be) that we have exhausted the supply of reliable third-party sources out there. Please, I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong, for everyone's sake. Unfortunately, the few with whom I spoke about this issue are pretty sure that we will be laughed out of court if we attempt to bring this to a GA-review. Frankly, I'm disappointed. But I don't know what we should do. Everyone has worked quite hard to improve this article. If the work was largely for just a continual B-rating, then I would question what incentive there is for anyone to work hard on an article. I'm hoping that we find a sympathetic GA-reviewer or a good way out of this impasse. J Readings (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the wrong person to answer that question, but I tried to scan the guidelines and couldn't find a really helpful clue about what actually characterizes a "full picture" of a person. The best we can do is to stick to the sources. Next to WP:good article criteria, further information about GA criteria can be found at WP:reviewing good articles. At least I believe that none of the "quick fail criteria" apply, so I don't believe we'll be laughed out of court. Some "comforting" quote from WP:reviewing good articles is: If an article on a porn star is well written, well organized, well referenced, and follows the relevant Notability, Manual of Style and biography guidelines, then you should not fail it simply because you disapprove of its subject. On the other hand, there's also the statement: Not every article can be a Good Article. If the references to improve an article to Good Article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria. That remark is puzzling me - can an article lack the sources necessary for GA status, but still fulfill the notability requirement (and of that one I think we could be somehow assured, since the last AfD discussion)??? Well, if some of our sources don't meet the WP standard, they should be removed anyways, and the length of the article adjusted appropriately. That shouldn't keep us from applying for GA status. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it meets GA criteria now and will nominate it myself soon if nobody else does; there is no need for overworry. The only simple improvements I see right now would be (1) better lead; (2) get the Daily News article full text and add content from there; (3) pay a bit more respect to chronology. The bibliography and filmography are already at FA status IMHO, but then I contributed. Anyway I'll go ahead with changes to the lead based on the above and you guys can pick apart. The lead largely results from stagnation on my first attempt at proving notability and impartiality (thus the cancer disclaimer). JJB 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a week or so (if that's alright with everyone) until we finish off the outstanding issues here. I'd be happy to nominate this article and see what happens. My curiosity is piqued. J Readings (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Google Videos

A few google videos are linked to this article. Did anyone check to see if we're violating copyright by linking to these? J Readings (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed in this section here: [9]. Is there any other google video that we refer to? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not my day. First the issue of logical quotations, now missing the obvious discussion of google videos on the same talk page! :-) <sigh> Thanks, J Readings (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking to blogs: not a good idea upon reflection

^ a b c G. Edward Griffin. Ron Paul 2008 (24 December 2007). Retrieved on 7 March 2008.

Upon reflection, I'm putting this on the talk page. I don't want to replace it unilaterally with something else before we discuss it. First, it's a blog and that always seems to attract negative feedback thanks to WP:RS guidelines. Second, it's a political campaign website. That suggests that the site won't be up for long after the November Presidential election. Best to link to a reliable third-party source with editorial oversight that isn't going anywhere. Third, most likely we can link to the youtube video for the endorsement, so we don't need it. For the other assertions, I don't think it's appropriate to use it anyway because it's not a reliable third-party source. Arguably, it's partisan. My 2 cents. J Readings (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• This source is used for the points "current president of American Media"; "founder of FFI in 2002" (backup for Tampa newspaper); and "endorsed Paul" (backup for Youtube). I believe it is a suitable source in this context for these unobjectionable but relevant details which nobody has controverted. However, if you wish to remove it, we need either another source for "current president of American Media" or agreement it needs no sourcing, and we need consensus that the Youtube is sufficient as a self-published source for "endorsed Paul". JJB 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Two other points. Peer review recommended better overall picture of career and restructuring. Why do you see a benefit in keeping early politics, economics/Jekyll, and later freedom networking all together, when there is a natural chronological division, and there are easily defined lines among the three?

