Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RfC: "conspiracy theorist" in first sentence

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.

---

Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as we dothe article currently does? (based on the sourcing provided here (and in the article if you like), and WP:policies and guidelines (including of course WP:BLP and WP:PSCI))

The lead of the article currently reads (note: quotes add to citations to make this more efficient for editors, and ref 1 removed b/c it was redundant):

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist, filmmaker, and author. He is perhaps best known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System. He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer is a metabolic disease that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin, and for his promotion of the conspiracy theory that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure.

Starting as a child actor for radio, he became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began a career of producing documentaries and books on topics like cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, and the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community. He has also promoted the Durupınar site as hosting the original Noah's Ark. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.

Other sources for "conspiracy theorist" not cited in our article:

• Griffin spoke at Conspiracy Con in 2007 on "THE QUIGLY FORMULA (A Conspiratorial View of History)" . Conspiracy Con is what it sounds like.
• Dana Milbank for the Washington Post. April 6, 2011 Why Glenn Beck lost it quote: quote: "To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order.”"
• Griffin is featured as the key example in the chapter on Fed conspiracy theories here, in a book called "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, the Illmuniati, Skull & Bones, Black Helicopters, the New World Order, and Many, Many More".
• and Griffin himself talks about the "conspiracy theory" he is advocating - in that language - in his own book here

thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (changed "we do" to "article currently does" which was my intention. Meaning is not changed but apparently there were objections to 'we" Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Survey

• Yes, it is correct. (proposer)Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No. See discussion ad mausoleum above. A suitable compromise in on the table. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No. Statement of fact - poorly sourced - should be stated as opinion - referred to as a conspiracy theorist. The compromise is the way to go. Atsme☯^Consult 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No Not in the first sentence, and not in Wikipedia's voice. We are far more effective if we don't hit our readers (and the subject) over the head with a hammer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, of course -- there is ample sourcing for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral on first sentence, Hell Yes on first paragraph in Wikipedia's voice. Refs 1 and 2 are each adequate, and he does say his theory on the Fed is a conspiracy theory in his own book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes it seems reasonable to mention this somewhere in the lede (reflecting something in the body of course). The sources seem strong and he is a self-avowed conspiracist, so omitting it would seem to violate the requirement to get BLPs "right" as well as our fundamental need to be neutral. I am not convinced by the counter arguments here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - self-avowed conspiracist? Provide a reliable source and I will strike through my response above. Atsme☯^Consult 13:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• He himself characterizes his own "theory" as a "conspiracy theory" in the source Jytdog provides, his own book. I find it amazing editors here are so keen to act as an apologist for this person in the face of plain textual evidence. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - quote the statement, please. Atsme☯^Consult 14:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• How about not being so lazy, just click on the link provided by Jytdog above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from the personal attacks, Nomo - I am not lazy. None of the above links are RS per WP:RS and more importantly, per WP:BLP. There is nothing in any of them that validates the contentious label of conspiracy theorist in the lede. Atsme☯^Consult 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So Griffin's own book does not, in your opinion, meet WP:RS for establishing his own view as to whether he is engaging in conspiracy theory. Very curious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. When the author describes their own theory using those terms, we can certain use it too. Yobol (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - Ridiculous POV phrasing, complete with multiple stacked footnotes attesting to the impropriety of the allegation. It is fine to use this word in the body, with documentation, but not the first job descriptive of the lead. Amazing that we're even having this conversation... Carrite (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

as mentioned above, Carrite there is tons of support for it, include the subject's own description. In the face of opposition, sources were brought. I'll agree it does look goofy, but that happens to articles when editors argue. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably nobody is proposing to keep the overciting in the lede? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from making spurious and/or unsourced comments such as tons of support and subject's own description, and include reliable sources and/or a precise quote from WP policy? Considering the NOs and the one neutral opinion of editors whose aggregate edits exceed 225,000, (one of whom has collaborated on over 500 biographies), I can't help but consider their input valuable to this discussion. Griffin does not consider his occupation to be conspiracy theorist, and neither do other highly reliable sources as noted above. Remember BLP requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies Atsme☯^Consult 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

in my view there is tons of support and i provided the link to Griffin's own words above. Not spurious and I took pains to actually provide sources. you may not find them reliable but that is a different thing from just making shit up, which i am very much not doing. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your notation does not establish Griffin as a self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist; rather he is talking about the topic of distinguishing conspiracy theory from actual conspiracies. By stating that conspiracy theories are laughed at, he is establishing the term as pejorative. --Pekay2 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• No - BLP violation and not neutral. --Pekay2 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - It's abundantly clear to anyone who reads this BLP that the man is a conspiracy theorist. Using that phrase front-and-center turns this from an encyclopedia article into an advocacy piece. DOCUMENT★ERROR 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes This reflects RS and self-description by Mr. Griffin. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• comment - References cited so far are not a self-description; They are definitions of the pejorative term conspiracy theory. Provide your source.--Pekay2 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pekay2 you have made it clear that you don't think the sources are sufficient. This is for the survey; please discuss below. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• No per ""Constentious labels". Furthermore, this appears to be a case of wanting to call him a conspiracy theorist then looking for sources that use the term, when a neutral approach would be to examine biographies of him and see if they use the label. Using labels makes the writing appear biased, which ironically detracts from the message that you want to put across. TFD (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, per WP:FRINGE/PS: " Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification".“WarKosign” 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, Agree with WarKosign. Edward Griffin's theories are clearly conspiratorial based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - please read the question posed for this RfC. Conspiracy theorist is a contentious label, therefore the question posed is if Griffin should be labeled as an American conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice. Atsme☯^Consult 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• No - per WP:LABEL; brought here by bot BlueSalix (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:LABEL if reliable sources describe it as so, especially since it appears as a self-description. I'd also consider being a conspiracy theorist a fact and not an opinion since it's only a matter of documenting if the person has tried to advance conspiracy theory ideas. Seems in line with NPOV to call him as such, but not a huge deal as long as his views are described as fringe, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes: Well sourced with multiple reliable independent secondary sources, and given the correct weight reflecting coverage in those sources. It's by far the main thing he is notable for. And with the solid sourcing we have, including self-identification, we can put that in WP's voice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes: Reliable secondary sources note as such and should be required to not give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe theorist. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes of course it's correct—even disregarding the sources, reading the lead makes "conspiracy theorist" abundantly clear as an accurate description. It might be argued that despite the term being obviously and verifiably correct as an objective fact, an article at Wikipedia should still not use the term. I don't see why not—an article should provide accurate and verifiable information. At any rate, a policy should be updated to prohibit use of the term before trying to use such a policy in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. It is not only well supported by sources, but it is arguably the primary thing for which he is known. I'm British, so I don't get exposed to Glenn Beck very much, but seriously? Some of the conspiracy theories Griffin has publicly promoted:

HIV denialism

Fed conspiracy theories

Laetrile suppression conspiracy

Truther conspiracies

Birther conspiracies

Chemtrails

JFK not assassinated by Oswald

I can only find one conspiracy theory that he does not endorse, which is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He notes that this is a fraud, but only in the context of claiming that the protocols, in detailing a plot by Jews and freemasons to control the world and destroy Christianity, "accurately describe much of what is happening in the world today". Oh, and he's a life member of the John Birch Society.

He is pretty much Exhibit A for the existence of crank magnetism. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - NO if you agree the lede should read as opinion per BLP, that "he is referred to as a conspiracy theorist", and YES if you agree it should read as a statement of fact in Wiki's voice; i.e. he is a conspiracy theorist. Griffin considers himself an author of controversial topics, not a conspiracy theorist. Atsme☯^Consult 04:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, because self-proclaimed in his own book The book is even visible online for those who have any doubt. In the face of such an obvious source, written by the person in question, there is no matter of protecting him as a living person. None of BLP is applicable, unless he later renounced that section of his book. I don't even think the RfC system should even be used for such obvious situations. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the passage in his book denounces the contentious label of conspiracy theorist. Unbelievable. Atsme☯^Consult 01:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I must have overlooked the part where he does, Atsme. Did you already quote it somwhere in this rfc? All i read was him acknowledging that his theory is a conspiracy theory. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

PizzaMan, I did not structure this RfC or it would read differently. I attempted to include an alternate question, because I felt the original question was ambiguous, but was asked to express my thoughts down the page. Regardless, Griffin has always denied the claim as contentious. When you read that particular chapter in his book, he actually describes the reality of conspiracies as factual, not that they are laughable theories made by crackpots. For example, Griffin stated on his website: There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us. [1] So yes, "conspiracy theorist" is an insult used by his critics to discredit Griffin. Atsme☯^Consult 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. Griffin's view is that Federal Reserve is a cartel, founded in secret, that exists so that the rich could get richer and stay that way, that basically uses the government as muscle to enforce good-enough behavior among the members of the cartel. Conspiracy theory all the way, taken out of historical context. oy. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Griffin's view is unique to Griffin. Interesting read...[2] yo. Atsme☯^Consult 02:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't even find the word conspiracy theorist anywhere in his book, despite a helpful search function from Google. Let alone him denouncing it in the book. PizzaMan (♨♨ 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, PizzaMan, what you just said validates the fact that Griffin doesn't consider himself a "conspiracy theorist", and neither do a majority of others. Following is a link that may help you make a decision - pg 130 of Creature - A Second Look [3] The subsection is titled The Conspiracy Theory, wherein Griffin defines the context of an evidence-based conspiracy vs a theory so many in the general populace have been conditioned to ridicule. The latter being the basis for one's belief in "accidental occurrences" which lends credence to the belief that conspiracies are not real, and are just theories. There is still time to change your comment by simply editing a strike-thru. Atsme☯^Consult 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• No. Several respondents have pertinently, even succinctly, explained WHY not, but the opposition insist on irrelevantly (FAIK correctly) arguing that after all, he IS a conspiracy theorist. Well, so what? That does not affect our responsibilities; the article might well be bound to mention the claims and evidence, but it also is constrained by strictures on POV, synthesis and so on, as already repeatedly remarked in this discussion. It is not as though the disputed text is necessary anyway; shorn of the abhorred Synthesis the undisputed truths in the opening paragraph remain equally damning in some such form as, say: "... an American filmmaker and author. He has promoted various conspiracy theories; The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994) for example, asserts that there are conspiracies behind the Federal Reserve System. He also has publicly insisted that consumption of amygdalin can prevent and cure cancer (which he represented as a metabolic disease). Scientific evidence directly contradicts such ideas, but Griffin claims that there is a conspiracy of scientists and politicians to discredit the evidence that establishes its truth." (citations etc omitted) JonRichfield (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Given that the term "conspiracy theory" itself has taken on a Conspiracy theory#Acquired derogatory meaning, it is unfair (and POV) to use Griffin's usage of the term in his 1993 book to justify a current derogatory usage in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

that link says the term became derogatory starting in the late 1960's. The first edition of the Federal Reserve book was published in 1994, and in that section he talks about it being a derogatory term. Not a valid "defense". Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: the compromise offered by Srich32977 here is as follows: "Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox." And otherwise leave the lead alone. I thought about this long and hard and it is in some ways fine. But in my view Griffin's notability is his promotion of conspiracy theories - he is one of America's leading conspiracy theorists - and I am baffled that there is opposition to naming him as such per WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGEBLP, which in my view doesn't conflict with BLP - we call a spade a spade. The opposition is fierce and heartfelt. Hence the RfC to get wider community judgement. I appreciate the compromise being offered and would be happy to revisit the compromise after the RfC, which will affect what we do with the article otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC){strike per note from Srich below, not sure this is supportable - not sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC))