I don't have time for a proper reply just yet, my apologies. I hope to address this some time this week. Thanks for your patience, J Readings (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also, writing for LeMay came from Marquis Who's Who, which we've already vetted. I trust that's all you wanted and you weren't actually questioning whether LeMay was an Air Force General? Thanks. JJB 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's all I wanted. Thanks again. J Readings (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm usually death on blogs, for obvious WP:RS reasons. I do think, though, that the blog suffices for his Ron Paul endorsement (YouTube is never a good link for anything). The claim to be head of something called "American Media" and the FFI claim need reliable sources if they are not to be removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For the American media claim there's also ref. 5, not sure how good that is. But I've also not a good feeling about that claim, because I can't find any information about American Media (I think it's not the same as the "American Media, Inc." which you find online - the logo is different). Maybe it would be wise to just leave it out. As for FFI, the same is true (if sources are not good enough), but in that case it's not that dangerous, because there can be really no reasonable doubt that this group exists (though it's not clear how big the group is and what they are doing) and that Griffin founded it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to post and run, but I need to get to a meeting. I just wanted to respond to User:Orangemike regarding YouTube. According to WP:EXTERNAL, There is no blanket ban on linking to these [YouTube, Google Video, and similar] sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis. If we can demonstrate, and this is a big IF, that the uploaded YouTube and Google Videos originate with Griffin, then my understanding is that we can both link to and cite these videos as reliable sources. Now, the question is whether or not we can demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt to the GA-reviewer. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What the NESARA?

A whole paragraph on NESARA, where the source is just NESARA saying that Griffin's site says something similar to theirs, is a clear WP:COATRACK. We need a reliable source demonstrating (a) what Griffin's plan actually is and (b) that it has similarities to NESARA. Otherwise the coats come off. I am not used to treating NESARA as a reliable source. Thanks. JJB 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I absolutely agree with John. We shouldn't have coatracks. I'll take a look on LexisNexis. If I find anything useful, I'll report back. J Readings (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking at least citing a one liner by Dr. Barnard that Griffin's idea of pegging a fixed value to gold and silver currency contradicts Griffin's belief that fixed exchange ratios do not work. I thought it would be notable to include that criticism. inigmatus (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if Dr. Barnard was considered an expert, which I don't believe to be the case. (That he was considered an expert. I'm sure that he was not, in fact, an expert.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) OK, I checked both LexisNexis and Factiva. Unfortunately, no articles registered there linking to the two subjects. This does not mean that articles don't exist, but that these two search engines were unable to unearth anything within their databases. We could all check places like Google News, Google Scholar, etc., not to mention JSTOR. Those are possibilities, too, but I'm not too hopeful on that front. J Readings (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To Inigmatus, I want to apologize if my feelings about NESARA may have overweighted my response to a long-term contributor who has also made significant input into the vital Messianic Judaism category. Someday I will get to the tax topics more directly and we'll have a great opportunity to thrash it out then. I think that you will find the NESaura fade with time and dialogue. But (in concurrence with Readings and Rubin) please feel free to chip in with any non-WP:SELFPUB sources! You might be able to source the concept that "pegging a fixed value to gold and silver currency" is Griffin's idea, because I haven't seen it from him; and it seems contrary to Ed Vieira's observation (friendly to Griffin) that the Founders intended silver to be the definition of dollar value and gold to have a fluctuating exchange rate to silver, set by responsible attention to the free marketplace. JJB 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just do my best to contribute in the areas I know in. I realize some of my edits may not always be accepted, but hey, that's wiki. :) inigmatus (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ungrammatical passage in the article

Take a look at this sentence in the article:

Griffin advocates a free-market, private-money system superior to the Fed caused economist Bernard von NotHaus to deploy such a system in 1998.

That doesn't make any grammatical sense, but I'm not sure how to correct it, as I don't know what meaning is intended. It is this?