He wrote one book about amygdalin, which appears to be what you are basing your entire objections on. Griffin is a BLP about an author, filmmaker and lecturer who has written many different books on controversial topics. His life is not 100% focused on PS or Fringe, so why are you trying to make it so? WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NPOV. Griffin's notability is clearly the result of Creature, a book that explains the mechanics of the highly controversial Federal Reserve System. What I can't understand is why we are seeing such adamant objections to correctly stating what Griffin's critics have said about him; i.e., "that he has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist"...? The latter is what NPOV and BLP policy requires of us. S. Rich has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now. Atsme☯^Consult 17:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated reference to other editors' disagreements with you as "disruption" is improper, and I would kindly request you to stop. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The term controversial topics is a blatant violation of WP:WEASEL. The controversy is not the topics themselves, since the conspiracy theories he advocates are well known to be entirely without merit, what is controversial is the continued advocacy of these conspiracy theories despite the absence of any credible supporting evidence. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the discussion about article improvement, I cannot understand the justification for using WP's voice to describe Griffin with a derogatory term. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it is, what it is. WP stands in the mainstream, and in the mainstream, the Fed is a key part of our monetary system (not controversial per se - some of its decisions, sure) and the idea that laetrile treats cancer is quackery. Griffin is a conspiracy theorist, away outside the mainstream. So we name him as such, in my view. I do understand that you and Atsme have strongly disagreed. Hence the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, to satisfy WP:NPOV, he must be called a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice in the first paragraph, or it be stated (in Wikipedia's voice) that he supports/promotes/creates conspiracy theories as the first thought in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following this article that closely, and I don't have a specific opinion, pro or con, about whether the article should refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist." I just want to point out that the use of a derogatory term (or a term that happens to have negative connotations) in an article is not, in and of itself, a violation of the rule on Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur - what happened to the need for RS in order to make such a contentious statement in WP voice? You stated earlier that there were no RS, but now you are saying the contentious label must be included. I'm confused. Atsme☯^Consult 18:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Refs 1 and 2 in Jytdog's list are reliable sources; many more are reliable for the fact that he promotes conspiracy theories, without explicitly saying he is a "conspiracy theorist". However, we are allowed to use the definition of "conspiracy theorist" if the sources unequivocally meet that definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Arthur, even though what you are stating now contradicts what you said above. With regards to Ref 1 - Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group that is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". When did WP accept self-proclaimed "politically progressive media" as a reliable source for inclusion of a contentious and pejorative statement in WP's own voice? Ref 2 - when did an article about a totally unrelated subject, "Skyjacker of the Day", with a parenthetical opinionated reference become a reliable source? With all due respect, none of the aforementioned sources pass the smell-test for WP:RS as required by BLP policy. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but If consensus disagrees with you, and editors are expecting strict adherence to WP BLP policy, is it wrong for me to question sources that clearly contradict policy? Atsme☯^Consult 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Atsme. Underlying the high level question I posed in the RfC is exactly the question of whether there is sufficient sources for it. Some of us are going to view the sources as sufficient and some are not. It will be for the closer to decide the community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. Your clarification was helpful. Atsme☯^Consult 22:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why reliable sources matter and why BLP policy takes precedence

The following is quoted from Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - which may have been overlooked in the policies I quoted above. (my bold and/or underline for emphasis)

1. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
2. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
3. In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

You cannot use WP:SYNTH, especially to make an opinion a statement of fact.

WP:NPOV - Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, and why RS must be compliant with the above. The best we can hope to use while remaining in compliance with policy is, for example: "he has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist" and provide a brief explanation for why he is referred to as such. We could write that he has offered various reasons (and include verifiable facts if they exist) for why he believes a certain event or incident took place, and/or that he has written about certain conspiracies he believes are real, but so-and-so considers it to be nothing more than a groundless conspiracy theory....and so forth. Atsme☯^Consult 23:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I wonder why you think he is one of America's leading conspiracy theorists. (What sourcing do we have to that idea?) Is your insistence on using the term in the first sentence based on that notion? If so, then perhaps you are over-motivated (as is Atsme). Also, has the derogatory nature of the term deepened since Griffin first used it? If so, we must avoid it because he would not (presumably) use it today. Next, to use the decisive Adolf Hitler comparison argument, I see that Adolf avoids the use of "dictator" in the first sentence of the lede. (Kim Jong-un's article does not use the term "dictator" at all in the text. Have his efforts to suppress Wikipedia's usage of the derogatory term succeeded?) I do not object to calling Griffin a CT. My compromise serves to do so in the "known for" portion of the infobox and later on in the lede. I do object to using the term in the first sentence. And the objection is solidly based on the fact that sources calling him a CT have their own biases. So, please embrace the compromise. Feel the force of the compromise. Use the force of the compromise. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that his being a conspiracy theorist is an opinion, while I believe it to be a fact. Derogatory facts in reliable sources can and (absent undue weight concerns) should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977 comment on content, not contributors. And really, Hitler? With regard to the rest of your comments, my thoughts on the compromise are here - briefly - we are now in an RfC and we can reconsider the compromise when the RfC is done, in light of community consensus, to which I will happily bow - I am just one guy and my view may not reflect the community's. This is what we do when editors disagree; we use the WP:DR process to bring in more voices and listen to them. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin has put the central point in a nutshell. Nearly every RS that discusses Griffin refers to him as a "conspiracy theorist." It's not up to WP editors to exclude that from the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO the place to !vote and give your argument for it, is above. thanks for weighing in. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

btw SRich thanks for calling my attention to that statement I made. Not sure that is supportable (i think it may be am not sure) so I struck it. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

According to sources, Griffin describes a conspiratorial view vs happenstance relative to how matters will be viewed by history. What he presents, and the way he presents it can be viewed as (a) a conspiracy "theory", (b) actual belief that a conspiracy exists based on factual evidence which eliminates "theory", (c) happenstance. <----- pick one, and you have established your POV. POV is not in compliance with NPOV, thus the crux of this argument. Griffin has not professed to being a conspiracy theorist rather he considers it a pejorative term. Atsme☯^Consult 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, I forgot to add the following quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: [4] You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 22:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope that we can come up with better sources on monetary policy than Sen. Bunning. Really. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite. You know, if Atsme had advocated a change to "American blah blah known for advocacy of conspiracy theories" he might have achieved some support. Instead, he tries to pretend that because this is a BLP, we must treat these mad ideas as if they are defensible. We have years of precedent for absolutely rejecting that idea. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 18 January 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.

Close requested

The RfC expired today. I have requested a close here. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

He's still a Conspiracy Theorist, and should be labelled as such. It is his "raison d'etre" and the only thing that makes him really notable by our rules. AfD anybody, now that he is such a minor author? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a vote. As a close it shows no consideration of the views of the significantly larger number of people who said it should be included. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend - thanks for taking the time to do the close. This question arose at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (the intersection is discussed in the WP:FRINGE guideline that fleshes out PSCI, at WP:FRINGEBLP ) and your close didn't address the PSCI side of the issue. Would you please add something to your close about what the community said here about that intersection? That is the crux of the issue here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it's needed. Conspiracies and pseudoscience are two different concepts, and while of course they can be interrelated, the fundamental RFC question asked only whether he should be introduced as a conspiracy theorist. I see that PSCI (an abbreviation I've never before encountered) was raised at the beginning, one sentence after the original question, but it's not enough relevant that I saw (or see, at the moment) a reason to bring that into a closing rationale. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend closure was obviously done after considering the arguments and policy, determining "a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." And Nyttend's edits to the lede were presumably done to comply with the determination. If editors think that Nyttend overlooked the "first sentence" context, they should discuss this in accordance with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, you could simply start a new discussion. Pseudoscience wasn't the focus of this one, so I basically meant that it wouldn't be appropriate to derive anything from it on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend You can see from the history of this article, that it has been protected twice now for edit warring. We need to move very conservatively in this article. The RfC was carefully framed to ask a question about the first sentence only. Please acknowledge that your edit implementing your close exceeded the question asked in the RfC - you can see it is being used to press for advantage without discussion, and that is not the way to go in a highly contested article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion of the implementing edit at Nyytend's talk page, here User_talk:Nyttend#Edit_implementing_close_at_Griffin_article. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I understand and respect your freedom to question the closer considering his decision conflicted with your position, but it should be done in a calm and respectable manner. You are making spurious claims against the closer, and appear to have become emotionally involved. The only editor who is edit warring is you, [5] [6]. Nyttend followed WP:Consensus, and made his decision based on his evaluation of the RfC discussion, and apparently determined the contentious material was a violation of BLP policy, (derogatory characterization). As a result, the closer was obliged to act as he did and remove it immediately. Please calm down. Atsme☯^Consult 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the recent edit went beyond any current consensus, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Only the first sentence was the subject of the RfC. Whether Nyytend was correct in their closing is one thing (WP:PSCI is a pretty important policy in this topic in addition to BLP), but the additional edits later on in the lede can just simply be partially reverted tomorrow when protection ends if they don't make the change themselves. If someone wants to discuss new topics such as mentions of Griffin promoting conspiracy theories rather than actually being a conspiracy theorist, that's something to gain consensus on first before any new changes in that area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

While the thread title referenced the first sentence, it opened by quoting the entire lede. Editors who commented provided commentary about NPOV and BLP issues in an overall context. They did not say "Yes, the first sentence is great." or "No, the first sentence is not great." Our closer, undertaking it seems, a thankless task, addressed the NPOV problem brought up in the RFC and re-wrote the first paragraph to comply with NPOV. This issue is ripe for compromise. We see an entire section about fringe and CT in the article. We see CT in the infobox as a "known for" parameter. We see CT in the categories. Still, I'll suggest we add the following as a second sentence to the second paragraph of the lede: "He has written about the "Capitalist Conspiracy" (discussing international banking) and been described as a conspiracy theorist." – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of close requested

I have requested review of the close here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Onward to NPOV and UNDUE in the article

I will not belabor the discussion we've already had on the lede. Let's focus on the article sections to achieve NPOV and consistency with other biographies in WP. Suggested section titles:

1. Early life and education - needs to be expanded to include more biographical information. See the biography of Murray Rothbard; a GA which I think is very well written.
2. Career - should include more information about his early days in radio, and what led him to writing, producing and lecturing.
3. Literary Work - see Julia Alvarez for consistency - another GA that is very well written. This section should include his top 2 or 3 best selling books, and some mention of the DVDs (films) he produced.
4. Activism - neutral, dispassionate summary of his views on politics, and various other activities he is/was involved in.

A few suggestions for RS to help with UNDUE and NPOV issues:

• [7] 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.
• [8] 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.
• [9] NPR.org - (129 US Alexa) - quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you.
• www.naturalnews.com/023345.html Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
• [10] 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.
• [11], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
• [12], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
• [13] 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.
• [14] Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa)

Who else besides me will actually be writing prose and collaborating to expand the article? We need prose writers far more than we need copy editors at this point in time. I would consider it a special treat to collaborate with Carrite because of his experience with biographies. Atsme☯^Consult 16:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that "activism" is a better section heading, one that should replace the existing headings in the middle of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is really bad. Natural News is not a reliable source for any health-related information in WP. And RT should be used as a source only for noncontroversial facts as has been discussed to death at RSN:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Is_Russia_Today_a_valid_source
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Russia_Today
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article

Most of the other sources are from inside the "bubble" of Griffin's fellow travellers and really fail WP:INDY. The Forbes and NPR sources are passing mentions and not useful for building content. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the above RS assessment, and find it rather curious that the sources currently in use and the sources you suggested in your list for this RfC seem to be exempt from similar scrutiny. With regards to the RSN/Archive regarding RT, the international community clearly disagrees:

• RT is the winner of the 2013 Monte Carlo TV Festival Award for the best 24-hour newscast. In 2010, RT became the first Russian TV channel to be nominated for the prestigious International Emmy award in the News category. In 2012 they received a 2nd News nomination, and a 3rd in 2014. [15] Based on WP:RS, RT easily passes the smell test, and their Alexa numbers prove it.
• The Alexa results for the sources I cited above returned far better results than all but a few of the sources currently being used. They are also known for their reliable fact-checking which may explain the higher Alexa results. I can't remember if any of the sources you suggested even registered a number, and if they did, they were pretty far down the line. You might want to reexamine some of them because unlike the sources I listed, yours really do fail.
• Media Matters for America is a self-admitted partisan source = major bias. You can cite them, but the passage must be written to achieve a neutral tone. Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening in Griffin. NPOV also states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
• You do agree that self-published sources by the BLP are considered RS, right?
• As for passing mention, I'll just quote what Arthur wrote above: By the way, a "trivial mention" is acceptable for a fact, such as that he is a conspiracy theorist. Ok, so based on your assessment, how much more of what Arthur stated above are you planning to dismiss?

The sources I cited are indeed acceptable as RS based on WP guidelines and the Alexa results. I consult you to reexamine the sources that are currently cited in the article along with the sources you listed above. Most of the problems with Griffin now are the poorly sourced passages that use contentious labels and pejorative terms, all of which are POV and UNDUE. Atsme☯^Consult 20:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

in my view, and in the view of the community, you are not going to get far with Natural News for anything medical (take that to any board you like) and i gave you the links for RT. my views are very "founded". Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Natural News and Russia Today are rarely, if ever, reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of links Jytdog provided:

• 1st Archive 39# - "Well... RT as a whole is a reliable source under our rules..."
• 2nd Archive 71# - "In this case, having taken a quick look, I don't see why RT should not be considered an RS."
• 3rd Archive 140# - "To give a short answer as requested, RT is not banned in principle. It should be used with a fair amount of caution and in general Al Jazeera, BBC or CNN will be more accurate. It definitely is advocacy journalism and its accuracy on specific issues is open to question. If no equivalent coverage can be found the facts that make up the story should be checked."

Quite frankly, the 3 discussions at RSN were nothing more than the exchange of opinions. Much of what was said applies to ALL sources these days including the NY Times and FOX News which makes it all the more important to corroborate the stories with other 2nd and 3rd party sources as dictated by guideline policies. Based on the discussions at RSN, as well as the known biases of sources these days, RT's International Emmy nominations, and its ranking on Alexa, the obvious answer is that RT does indeed meet the criteria for RS. Jytdog, since you're checking sources, please scrutinize the sources you listed as closely as you did the ones I listed, including the sources already used in the article. Our prior discussions revealed several that failed the smell test as RS. A dated citation template can be added to the passages that were poorly sourced, provided the PP ever comes down. Atsme☯^Consult 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Does RT have a reputation for fact-checking? If so, it potentially could be used, except that it seems to duplicate Forbes. I don't think it has a reputation for fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes piece is an opinion column by an individual who has no reputation for expertise in the subjects of history, monetary institutions, or economics. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Upon review, none of the other sources is usable either. SPECIFICO talk 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, about RT -- nice cherry-picking. If you read the whole discussions, you will see that the overall sentiment was that RT will withstand challenges only for basic facts; not for anything controversial. If you actually propose content based on RT in WP's voice, and the content is anything other than a basic fact you can find anywhere, the content and its sourcing will be challenged at RSN and the likelihood of its standing will be tiny. You can try of course. BWOT, but you are surely free to try. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC) (striking comments i should not have made Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

Since your RS argument conflicts with policy and WP:RS guidelines, I disagree with your assessment. Please scrutinize the list of sources currently in use, as well as those you added above, most of which clearly fail WP:RS. BLP states: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. The offending passages still exist and now it appears you are attempting to discredit reliable sources in an effort to maintain the SQ while preventing the inclusion of prevailing respectable information. The likelihood of prevention is zero to none based strictly on WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. I also wanted to add for comparison purposes your distinction of what is and isn't a reliable source. You support Media Matters (described by the NYT as "the nonprofit, highly partisan research organization") which ranks 18,796 in Alexa Global but dismiss RT's 384 in Alexa Global. Read the following: [16], and be sure to read what the Times wrote, paying particular attention to their correction at the bottom....whoa, wait...did I say their correction at the bottom? You mean to tell me they didn't fact check? Some of the other sources I cited above are in the top ranks of Alexa, and on par with other outlets as far as known for fact-checking, at the very least equal in reliability to the sources used to establish Griffin as being known for conspiracy theories. We are not adhering to NPOV if the only sources we cite are those critical of the subject while we ignore and/or discredit numerous other RS that are not.

In further response to Arthur's question about fact-checking, RT is consistently under scrutiny by its competitors and critics. Their nominations for an International Emmy as a top News Source is a recognition given by "a membership-based organization comprised of leading media and entertainment figures from over 50 countries and 500 companies from all sectors of television including Internet, mobile and technology." We can certainly cite RT as being peer reviewed and known for fact-checking, perhaps more so than US media which sadly has been the focus of controversies and complaints by numerous media outlets and journalists, some of whom have blown the whistle regarding excessive government control and suppression of important facts. My retirement couldn't have come at a better time. [17] [18] [19] Atsme☯^Consult 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

oh for pete's sake another wall of text. TLDR. Please stop filling this page with walls of text. Please. More to the point - this is not the place to discuss whether RT is a RS generally. Please propose some content that you want to source from some specific RT article, and you can see if it will fly. It is unlikely to fly, but you are certainly free to try. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC) (striking stuff that would have been better unsaid Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

• RT??? Hahahaha! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to Arthur Rubin's opinion re: Natural News and RT, I disagree on the former--please document these personal opinions on both using RS.--Pekay2 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pekay and Atsme, both of you. Please read WP:MEDRS which is our guideline for sourcing for health related content, and WP:RS the guideline for general content. See if Natural News fits, in your judgement, for whatever content you wish to support, using it. If you find it OK, please try proposing specific content about Griffin sourced to some specific article at Natural News and post it here. Others will give feedback if it complies with our sourcing guidelines or not. If after discussion there is lack of consensus, we can take it to the relevant board. (there is not a chance in hell that anything health-related, sourced to Natural News, will fly in Wikipedia, but you are surely free to try). Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If only you would follow your own advice, this article would already be in line for DYK review. Atsme☯^Consult 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

nothing there about improving the article; please discuss content, not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything there about improving the article. You either haven't read it, or you are ignoring it. You also need to scrutinize the sources you claim are reliable. They are do not improve the article - all are negative - there is no balance. Atsme☯^Consult 00:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

was addressing ":If only you would follow your own advice, this article would already be in line for DYK review. ". i have no more to say here, til you propose some content. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion - collaborate, don't elaborate. Instead of directing other editors on what to do or not do, why don't you propose content instead of WP:SQS....as in write some prose...improve the problematic passages...expand the article...exert some positive effort into making it better, and collaborating to get it DYK ready?? Atsme☯^Consult 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with the article as it is. You have stated very clearly that in your view it is deeply flawed and you want to dramatically revise it. I suggested a way you could work toward doing that. You can follow that advice or not. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, unless you have specific content and associated reference citations to propose here, your further statements will not improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Specifico, do you also like the article as it is? Atsme☯^Consult 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am looking at Jytdog's 10 January 2015 comment: “Pekay and Atsme, both of you. Please read WP:MEDRS, which is our guideline for sourcing for health related content, and WP:RS the guideline for general content.” WP:MEDRS is referenced repeatedly following conversation about amending Griffin’s article. Griffin’s unifying focus is tyranny of all types, and thus less about healthcare, although medical industry tyranny is highlighted in "World Without Cancer". In that book Griffin says the question often asked by organized opposition usually is stated somewhat like “ Are you suggesting that people in government, in business or in medicine could be so base as to place their own financial or political interests above the health and wellbeing of their fellow citizens? That they actually would stoop so low as to hold back a cure for cancer?” (p. 211, chapter 16 titled Conspiracy). This is answered by a case in point article at CBS Detroit online, which while not MEDRS is RS. It details a U.S Dept. of Justice’s prosecution of a mainstream oncologist named Dr. Fata for 13 counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy and two counts of money laundering.” http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/09/16/oakland-county-cancer-doctor-pleads-guilty-to-treatment-fraud/ This is far from an isolated case; here’s another: "An indictment was unsealed today charging Dr. Hussein “Sam” Awada, 43, and Dr. Luis Collazo, 53, with the illegal distribution of prescription drugs and health care fraud, United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade announced today." http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/news/2013/2013_6_21_dawada.html. With reference to conspiracy--An actual conspiracy can not be called a theory. --Pekay2 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• content about health {e.g. about whether or not laetrile is a safe and effective treatment for cancer) needs to be sourced per MEDRS. Otherwise, things need to be sourced per RS. So content about the indictment of Awada and Collazo would be sourced per RS; MEDRS doesn't "read" on the fact that they were indicted. MEDRS and RS are not that different - everything in WP should be sourced from secondary sources, and should be from a source competent to discuss the matter; MEDRS just specifies what those things mean in the field of health. for this article, please also see Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality.