Griffin advocates a free-market, private-money system superior to the Fed. His views caused economist Bernard von NotHaus to deploy such a private-money system in 1998.

???? Ideas, anyone? Famspear (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like your idea is probably the correct interpretation, but I cannot find the cited source, so cannot say for sure. Not exactly sure Bernard von NotHaus is exactly an "economist", though. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Creature from Jekyll Island

The Federal Reserve System and similar systems abroad were created not as a result of conspiracy, but as a result of wealth produced by the industrial revolution. The capitalists were wealthy, but they could not get much money because the supply of new gold and silver coins was much smaller than the new wealth of the capitalists. The fiat (paper) money was the solution of the problem. The solution has a flaw: an irresponsible FED can print too much money and thereby create hyperinflation.Quinacrine (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. This presumes something like Griffin's "reasoning", but it has a grain of truth. For the first "capitalists", read "people" in general, as the total wealth of the working class also exceeds the supply of gold and silver coins. The rest is opinion, probably Griffin's, although possibly some other "economist". Finally, this is probably more helpful toward the article gold standard or fiat money than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mandrake mechanism reserve requirement example

The explanation of the reserve fraction seems to be different than Reserve requirement that states that the money multiplier is effectively much greater than the example given in this section of this article. Basically that 10% must be on deposit so that amount X can be put out on loan, and this fraction differs for different countries and categories of banking. Suppose that amount X is $10. 10% of $10 is $1. This differs completely with the example given in this article section--Or am I wrong? Oldspammer (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of SPS material and SYNTH regarding laetrile

There are problems with the text which involves Griffin's promotion of laetrile:

1. This sentence in the lede: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[3] a view considered quackery by the medical community.[4][5]" has problems. First, it uses Griffin's SPS video as the reference. As the video is about an extraordinary claim, and not about himself, we cannot say "laetrile as a cancer treatment". Doing so goes beyond Griffin. Footnote 4 mentions Griffin in passing, but is not actually about Griffin or his promotion of laetrile. Footnote 5 does not mention Griffin at all. Thus we have SYNTH in play because the scientists do not directly and explicitly refer to Griffin or his claims.
2. In the 'Advocacy of fringe science and conspiracy theories' section, we see: "Griffin also advocates the use of Laetrile, a semi-synthetic derivative of amygdalin as a treatment for cancer, often referencing the work of Dean Burk to support the use of Laetrile.[21] Since the 1970s, the use of Laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[4][5][22]" Footnote 21 is Griffin's material. Footnote 22 does not mention him.
3. Same section: "Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments,[25] ...." Footnote 25 is his curecancer website. As SPS, it is improper because it refers to third parties.

I raise these simply as a RS/DUE issue. I am not interested in white-washing Griffin's claims. But he is not an expert in the relevant field of either oncology or alternative medicine. So, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts us from presenting exceptional claims (I posit this means either directly or indirectly). WP:PRIMARY is another restriction, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is even more restrictive. WP:SOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.[emphasis added]" If the article says "Griffin says he thinks laetrile cures cancer ,,,," then WP is being used as a vehicle to present his views. Because this is a BLP, the WP:BURDEN is on those editors who want to present (or retain) the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

E. James Lieberman RS; Lieberman (then a professor at George Washington University) published the allegations about Griffin's advocacy of Laetrile as a 'cure' for cancer, and noted that this view is unsupported by science. Lieberman made both of these claims in an article written for the American Journal of Public Health. Are you disputing that is an RS? Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Lieberman is not in the footnotes listed above. And I certainly am not suggesting that he's anything other than RS! The difficulty is where we have Griffin's extraordinary claims about laetrile, supported by his SPS. The problem is compounded when the authors listed in the segments I posted do not specifically address what Griffin has said. E.g., "Scientist X says Griffin's ideas are ...." Instead, we only have them refuting laetrile in general. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We have an RS that has specifically made the connection between Griffin and laetrile and refuted laetrile as a 'cancer treatment.' So synthesis is not a problem at all, since (via that RS) the connection has already been made. The other RS complement the Lieberman one. Steeletrap (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Amygdalin/Laetrile/vitamin B17