• With respect to your last sentence, this is an interesting problem. In general, Wikipedia strives to express the mainstream view on things, and give the most WP:WEIGHT to the mainstream view. This is the essence of the WP:NPOV policy. We determine the "mainstream view" by looking at what reliable sources (per WP:RS) say. It is very true that conspiracies happen in the real world, and they are described as such by mainstream sources (e.g. Watergate scandal). There are also people who have ideas that "X was a conspiracy" (like John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories) - these ideas are not mainstream in the relevant field of study, and are labelled "conspiracy theories" in reliable sources. The same line of reasoning goes to any WP:FRINGE notion. Please do read WP:FRINGE. It all comes down to figuring out what the mainstream view is in the given field, and what are fringe views. (there are also "substantial minority" views that are not fringe, but that is complicating things) To determine where some idea falls in its field, you have to do a lot of reading. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (note, that was a bit long, sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC))

Right on re: "a lot of reading"! Been there, done that, still doing it!--Pekay2 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Alternative medicine claims are now covered by discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. This will apply to Griffin's claims about laetrile, in particular. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

hatting thread that has also gone astray. please focus on content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please explain how Griffin's BLP relates to acupuncture and/or discretionary sanctions, and what it entails. Atsme☯Consult 02:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC) The decision places all alt-med claims under sanctions. That includes laetrile, a quack cancer treatment with no respectable evidential basis. You already know this, so stop playing innocent. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I see from perusing through various non-allopathic medicine websites and alternative medicine disciplines that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin appears to be only one of various articles being hijacked by folks lacking WP:NPOV. Note this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy: "Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience.[2][3][4][5] It is not effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo.[6][7][8]." The following self defines why it is appropriate to this conversation: www.naturalnews.com/047630_Wikipedia_academic_bias_homeopathic_medicine.html--Pekay2 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC). Some may prefer to read Dana Ullman's 'Extreme bias at WP' Natural News article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html--Pekay2 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC) This comment is off topic. If you want to address the way Wikipedia addresses alt med, you can open a discussion at WP:NPOVN or WT:MEDRS. You would not be the first - this conversation has occurred many, many many times. It has been to Arbcom several times, per the notice above.Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that "Natural News" and Dana Ullman as sources for anything at all are probably as reliable as the writing on the back wall of Stall 6 in the mens room at Victoria Station, London. I can't believe I read that above. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC) please, let's not continue the general discussion of sources and other things. This Talk page is to discuss sources and content for this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) The Ullman article has already been rebutted in full and comprehensively rejected at Talk:Homeopathy. The mere use of the word "allopathic" is in and of itself an acknowledgement of a POV out of line with reality. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I'm still waiting for a response to my question. Atsme☯Consult 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, I think you would agree that the use of laetrile to treat cancer is not mainstream medicine, and I hope you would agree that the use of laetrile to treat cancer would be classified as "alternative medicine". What JzG/Guy was giving notice of , is that in the above-linked discussion, the acupuncture arbcom decision was... clarified/broadened to specifically include "alternative and complementary medicine". See the Remedies section in particular. So to the extent that the article makes claims about laetrile as a cancer treatment, or anybody edits the article to include or remove such content, discretionary sanctions are in play regarding those edits. Discretionary sanctions are explained here: WP:AC/DS - you should read that, for sure, as should everybody else here. Everyone has been formally notified on their Talk pages, and by the notice above. (basically DS means that an uninvolved administrator can come down on editors quite hard. An editor can get a block under 1RR not just 3RR, for example, although generally the acting admin gives notice of such extra restrictions before acting on them. DS are meant to promote very good behavior on particularly contentious topics. it all starts with everyone being notified) Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Thx, Jytdog. Ok, to confirm - the notice basically advises editors to not attempt to skirt policy and guidelines when editing articles involving PS-FRINGE. In retrospect, I wrote the following lede, G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, researcher, historian, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. He considers himself a controversial writer, and is best known for his research on controversial topics which have given rise to conspiracy theories involving, for example, alternative medicine, politics, foreign policy, and banking. Critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist because of his unorthodox views, the latter of which he defends as being fact-based rather than opinions. The first book he authored, The Fearful Master, published in 1964, focuses on the United Nations, and what Griffin theorizes as a socialistic push for the creation of a new world government. He has since accumulated many successful titles to his credit with the most notable being, The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller that 20 years later is in its 38th printing, fifth edition. The book focuses on the Federal Reserve System which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. Prior to writing the book, Griffin attended the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and received designation as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) in 1989, an education he sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets. <----There is nothing I said that should be considered problematic according to any of the sanctions. Para 2 is actually the only part that is related to PS-Fringe for which the PS-Fringe sanctions would apply, correct? I wrote: Griffin also authored, World Without Cancer (1974), which was inspired by information he received on a fishing trip with John Richardson, a physician from San Francisco, who claimed success treating his cancer patients with Laetrile, a highly debated alternative treatment for cancer that has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Laetrile is a chemically modified form of vitamin B17 (amygdalin), a plant compound that produces cyanide, and is found in the pits of apricots and many other fruits and raw nuts, as well as in lima beans, clover, and sorghum. Laetrile is sometimes referred to as amygdalin, although the two are not the same. There are also modified, or fake versions of laetrile believed to be from Mexico that are being sold on the black market. Laetrile was patented in 1953 by biochemist, Ernst T. Krebs, who was quoted as saying, "I know Laetrile is the anti-cancer, antineoplastic vitamin and I want it put to the test." Several tests have been conducted over the years, most of which were either inconclusive or they determined Laetrile to be ineffective in the treatment of cancer. Proponents of orthodox medicine consider its use quackery. However, recent scientific research and the results of various laboratory tests using different types of human cancer cells indicate amygdalin to be successful as an anticancer substance. <----What part, if any, would actually be considered in violation of the sanctions and why? Are you saying that what I wrote is improper for inclusion in this BLP? Atsme☯Consult 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Let me first correct something I wrote earlier. The DS can only be applied if an uninvolved admin starts to oversee the page, and which point he or she would give warnings of the specific sanctions/restrictions they would put in place. What can also happen, is that one of us (or an observing third party) gets so fed up with someones' behavior here, that an Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (AE) is filed. That is the other thing that is now at play here. DS/AE are last resorts. We still have all the typical dispute resolution resorts to work with, on many issues. About the content you propose above, it is mostly impossible to respond to content that is not sourced, so I won't comment much on the content. In my understanding, DS are first and foremost about behavior. So if you replaced the existing content with that content in one fell swoop (very aggressively edited an article you know is controversial) that would be very likely to bring down DS or AE on your head. If you edit warred to keep it in, that would very very likely bring down DS/AE on your head. The other thing to keep in mind, is that our behavior, across WP, related to the contested subject matter, can be brought to play, especially in an AE. So the discussions on this stuff that have already taken place here, at BLPN, and at FringeN, and each others' Talk pages, can be brought in. This is part of how DS is meant to "put the fear of god" (as it were) into editors, to promote best behavior (like listening to consensus and yielding to it when it goes against you). I for one hope we never end up at AE nor having an admin impose restrictions on us. It is a huge time suck, and I take no joy from people getting sanctioned. But sometimes it is necessary; sometimes on issues like those that go to Arbcom, people will not listen to the consensus, and people get too emotional. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Those are my perspectives. Other editors definitely have more experience with Arbcom and could give you a more accurate description of what the notice "means". Guy, anything I got wrong or that you would elaborate on? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Ok, thx. BTW, I wrote the above paragraphs back on Dec 10th. [20] They were well sourced, but reverted without discussion which I suppose is the type of behavior that would attract the attention of AE. In retrospect, and out of respect for the sanctions, I see where the 2nd paragraph could have been substantially reduced, so I just did a strike thru. I still like the section title style/layout I suggested above because it follows WP:MOS regarding the established precedent for section naming and order in similar BLPs. Question: Don't BLP and PS-Fringe sanctions only allow 1 revert before you're handcuffed? Atsme☯Consult 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Oh shit i had forgotten about you adding that to the article and then edit warring to keep it in. oy. Not what you wanna do and especially not now. WP:CONSENSUS remains the foundation of WP and the fact that you edit warred and that you didn't open a discussion on Talk after the first reversion, will look bad on you. Arbcom will look at each person's behavior - AE's often end with lots of people getting dinged, based on what each of them did. i'm sorry. like i said i hope it never comes to AE. With regard to BLP and PS-Fringe, the 1RR thing isn't magical - someone has to act on it and initiate an AE action or go to the edit-warring board, if there is not an uninvolved admin overseeing things. i gotta say that because this article has been locked down twice now due to edit warring, we are likely to end up with someone sitting on us. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC) last comment. I have urged you a few times to propose bits of content here on Talk for discussion. Doing that would not only reflect awareness that the edits may be controversial and show that you are aware of the importance of CONSENSUS, just for the Arbcom brownie points, it actually is the best way to go when you have controversial edits in mind; it is what lockdowns are really for -- working out content issues on the Talk page. It also makes use of the time. If, that is, you still intend to try to remake this article. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I guess you've forgotten about the suggestions I already made above which included proposed changes to the layout and section titles to more closely follow MOS/Layout and Section Names and Orders. I also provided a sample GA and FA to model after for consistency. I like the first paragraph I wrote and included above. I did a struck-thru the peacock words, and there's a link to the diff which shows what sources I used. The lede paragraph has a nice biographical feel, and meets the criteria for NPOV. The second paragraph still needs polish. Atsme☯Consult 06:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I guess you've forgotten that you are in a minority of one, and clearly obsessed with this particular article. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I have said nothing to warrant your personal attacks or disrespect toward me, Guy. An admin who is charged with enforcing policy should not be breaking it or bending the rules to give them an unfair advantage. Atsme☯Consult 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC) fwiw I suggest the two of you knock it off and discuss content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Guy, would you please comment briefly, on how DS work in practice? I gave my understanding above, but I have never been in a situation where they come into play. Am I right, that they actually come into play by a) making editors subject to AE (which someone has to bring) (in other words, opens a new final venue other than ANI) b) an uninvolved admin gets involved and actually declares DS restrictions and then monitors and enforces them. Is that right? I am asking to clarify this for myself too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC) The high level overview is that it reduces the bar to restriction of editors advocating fringe claims. Persistent advocacy of fringe claims, leads to a fast-track process to a topic ban. Any editor can alert any other editor by substing {{Ds/alert}} on their Talk page. That does not, as has been pointed out to me, require an uninvolved editor or admin, but abuse of process will certainly be viewed dimly. It is worth asking for support in the first instance at WP:FTN, and then at WP:AE. Basically, the idea is that we don't have to constantly relegislate the user conduct issues around tendentious editing, advocacy and NPOV. Policy is absolutely clear: NPOV means we follow the scientific consensus view, where relevant. So for example NPOV requires that we correctly represent evolution as fact, and discuss creationism as a belief system not as a fact. The article on homeopathy is a good example: we discuss the belief system and history at length, but without ever giving the misleading impression that it is scientifically supported or factual. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks, that makes sense. I believe that everybody here has been alerted, so that step is done already. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, you seem not to understand why your edits are considered problematic. Let me see if I can explain. G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. Many of his films are not documentaries, they are conspiracist claptrap. That is what the reliable sources say. Filmmaker is fine, but documentary is a value judgment and begs the question; we had similar discusisons about Zeitgeist and What The Bleep as documentaries, both of which we accurately describe as documentary-style; filmmaker in the documentary style would be fine. Critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist because of his unorthodox views, the latter of which he defends as being fact-based rather than opinions. That diminiushes the criticism (in fact, the ideas he proposes are almost universally dismissed), gives him the last word, and implies that his books are factual, which in several cases they are not. His book on laetrile, for example, is anything but. The first book he authored, The Fearful Master, published in 1964, focuses on the United Nations, and what Griffin theorizes as a socialistic push for the creation of a new world government. Theorizes is a value judgment. He believes it to be so, but again there is no good evidence. 44 He has since accumulated many successful titles to his credit Successful and credit are both value laden. They are not books with any objective value. Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision sold many copies, but it was complete bollocks from beginning to end. We should not use these kinds of words when the subject freely admits them to be controversial. the most notable being, The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller that 20 years later is in its 38th printing, fifth edition. The book focuses on the Federal Reserve System which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. This implicitly endorses Griffin's assertions and supports the conspiracist whackloonery around the Fed. The Fed is in reality only controversial to nutters. Prior to writing the book, Griffin attended the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and received designation as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) in 1989, an education he sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets. This takes a low-level commercial qualification and attempts to establish it as a valid credential for talking about fiscal policy, something which, in reality, requires at the very least a degree in economics. So, when you say your edits are not controversial, you state a belief, not a fact. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Completely disagree with you. Amazing that you don't see your own bias. Pathetic really!--Pekay2 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Laetrile, a highly debated alternative treatment for cancer that has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not an NPOV way of describing a quack cure which has been repeatedly scientifically demonstrated to not be an effective treatment for cancer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Well, arguably it does shorten the duration of cancer, since the patient is likely to die much sooner (of untreated cancer, if not form cyanide poisoning). Guy (Help!) 00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Guy, you are drinking the Kool-aid as a naive believer of lies re: Laetrile/cyanide deaths.--Pekay2 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC) This is Wikipedia. We are a reality-based project. The reality is that laetrile is quackery. This is the scientific consensus. We are not here to change that, still less pretend otherwise. If you want laetriel accepted, do it in the sicnetific arena, becuase we do not fix the realworld and we do not change Wikipedia to reflect the world as people wish it to be, rather than as it actually is.. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Please read WP:NPOV because some of the interpretations I've read don't coincide with the applicable parts of the policy...(my bold) Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. The criticisms are unsubstantiated POV, and the disparaging remarks are a violation of BLP on this TP. Atsme☯Consult 03:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC) So you keep saying, but your arguments are consistently unpersuasive. Now would be a good time to drop it. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

hatting thread that is not focusing on improving actual content. please knock it off Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Courtesy break Atsme, Frankly, I have had enough. You refuse to take no for an answer, and you constantly portray your own biases as neutrality. Now would be a great time to find another article to edit, because your proposed edits are not going to happene here for reaosns that have been explained numerous times in realy quite tedious detail. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Ooh -- maybe another great big wall of text will do the trick!! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Well, here comes the wall of text! Guy, I am a new editor here watching with great interest and concern for this WP editing process. Prior to observing this BLP I believed WP to be a decent source of reasonably neutral quality information. It is with great sadness that I have to face that neutral source information is lacking in controversial topics precisely where it is most vital. You have consistently failed to give reasons why the policies Atsme has introduced are not relevant. Where is Atsme's bias? Yours is very clear. You make bizarre and disparaging remarks that appear to have no place in a BLP. Even if G. Edward Griffin were, as your inappropriate template states, "an uninformed wing nut producer of drivel" this is a characterization with which I, and legions of others, do not agree. "The Creature From Jekyll Island" is the #1 best seller in books on banks and banking on Amazon.com. Out of 452 reviews on Amazon Griffin has 4.5 of 5 stars, hardly support for your disparaging remarks. Further, his "World Without Cancer" is the #1 best seller of oncology nursing books. Of 147 reviews he yeilds 4.5 of 5 stars again! In my opinion, you are an anachronist (a word I've just coined in your honor) for your totally discredited 'quack-attacker' nonsense. I am beyond horrified at your unprofessional insulting remarks like your edit summary "now would be a good time to shut up". You have resorted to bullying and ad hominum attacks against both Griffin and Atsme. You have failed to address reliable source citations raised by Atsme or any diffs to support your statements. Looks to me like you should be the one to depart from any further commentary on this page.--Pekay2 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources—we don't vote on cures for cancer, and we don't believe everything we read on the Internet, particularly when it concerns "reader ratings" which, apart from a host of other problems, are routinely manipulated. As there is no actionable and plausible proposal for a change to the article, there is nothing more to say. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC) We write about people who write books. That's why it is called a BLP. No editor has stated any of the things being claimed by the WP:BULLY who has had enough. Enough of what? Reading policy and understanding his own bias? Try reading the discussions and you will see the proposal. And while you're at it, tell us what RS were used in the section contentiously titled Cancer and AIDS denial, and how that section title even relates. Oy. Atsme☯Consult 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is the more appropriate way to put things. It does sound like a fair thought to take a step back away for awhile and drop the stick on some items a few editors haven't gained traction for and pay attention to other items such as the RfC that are ongoing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Pekay: You claim to be a new editor. Comments like this [21] suggest otherwise. In any case you advocate for quackery [22] and you trust manifestly unreliable sources [23],[24], and thus you are, I am afraid, not helping. This happens all the time and it generally ends in one of two ways: the brand new editor finds another area of interestr, or the "brand new editor" gets banned. Advocating fdor quackery and pseudoscience on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Wikipedia is an unashamedly reality-based project. Creationists, free energy conspiracists, Truthers and homeopaths don't get along here, and the problem is theirs, not ours. We do not care how many people believe a thing, if it is contradicted by science, then we don't pretend they are right. Griffin is a conspiracy theorist, he writes conspiracist books. He advocates laetrile, once described as the most lucrative health fraud ever perpetrated in the United States. And many of those associated with the original laetrile fraud, have gone on to advocate another fraudulent and dangerous treatment, chelation therapy for conditions other than a cute heavy metal poisoning (good read on this sort of thing: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5061.html). The internet is awash with sites where you can freely advocate for refuted ideas. Wikipedia is different. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC) And while we're on a break, read Charles Manson - his article was written with more respect for a BLP than Griffin. Atsme☯Consult 05:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Just glanced at it, and Charles Manson gets a more dispassionate NPOV in WP than G. Edward Griffin!--Pekay2 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Work on content

Let's try to focus on actual article content, shall we? Atsme, you've indicated that you want a rewrite. I've asked you a few times to propose content so we can work on it. Would you please propose content for the body of the article if you still intend to revise the article? (I'm asking about the body, since the lead is subject to the ongoing RfC and there is no point working on that, til the RfC ends). If you have changed your mind, please let us know. Pekay2 and Srich32977 same to you. Let's use this time while the article is locked to try to resolve our differences so we don't end up arguing again, when the article is unlocked. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme already proposed content that was in blatant violation of policy. Wholesale rewrite is not really an option here, we need specific requested changes, backed by sources. "Change X to Y based on Z source". And it needs to be incremental and we need debate to run before the next one is proposed, because we already know that what Atsme wants is virtually the entire article refactored into a presentation of Griffin's ideas without reference to the fact that they are conspiracy theories, and wrong.

So: Specific, small, actionable, supported by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the approach Guy suggests of proposing "specific requested changes, backed by sources. "Change X to Y based on Z source"." one at a time, would be the most productive way to go. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In principle, sounds good -- but we need to keep the big picture in mind as well. It's possible to add properly sourced snippets that end up conveying an unscientific perspective here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, but as Jytdog points out the article is protected, and the consensus process should sort that out I hope.

I have possibly erred on the side of stridency above, in order to make it absolutely crystal clearer that any attempt to portray these views as anything other than false, will fail, per canonical policy. This is not negotiable. No consensus of a group of concurring editors of a single article could ever override policy, and in this case there is very clearly no such consensus.

I fear that Atsme believes at least some of the things that Griffin espouses. That should not be a barrier to progress and participation, but Atsme needs to be (and I think now is) aware that it may lead to sanctions if pursued to excess - and i this case excess basically means any further advocacy of laetrile in particular, since that has already been done to death here. Laetrile is health fraud. In fact every claim made by laetrile advocates would be illegal in the UK, where I live.

Please note that I am absolutely committed to WP:BLP. I was made an admin largely because of work on a BLP before the policy even existed, which got me savagely attacked on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I wrote the standard guidance to article subjects at OTRS. It offends me that I am implicitly accused of violating this policy. One may opine that laetrile advocacy, say, should not be portrayed as fringe, per WP:BLP, but to assert that belief as fact is extremely rude, to say nothing of arrogant. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

the main thing is that we get to work, while the page is locked down per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy, please provide the diffs that validate your statement, Atsme already proposed content that was in blatant violation of policy. I am unaware of having made such a proposal. Also, please tell me what policy you're referring to with the following: any attempt to portray these views as anything other than false, will fail, per canonical policy. This is not negotiable. No consensus of a group of concurring editors of a single article could ever override policy, and in this case there is very clearly no such consensus. While I don't believe the latter is at issue here, and my intention has never been anything but strict adherence to BLP policy, I don't understand the relevance of your statement. It also appears to conflict with WP:BLP: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections. I want to be very clear about what you're saying because it appears that you are telling us we can't write anything about what Griffin wrote about amygdalin (laetrile, B17), or what reliable secondary sources have published about it. Is that what you're saying?

Meanwhile, all of the editors who have spent so much time criticizing my work can get busy doing some of their own. Make a list of things that need to be done to correct the existing problems plaguing this article so we don't repeat the same mistakes. I recommend either replacing the poorly sourced material with policy compliant passages, or find the reliable, published sources WP:VERIFIABILITY to replace them. We can get a lot of work done in a reasonable amount of time if we work together. That means no more armchair coaching. If you want to talk the talk, walk the walk. Perhaps we could list Griffin at WP:CLEANUP, and get some of those editors involved as well.

Following is the layout suggestion I mentioned before...

Griffin needs a better WP:MOS/layout including section titles that are policy compliant, and consistent with the layouts of other BLPs, like Julia Alvarez and Murray Rothbard, both GAs:

• Early life and education - expand to include more biographical information - Jytdog and Peekay2 can start writing to expand this section;
• Career - include information about his early days in radio, what led him to writing, producing and lecturing. Subsection titles could be used to separate the progression of his career, perhaps by year - Roxy and Nomo would be a good team for this one - maybe split his career into two segments - half for each to work on;
• Literary Work - this section can include a brief summary of his top 3 best selling books with some mention of the DVDs (films) he produced; JzG would be perfect to write the prose and expand this section since he is so well versed about Griffin's writings;
• Activism - neutral, dispassionate summary of topics including his views on politics, and the most notable things he was actively involved in - I can work on this section with S. Rich and whoever else wants to collaborate and help writing prose. Atsme☯^Consult 07:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, thanks for this, but please provide concrete, sourced content proposals. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, see diff. Now please stop trying to rewrite reality in line with Griffin's delusions and instead focus on actionable edit requests, as noted above. Also read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, we first need to resolve the WP:Coatrack and RS/Verifiability issues that were brought up in December. The way Griffin reads right now, his BLP is a coatrack, and policy ironically states: A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing - Amanda Pubilchep is a journalist. One day she wrote an article about Conspiracy Theory X. The main points of Conspiracy Theory X are as follows... followed by paragraph after paragraph about the conspiracy theory. There just simply isn't anything more telling than what is stated in the policy itself. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed. The latter brings us back to the issue that the contentious material in the article is not reliably sourced as was pointed out by S. Rich and I back in December. See the section break above titled sources for 'conspiracy theorist'. The sources do not pass the acid test, and only a few pass as questionable. WP:Verifiability states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Under Questionable_sources it states: They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. London is a RS, but then there were only 2 trivial mentions of Griffin; one is a list of names showing "G. Edward Griffin, Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker", and the other is a brief sentence that states, "Conspiracy-theorist G. Edward Griffin also asserts that doctors aren’t taught about “natural cures” or nutrition in medical school." Circle back to coatrack. Atsme☯^Consult 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, so please suggest content and sources to replace the content and sources in the body of the article you feel are bad. Like Guy suggested above, please make suggestions along the lines of "Change X to Y based on Z source"." one at a time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I say follow WP:PAG, and remove the contentious material. Let whoever wants it restored find the RS that support it. I'm going to be working on MOS/layout and the section Activism. Atsme☯^Consult 01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that all you want to do - remove existing material, or do you want to add material? Either way, you will need consensus when you go to do it, so please offer concrete suggestions now. That is what this time is for. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