There a 4 problems with the sentence: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[2] a view considered quackery by the medical community.[3][4]" First, in Edward Griffin's own words: "A controle for cancer is known, and it comes from nature. But it is not widely available to the public, because it cannot be patented. And therefore is not commercially attactive to the pharmaceutical industry." Therefore, critique from the corner from the pharmaceutical industry, also in the form of written papers, must be viewed with care. Second, these footnotes from Herbert (1979) and Lerner (1984) are ancient. Seriously, 1979 and 1984? That just won't do. You cannot refer to articles that are 30 years old or more, and then say that this is a view that represents the medical community. Third, the use of the word quackery is inflammatory. To use one word, and especially such an inflammatory word which is mentioned in just one article, and then saying that this represents the view of the medical community is not NPOV. Forth, Edward Griffin lays out the case for amygdalin/laetrile explicitly and specifically. Nothing in the critique of this views address his points. Fifth, there are articles that do support the view that amygdalin/laetrile could be beneficial, so there there is no conclusion that it does not work in cancer-treatment.

In conclusion, it is true that there is a controversy regarding if the effects of amygdalin/laetrile in cancer-treatment. It is disputed that if these effects are positive, negative or neutral, but there is no conclusion in this controversy. It depends on who you ask. Anyway, there are too many problems with this sentence and the footnotes to leave it unaltered. I will keep the sentence, but I will moderate it to "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[2] a view that is unsupported by a large segment of the medical community." Truthseeker1001 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want, you can find a politically correct euphemism for "quackery." But your version won't do, because it implies Griffin's view isn't fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

So, if you so clearly state that you think that Griffin's view is fringe, how can you then state that your own personal view is NPOV? I think you cannot.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We clearly state what the reliable sources state. While those sources are old, the medical consensus on laetrile has not changed at all (see this high quality review for example). It was quackery then, still quackery now. Yobol (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent editing regarding Edward Griffin

User Steeletrap is repeatedly making slanderous edits regarding Edward Griffin. User Steeletrap has previously been banned from articles and pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, a school to which Edward Griffin adheres. Therefore, user Steeletrap edits regarding Edward Griffin should be best reverted, or at a minimum be viewed with great caution. User Steeletrap edits are not NPOV. Truthseeker1001 (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't find how Griffin is involved with the Austrian School of Economics. If he is, it seems to be in a very minor way. Your edit didn't even mention it. He isn't an economist even if he wrote a book on the Federal Reserve which sees it as a giant conspiracy. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed unacceptably pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had some discussion at User talk:Steeletrap on the issue of Austrian Economics. I haven't added the reference to the article because the bigger problem of SPS and RS is yet unresolved. – S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Clarified as to AE. 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Truthseeker1001: It is impossible to "slander" someone with written or printed words. The term "slander" refers to a particular kind of speech, not to something that is written or printed. Slander, by definition, is a form of "defamation." Using the definition of defamation and as applied to the type known as "slander," the term "slander" can be defined, roughly, as a false oral statement (not an opinion, and not something written down) about someone that holds that person "to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a respectable and considerable part of the community... that which tends to injure reputation..." -- Black's Law Dictionary, p. 375 (5th ed. 1979).

The correct term for the kind of defamation that is written or printed is "libel," not "slander."

You have not identified anything in the article that constitutes any kind of defamation (libel or slander). Famspear (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, WP:NLT would seem to be an appropriate link for Truthseeker1001 to read. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok Famspear and Yobol, I have read WP:NLT and I understand. I have corrected myself and have striken out the word slanderous. I still think user Steeletrap's editing regarding Edward Griffin is is POV though, to say the least.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

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

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