way, way far gone from discussing content and sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, get started, Jytdog. Fix it. Atsme☯Consult 03:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC) As I have written to you before, more than once (but here is one), I am OK with the article is as it is. You want to change it, but we don't know exactly what you want. Now is the time to work that out, per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes. I won't respond again here until you propose specific content. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Well, the problem as pointed out by experienced editors is indisputably the RS that were used to justify the contentious material. If you don't see a problem with them, common sense tells me you are neither going to be agreeable to removing the contentious material nor replacing the poorly sourced material with reliable sources. Therefore, before I resume work to expand the prose to prepare this article for a GA review, we need to resolve the core issues. The fact that you and the other critics of my work have made no attempt to correct the problems or expand the prose indicates WP:SQS. As I stated before, your RfC was not neutrally presented, and did not address the RS issues. I don't see any reason for me to not initiate a discussion at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, do you? Atsme☯Consult 14:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC) generally you want to go to RSN with a specific issue - some specific content and its sourcing. You generally want to have discussed that specific content and its sourcing here first. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I'm curious...do you actually read my comments? I'm beginning to feel neglected and ignored, but that couldn't be happening, right? The RS issue is what started this entire debate, and there are mountains of discussion about it on this TP. What you are doing now is WP:SQS, which is actually sad for this article because it prevents a GA review from occurring. Oh, but wait - that appears to be your intent based on your comment, I am OK with the article as is. So are you saying you think it's ready for a GA review right now, because if so, I will nominate it today? The RS problems were pointed out to you one by one by S. Rich and I last month. How about reading the article and looking at the citation templates? The citations in the first sentence of the lead do not pass the RS test, either, and that was pointed out to you numerous times. Atsme☯Consult 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I am not saying the article is perfect - of course it can be improved. It is OK. That is a different perspective from what you have been saying, which is that it is very flawed and needs to be rewritten. In any case, I'll be happy to respond to specific content proposals. If you do decide to go to RSN please provide notification here. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, you are still banging on about the issue that is currently being addressed by an RfC. So, contrary to what Jytdog has suggested, I'll suggest that you leave it alone for now, until the RfC is closed -- as a matter of process, there is absolutely no chance that the changes you want will be adopted via discussion in this particular section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Nomo, the RfC doesn't address the RS issues, and as Jytdog suggested, I will place a notification here when done. Atsme☯Consult 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Ah, so you think there is a way to achieve what you want regardless of the RfC? I don't think that will go well... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC) What I want is for the article to be policy compliant. Apparently we don't want the same things since my concerns regarding the RS issues remain unanswered. Instead, you choose to criticize me which I have asked you repeatedly to stop doing. Atsme☯Consult 17:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) See, it won't be hard for other editors to perceive that your post is a criticism of me as well: "I want the article to be 'policy compliant'. You don't ('we don't want the same things')." Perhaps you have a hard time perceiving this? I do hope not. It's perfectly evident to any reasonable editor here that we have different understandings about whether the article is currently 'policy compliant' and indeed what 'policy compliant' might mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Please stop, Nomo. You are not helping. Please focus on making this article better. Atsme☯Consult 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Please stop yourself. My point was quite incisive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Atsme, it is possible to talk about what you want, without talking negatively about others. I don't appreciate your accusations of bad faith on my part either. Please discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Oh, and Atsme, if you go to RSN, please make sure the issues you raise there are distinct from the ongoing RfC, the posting at BLPN, and the posting at the Fringe noticeboard. I am just saying that, because if the issues you raise at RSN are not distinct, you will be forum shopping. I'm just saying this now, so that you don't accuse me later, of not having said it when you mentioned the possibility of posting at RSN (...you are already accusing me of acting in bad faith). I do not understand why you are not proceeding simply, and just proposing content that you want here. But as you will. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) You are once again casting aspersions and making spurious claims without providing any diffs. Your behavior is well noted. Atsme☯Consult 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) perhaps I took it wrongly, but I took your comment starting with "do you actually read my comments? " and continuing with saying "What you are doing now is WP:SQS," and implying that I don't even know what the article says and how it is sourced, with "How about reading the article and looking at the citation templates? " as accusing me of acting in bad faith. Sorry if I took that wrongly. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Jytdog I don't see the claim of bad faith by Atsme even in this last posting. I must say I don't understand and am weary of the blocking of this article from moving forward.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) sorry to ask this, but have you read WP:SQS? If not, please do so and notice it is meant to supplement Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system, and as you read imagine that someone is saying you are doing that. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I'm confused because this policy WP:SQS is exactly describing your behavior. You have stated the article is okay as it is. Others don't agree, and you are constantly stonewalling change over tiny edits for which you seek consensus. I'm sure its not what you meant, but I see your behavior as the disruptive one.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) All this talk is still not moving this article forward.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) There is a difference between differences of opinion about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines differently, and acting in bad faith. And with that, I am going to do what I said earlier. I'll respond here again when there is something concrete to respond to. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Why even respond? As a GF editor, what exactly would you like to achieve here? To expand the article? Well, let's see - you already said you think it's OK as is, and you haven't made any attempt to collaborate by writing any of the prose. It took us over 30 days to get a simple occupation corrected in the info box because of your stonewalling. If it's not SQS, it's WP:OWN, and it doesn't require scientific research with an inline citation per WP:MEDRS to figure that out. Sorry, but I have to agree with Pekay2, and I don't see how that's not being disruptive. We'll see what the RS-N produces because I'm in no hurry. Atsme☯Consult 03:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I will take your second question as authentic - the rest appear rhetorical to me. You have made it very clear where you want the article to go. I have told you several times, probably in the most detail on your talk page ]here, that I do not share your view that the article is wildly out of compliance with PAG, nor your vision of where you want the article to go, nor even epistemologies (by which I meant your selection of sources for what is true in the world - I am still blown away that you would even bring naturalnews as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article). And I told you it is unlikely that you and I would pull in the same direction on any content. But I remain open to being surprised that content you suggest on this article would be acceptable, or - I'll add now - workable into mutually acceptable content and sourcing. So I - and others - have asked you to suggest specific changes. With regard to RSN, I advised you above to suggest some specific content to be supported by specific sources, first here (and if we run into issues over sourcing) then there at RSN. Instead, you posted a wall of text and a laundry list of sources, and the responses you are getting reflect that. (e.g Ten of All Trade's remark: "A second common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes." here) You are not going to get any useful feedback on sources from that posting... although you did at least strike some of the "obvious dross" (as Short Brigade Harvester Boris called it), so that was useful. So really - you are the one who wants dramatic changes - the burden is in on you to propose them. It is unreasonable to assign tasks to me and others to realize your vision, as you did above, and to demand that I suggest content to realize your vision, as you are doing now. Pekay2, you are also free to suggest specific content, with its sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Just want to add, with regard to the Infobox. Srich said "conspiracy theorist" should come out of the infobox as "occupation" on Dec 28; you very much agreed. I wrote on Dec 29: "with regard to "conspiracy theorist" in the infobox. I think this is not precedented and should go.". I cannot explain why neither you nor Srich, nor anybody else, took action on that area of agreement. I finally did that by suggesting a draft edit request, and then a real one based on the discussion, on Jan 8, and we got the infobox changed that day. Accusing me of stonewalling, when you didn't take action to suggest a change on something you apparently cared a lot about and had a clear opportunity to reach consensus about, and i did take action, is just ugly.Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, sorry but I almost overlooked your question. The guideline for WP:SQS also states: someone engaged in what may even seem like blatant stonewalling might not be fully aware of it. so I will AGF, and explain why your behavior fits the profile. Following is a brief chronological order of events (diffs) to demonstrate: [25] - Atsme's first edit (12/10/2014). The article was inactive since 11/17/2014. Yobol reverted Atsme twice, then left the scene. [26] - Jytdog took over and reverted Atsme Four days of back and forth editing, reverts, and discussion followed. Srich32977 patiently endured the criticisms and reverts to no avail. [27] - Atsme requested PP on 12/14/2014 More discussion, arguments, mountains of rhetorical questions and advice from Jytdog with no end, like this [28], this [29], and this [30] Infobox issue begins [31] - Steeletrap added a contentious label in the infobox without any discussion first - 12/23/2014 [32] - Atsme reverted Steeletrap's contentious label [33] - Jytdog reverted Atsme, with edit summary, typical of textbook stonewalling. [34] - S. Rich reverted Jytdog [35] - Jytdog reverted S. Rich and tried to make it look like Atsme & S. Rich were edit warring when it was Jytdog causing the problem [36] - Roxy removed Atsme's unbalanced tag [37] - Atsme reverted and asked that it not be removed [38] - Nomo reverted Atsme [39] - S. Rich reverted Nomo [40] - Steeletrap reverted S. Rich [41] - Callan's 2nd PP and stopped the nonsense - 12/28/2014 [42] - Jytdog agrees the infobox should change, then asks for more discussion, and specific requests - 12/28/2014 <---the answer to your question above along with the diffs that follow [43] - Jytdog starts yet another Let's Talk section <---textbook WP:SQS - read the policy if you don't believe me. [44] - S. Rich's futile attempts to bypass SQS [45] - S. Rich suggests a compromise to change the infobox 01/01/2015 [46] - Jysdog hats what he calls wall of text by Atsme <---more textbook SQS 01/04/2015 - ask questions, then criticize for walls of text when you get the answers [47] - Jytdog adds more walls of text and that continues for days.... [48] - Jytdog still arguing to keep contentious material in infobox <--- another answer to your question above; [49] - Compromise reached, Jytdog requests minor change to infobox - 01/08/2015 [50] - MSGJ made adjustments to occupation and "known for" in infobox - 01/08/2015 The infobox fiasco was just a tiny spike in a month long flatline of zero activity to improve/expand the article. I find it rather ironic that you would criticize S. Rich and I for not taking action after what you put us through, and now want credit for advising MSGJ to make the change. Priceless. Atsme☯Consult 02:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC) ::So actually fixing the problem, doesn't matter. Writing walls of text does. Ok. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC) adding a bit. Steeletrap added "conspiracy theorist" to occupation here, on Dec 23. You didn't revert it until 4 days later, here, on the 27th, and there was lots of other stuff going as well. There was a day of discussion on Talk, and the next fucking day i agreed it should come out. Why you took no action, I cannot explain. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Is the profanity really necessary? I really do wish you would read the diffs I provide because the reason no one took any action is because you were still discussing it. Read the diff and you see that when you finally agreed to the compromise the infobox was changed. Take an aspirin, get a good night's sleep. You'll feel better in the morning. (Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, and am not licensed to prescribe medicine - just one human being trying to help another - and I suggested conventional over-the-counter medicine, not a quack remedy). Done with this. We are far from discussing content now. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What will happen when protection expires?

Protection expires in less than a week. @Atsme: what are your intentions? Do you plan to pick up where you left off, making edits to the lead similar to those you were performing before the article was protected? It's plain that such edits would not have consensus here on the talk page (nor at the discussion you started at RSN), so they would surely be reverted. Do you plan to do it anyway? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

He's already asked for PP to be lifted - "What do you think about removing PP so those editors who actually want to improve the article can be productive again?" imho shtf. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is such concern over my editing, but it appears as though a few editors are determined to prevent this article from advancing to GA. I have done nothing wrong to create such concern, and it certainly is not my intention to do so. I consult you to examine your own purpose and intent, and worry less about mine. My work clearly demonstrates what my goals are which includes improving/expanding stubs, starters and C-class articles for DYK and on to GAs, or vice versa. If you are here to prevent such an effort for the purpose of SQS and maintaining Griffin as a WP:COATRACK, it won't be me who attracts unwanted attention. I didn't quite understand why I was met with such resistance at first, but I do now, and I am confident WP:PAG will prevail. I will continue to AGF and look forward to collaborating with GF editors. Atsme☯^Consult 13:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But does that mean you intend to make edits to the lead similar to those you were making before the article was protected? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Folks, this is not a fruitful discussion. Atsme is going to do what she will do. We've warned her and Pekay2 that if they start making controversial edits to the article when it is unlocked, and have not used this time to actually try to work out concrete proposed changes, that will not go well. This thread re-iterates that warning. I would suggest letting this go, and we'll see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you're not sure why there is concern, is the major reason why there is concern. Has it really not sunk in yet that you are playing the role of Ken Ham to our Bill Nye? Guy (Help!) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket - I had to look up Ken Ham. Atsme☯^Consult 01:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha! You're new to the world of pseudoscience, then, I guess. You have much to learn, Padawan. And some of it is hilarious. Google Ray Comfort and the banana. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am new to the concept. My Mother is 90, and my Father is 92 (Brown alumni). Neither of them have ever had surgery, nor have they been seriously ill. They both still work, drive, and live active lives. They call it good nutrition. You call it pseudoscience. Atsme☯^Consult 03:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I call it healthy lifestyle and a dollop of good luck. This is the problem with the supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) industry. They claim that good nutrition is their unique realm, but actually all the evidence we have that shows what nutrition is good, comes from science (and many of the crank and fad diets come from the "nutritionists"). It wasn't quacks who discovered vitamins, for example. Good nutrition and healthy lifestyle are not remotely alternative. The claim that arbitrarily selected supplements, herbs or whatever can cure disease, is alternative, in that it is an alternative to an evidentially supported view.

Opposition to laetrile has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is drawn from nature - virtually all new drugs start with a naturally occurring compound - the problem is that the claims persist after the evidence has shown them to be wrong. And cranks and quacks actually inflate the claims and claim suppression based on that finding. The justification for the claim is, in essence, that science has shown it to be wrong, therefore science is a conspiracy, and that means it must work really well. And that is not an exaggeration, or at least not much of one. This thinking is irrational. Virtually all alternative cancer "cure claims are irrational, and virtually all of them rely on the "pharma shill gambit" as a pretence of validity.

The important thing to remember here is Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. Advocates of alternative medicine assume that the claims of proponents can be taken on trust, though, curiously, they almost never apply the same rationale to the validity of real medicines. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed lead

Following is a modification of the lead I wrote in early December. I'm sincerely trying to reach a fair compromise while still being policy compliant.

• G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. Critics have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist because His writings focus on a diverse range of controversial topics, such as alternative medicine, politics, foreign policy, and banking. He has published several books but his most notable is The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller. The book focuses on the Federal Reserve System which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. Prior to writing the book, Griffin attended the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and in 1989 received designation as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). an education he sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets. Griffin has been interviewed on several radio programs, internet pod casts, and television news programs. In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who recommended Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island calling it a "fascinating read." However, Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a review that was critical of Beck's interview, stating "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories."

• Griffin began his media career as a child actor and announcer for radio broadcast. Before age 20, he became an assistant station director. Griffin holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Michigan where he graduated in 1953. After college he served in the US Army from 1954 to 1956, and was honorably discharged as a sergeant. Griffin worked as a writer for the George Wallace 1968 presidential campaign, and then began writing and producing documentary-style videos about the same controversial topics covered in his books, such as cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. In the 1970s, he authored World Without Cancer (1974) a book that was inspired by his friend John A. Richardson, a physician from San Francisco, CA. The book focuses on the highly controversial use of Laetrile (amygdalin) for the treatment of cancer; a treatment that is not scientifically supported or FDA approved. Griffin is the founder and president of American Media, a publishing and video production company located in Southern California. He has also been a contributing editor for The New American magazine. He served on the board of directors of the National Health Federation, a lobbying group that promotes alternative medicine. NHF has been criticized for their promotion of what mainstream medical organizations consider dubious treatments and claims. Griffin has been interviewed on numerous radio shows, podcasts, and various other streaming video talk shows on the internet.

References

Ok - what dost thou think? Atsme☯^Consult 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - My strikes in paragraphs above. Atsme☯^Consult 06:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Needed changes:

1. Sentence about CT should go to the end of the first paragraph. (Avoids UNDUE.) ✅
2. No commas before & after Creature & World Without Cancer book mentions ✅
3. Omit the "why" he obtained the CFP ("an education he sought...") ✅
4. He was an assistant station director, not managing a radio station. ✅
5. American Media published his stuff, in researching this I don't recall seeing anything that indicates he founded American Media. (Actually there is more than one American Media, but I found nothing to indicate that he had founded any company called American Media. See talk page Archives 1, 2, 3 & 4.) ✅
6. Say "After college he served in the US Army from 1954 to 1956, and was discharged as a sergeant." (Less flowery.) ✅
7. Convert "pursued a career writing" to "began writing and producing..." (Less flowery.) ✅
8. Remove "inspired by friend" stuff. (Less flowery.)
9. The present sentence "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." Should be retained.
10. Remove the sentence "NHF has been criticized for their promotion of what mainstream medical organizations consider dubious treatments and claims." This is tangential info not related to Griffin. ✅
11. There may be more, but the effort is appreciated.

– S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)00:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it should say "He is best known for ... Jekyll Island, which promotes conspiracy theories about the US Federal Reserve Bank and the individuals associated with its formation." SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[inserted comment] I'll suggest "He is best known for ... Jekyll Island, which presents a conspiracy theory about the formation of the US Federal Reserve Bank and its founders." – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The "reason" "critics" call him a conspiracy theorist is because he supports conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and "suppression" of his claims about Laetrile, among others. We need to leave the "reason" out entirely, unless we can source a specific reason. I believe we can source my statement, but it may be unnecessary. In any case, Atsme's "reason" statement is a WP:BLP violation, if the critics are living. I think the sentence needs to be left out entirely, with SPECIFICO's suggestion placed as the second sentence. I appreciate Atsme's attempt, but it still has far to go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

((ec}} this is premature. we need to see the resolution of the review of the RfC. Commenting on the proposal, In general there are some good things here, but again in general there is soft-pedalling of things that are truly FRINGE here, and per PSCI we don't do that. More specifically, the Fed is not controversial in mainstream economics in the way that Griffin portrays it (there are often controversies about decisions it makes, but Griffins' view on it as a conspiracy of the rich and it should be abolished, is not mainstream). Ditto the description of laetrile - Srich's comment there is on target. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Explain why I have to go through this screening process before I can make an edit, but other editors who support your POV can edit away disrespecting the RfC? Why aren't those edits reverted like you consistently revert mine? Ricky, you've got some splainin' to do. Atsme☯^Consult 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

are you talkin to me? (said like robert deniro) Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A very dynamic (demonic?) process is underway in 3 areas. One, on this talk page. Two on the AN. And three on the article page itself. It will all work out. – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Another very troubling edit, only this time by Arthur - (there is absolutely no doubt that Nyttend's edit was improper, clearly violating WP:NPOV. Whether or not the close is overturned, the edit was wrong) Really - "absolutely no doubt" - is that all one has to say to justify an edit without discussion, or does it require admin tools to be able to totally disregard another admin's RfC close while it's still under discussion? Atsme☯^Consult 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The question of whether the whitewashing of the lead was part of the close is still open. I think it clearly inconsistent with the close, so it might be considered other than an admin action. However, until consensus Is reached that he's wrong, I'm treating the absurd lead as locked until consensus can be established. I am on a smartphone now; more details late4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Discussion about whitewashing the lede? That issue was not raised in the RFC. Well, perhaps it was – we have some editors saying the RFC was confined to the first sentence, but other editors who contend the CT issue was an NPOV violation throughout the lede. But what whitewashing is going on? The proposed edit above included CT; the infobox includes CT; the categories include CT. We do need to include more about quackery/dubious treatments, but the process of getting consensus for particular language will continue. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme's proposed changes make sense, but the suggestions by S. Rich should be taken into account. Although the use of amygdalin in cancer treatment is not currently supported by any scientific evidence, Griffin's view that cancer is a metabolic disease (or at least involves some degree of metabolic dysfunction) appears to be fairly reasonable. After all, the growth of a tumor tissues obviously requires several anabolic metabolism pathways, so I would be most interested to know who are these people in "the medical community" claiming that metabolic dysfunction is not involved in cancer. According to review article PMID 24139946 in The American Journal of Pathology, recent evidence has suggested that cancer "should also be considered a metabolic disease". This seems to partly support Griffin's claims about cancer and metabolism, regardless of the effectiveness of amygdalin or laetrile. -A1candidate 23:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin is not a scientist or doctor, so his views/claims about cancer are irrelevant (unencyclopedic) in terms of characterizing the disease. The AJP article/description cannot be used in connection with any description of Griffin (unless the article specifically mentions him.) Griffin has been a popular promoter of certain "cures" and quackery, and that is one of the things he's known for. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what profession Griffin is, but his claim that "cancer is a metabolic disease" is clearly and demonstrably supported by some scientific evidence per PMID 24139946. -A1candidate 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Since a description of cancer as a metabolic disease is not in Atsme's proposed version, the AJP support for the theory is a moot point. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A1 made a good point, and I see no issue with it as long as it's properly worded using WP:Inline citation#in-text attribution. Griffin is an author, and that's how we need to treat this BLP. Also, any contentious statements, like "promoter of conspiracy theories" must also be RS using an in-text attribution per policy. It appears the public actually does have something to be concerned about: [51] [52] [53] [54], [55] [56] [57] This article needs collaboration among editors who actually want to write prose and it's certainly a plus if they have some familiarity writing BLPs. Rich - I responded to your list above using superscript. Atsme☯^Consult 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Removed my comments to Rich's list above, and added my input below. Will checkmark the list above when completed.

(1) ok, (2) ok,

(3) Omit the "why" he obtained the CFP ("an education he sought...") He did it in preparation of writing his book. Has BLP importance. Also see Murray Rothbard for style and consistency of content. [58],

(4) ok,

(5) American Media published his stuff, in researching this I don't recall seeing anything that indicates he founded American Media. (Actually there is more than one American Media, but I found nothing to indicate that he had founded any company called American Media. See talk page Archives 1, 2, 3 & 4.) It states at his own website, last sentence in blue box, that he's the creator [59],

(6) ok, (7) ok,

(8) Remove "inspired by friend" stuff. (Less flowery.) It's about why he became interested in the topic - important to BLP. Again see Rothbard BLP.,

(9) The present sentence "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." Should be retained. No, you're calling him a quack the way it's worded. Source it with inline text attribution, because in his book, he promotes research on B17 (amygdalin). See book title, and synopsis. [60],

(10) ok Atsme☯^Consult 05:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does he promote research on B17, or use of B17? (I'm writing B17 because I'm still on my smartphone. ) What we say in the lead depends on the answer. I thought it was the latter. We need sources, in either case. His word or the publisher's word is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Arthur - more research, more comparative studies and evaluations - you can actually turn the pages and read his book at this link: [61] Atsme☯^Consult 06:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, his word and the publisher's word (if different) are not good enough. If he doesn't promote B17 use, then why do all the user reviews on Amazon say that he does. That may not be sufficient to us to say that he promotes B17 use, but it requires explanation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

comments - in general there is a lot of stuff here that is not in the body of the article. per WP:LEAD, the lead is just a summary of the body and there should be nothing in the lead that is not in the body. Also the WP:WEIGHT given to anything in the lead needs to reflect the weight in the body. The proposed lead does not reflect the current body of the article. If this is the first step of a proposed rewrite of the article, it is backwards. The lead can be rewritten only after the body is rewritten.

• there is no support in the body of the article that Creature is a business best seller. The body says it was a business best seller, and the body should say for what time periods.
• the Fed is not controversial in mainstream economics in the way that Griffin portrays it (there are often controversies about decisions it makes, but Griffins' view on it as a conspiracy of the rich and it should be abolished, is not mainstream). The reference provided does not support the claim. More importantly, the body of the article does not say this.
• the discussion of financial planning certification is not discussed in the body and so doesn't belong in the lead, at least not at this time.
• the idea that becoming a CFP is adequate preparation for writing about the Fed is WP:SYN. The purpose of that certification is to ensure that people who want to help people do things like prepare for retirement, deal with transition of wealth from one generation to the next, etc., are competent to do that. The certification is not about monetary policy or Monetary economics which is what the Fed does. You'll need a reliable source to make the claim you are trying to make, or put separation between the book and certification.
• there is no support in the body of the article for "Griffin has been interviewed on several radio programs, internet pod casts, and television news programs. In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who recommended Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island calling it a "fascinating read." However, Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a review that was critical of Beck's interview, stating "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories.".
• the body of the article says that Griffin worked as a writer for George Wallace's running mate, Curtis LeMay, not for Wallace,
• the use of laetrile to treat cancer is not "highly controversial", just like the notion that humans were actually put here by aliens is not highly controversial. There are people who believe both things, but it is just charlatan lunacy. In the world of medicine, the DSM V is very controversial; the expanded use of statins is very controversial. The use of laetrile to treat cancer is not very controversial; it is quackery. Trying to actually sell laetrile to treat cancer is actually illegal in the US.
• since the "cancer is a metabolic disease" thing is not in the proposed content, I won't comment on that.
• we all agreed above to change the infobox to say that Griffin is "known for" conspiracy theories. That is in WP's voice. The body talks about that a lot. the proposed lead doesn't reflect that, burying the only reference to "Conspiracy theories" in a quote that is just commenting on another quote. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Jytdog. I would also add that the material about his "friend" John Richardson does not belong in the lead, and that any discussion of laetrile needs to go beyond "unsupported" (which could apply to those things that have not been studied); it has been studied, and found to be not useful for cancer. It is a disproven therapy, and widely considered quackery, and that needs to be spelled as such per WP:PSCI. Yobol (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(I just want to note here that I agree with [62]. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC))

Arbitrary break, cont Proposed lead

1. in general there is a lot of stuff here that is not in the body of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Article_development#Writing (my bold) Start your article with a concise lead section or introduction defining the topic and mentioning the most important points. Also see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section in the event you've never actually created, or expanded an article to GA. The most important points will be added to the article when the editors who are actually writing the prose are given half a chance to do so without the hurdles indicative of WP:SQS such as RfCs, ANs, RSNs, BLPNs, and criticism over every single sentence that's added or modified to make this BLP policy compliant.
2. the Fed is not controversial in mainstream economics I cited a source that disputes your claim. Show me RS, please.
3. the body of the article says that Griffin worked as a writer for George Wallace's running mate, Curtis LeMay, not for Wallace - uhm...the lead is a summary - "a writer for the George Wallace 1968 presidential campaign" (each candidate for President runs together with a candidate for Vice-President on a "ticket." which equates into a presidential campaign) The political advocacy section further defines who Griffin wrote for during the campaign, but I suppose if redundancy isn't an issue, we could include it twice.
4. the use of laetrile to treat cancer is not "highly controversial", just like the notion that humans were actually put here by aliens is not highly controversial. Nope, it's highly controversial but our job is to maintain NPOV in a BLP, and not try to act like big pharma, the FDA, or NCI. We are writing about a guy who wrote a book about a controversial topic. [63] ...the laetrile controversy as a scientific dispute,; [64] ...of the laetrile controversy avoided espousing the orthodox cause. [65] Chapter 14 - Quasi Libertarianism and the Laetrile Controversy (page 343). [66] Vitamin B17 / Laetrile is probably one of the most controversial medical topics in the last 30 years. [67] newspaper headline [68] page 1119 (two book set);
5. Refer to No. 1 regarding the rest of your comments.
6. the discussion of financial planning certification is not discussed in the body See No. 1 above.
7. Re: the contentious statement we agreed to add in the info box prior to the close of the RfC needs better wording because Griffin is not known for conspiracy theories, and such a contentious statement in the infobox flies in the face of NPOV. He is known as an author, documentary filmmaker and lecturer. Since the infobox isn't the place to include inline text attributions for contentious statements, and I seriously doubt you will find a RS to support such a claim anywhere else in the article, it is better to simply delete it. Remember UNDUE. Atsme☯^Consult 20:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

on 1) i will not support any content being added to the lead, that is not in the body of the article. If you want to expand the article, please work on the body. Thanks.

on 2) you cited an entire book and I didn't find anyplace in that book (which covers a limited amount of time) that said that the very existence of the Fed has always been and is controversial. Please say where in the book where the content you propose is supported.

on 7) everybody here, including you, changed the infobox. That has consensus. Arguments about UNDUE that i have mentioned were about the use of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, in light of the rest of the lead. Not relevant outside that context. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog and Atsme — just an FYI: Jytdog expressed a concern that information was being proposed for the lead without first being covered in the body of the article. WP:LEAD, which is a Wikipedia Guideline, states "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." That concern was dismissed by Atsme, who cites two Essays. Please note those essays caution editors to defer to Guidelines and Policies: (This essay) is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; where something is inconsistent with this page, please defer to those, which seems to have been inadvertently overlooked in this situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the point.... The second sentence clearly should read ""He is best known for The Creature From Jekyll Island, which presents a conspiracy theory about the formation of the US Federal Reserve Bank and its founders." The sentence "His writings focus on a diverse range of controversial topics, such as alternative medicine, politics, foreign policy, and banking. " requires a single source (other than himself or his publishers), and is, at best, synthesis. We could add "He is considered a conspiracy theorist.^{[source describing him as a conspiracy theorist because of Jekyll Island] [source describing him as a conspiracy theorist because of Laetril][source describing him as a conspiracy theorist because of Noah's Ark][source descibing him as a conspiracy theorist because of ...]...}, if we can find such sources. I agree that we cannot call him a conspiracy theorist just because all his theories are conspiracy theories; we need reliable sources calling him a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, consensus can change, and so it should based on the RfC that just closed; i.e., the one you requested to be reviewed by your handpicked closer. Fortunately for the project, editors cannot pick and choose where we want to include a contentious label that was determined to be non-compliant. If it's non-compliant in one place, it's non-compliant throughout the entire article. It fails NPOV, Jytdog - we've been over this a hundred times, and now you're just being disruptive. I included a RS inline text attribution in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs in the lead to satisfy both NPOV and UNDUE with the following: Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories. and also The book focuses on the highly controversial use of Laetrile (amygdalin) for the treatment of cancer; a treatment that is not scientifically supported or FDA approved. Done - it's over. You can't have your quack and eat it, too. We are not going to keep this article a WP:COATRACK. It is going to be expanded according to WP:PAG and I ask that you please stop the WP:SQS behavior with comments like you made above; i.e. i will not support any content being added to the lead, that is not in the body of the article. It is not helpful and certainly not a show of GF when you combine it with everything else you've done to prevent improvement/expansion of this article.

• Arthur Rubin I'm sure you are quite familiar with David Barstow (NYTimes, 3 Pulitzers): You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this.[69] And book reviewer, Michael J. Ross: In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. [70] and Argentinian author, Adrian Salbuchi: In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the “FED” – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. [71] Atsme☯^Consult 01:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  Those three references are worthless; the first doesn't mention Griffin favorably, the second is self-published, and the third is just a fringe op-ed. Barstow may have said something favorable about Griffin, but that isn't it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  "A fascinating read" and "Everyone should read ...." do not imply accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

List of ineffective cancer treatments

I don't think it should be in the "See also" section. It is too indirect. That B17 is an ineffective cancer treatment might be in the body, but it seems inappropriate in "See also". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, in the absence of opposition. The other "see also" seems indirectly related, also, but it is not adequately implied in the article, and there seems to be a "legitimate" connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits today

Steeletrap, i really meant what I wrote in this dif: "with the dug-in state of the article, please do not be bold. this is going to lead to edit warring and page protection and discretionary sanctions being imposed on us. please let the close review finish. there is no deadline. Thanks.". There are very strong perspectives on this article, and so far editors have shown restraint in directly editing the article and are discussing things first instead. That is the right way to go in a situation like this. The edits made by Nyttend are under discussion at AN. Please let that take its course. Really. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and if we get locked down for edit warring for a third time, it is very likely that an admin is going to come sit and actual impose DS, with 1RR restrictions and the like. That is what happens when editors cannot control themselves. Please self-revert and be patient. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are free to revert. And if you--or anyone else--reverts, I won't re-revert again without extensive discussion and the passage of (at least) several days. (I also am committed to avoiding EW.) But at this point, I'm not going to take back my single revert, which does not constitute EW. My position is that my edits fall outside the scope of the RfC. Steeletrap (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that edit warring is simply restoring your content after a revert. You get blocked for it after you do that three times - that is what 3RR is about. But you already edit warred here. I don't think you understand how very, very close we are to discretionary sanctions/arbcom. I understand your position on the issues. The place to state your position is at the review at AN. Talking, not edit warring. Do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey dog. Please provide a citation for your claim that undoing a revert a single time is edit warring. If you can do that, I will revert my revert. In the meantime: stop making assertion without evidence. This community is plagued by baseless assertions, which are often taken as statements of fact. Steeletrap (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on context and the status of an article, but one edit (not necessarily a revert) can be edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Steeletrap please read WP:3RR, especially the last sentence in the lead, which I will quote here: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In this context, where there is a discussion ongoing at AN and I reverted specifically citing that, and where it is obvious that there is not consensus here for the edit you are making, yes.. your restoration of the content you added is clearly edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If that's true (and it may well be, then it applies equally to SRich, Collect, etc. for their repeated edits restoring a version of the page that does not have consensus. It was similarly unwise, perhaps, for you to revert earlier today yourself (though I realise you didn't do so in an attempt to get your real preference to stick). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Edit warring is clearly actionable if the 3RR rule is broken; edit warring (contentious reversions) is always actionable but my sense is that people don't bring edit warring actions for more vague cases - those generate more drama than action. But think about - there are what, 5 or 6 of us well engaged here - we could have (and have have) nasty edit wars with none of us breaking 3RR. And the 3RR is a sensible "line in the sand" for bringing action if you think about it - it gives people some breathing room to work things out. But the situation we are in here, is not one where bold edits - especially by one of us - are going to resolve anything. (it may of course happen that someone comes along with fresh ideas and threads the needle, making edits we can all live with. unlikely, but possible) We all just need to work DR. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The current version does not enjoy consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, nomo, that is true. the article has an NPOV tag reflecting that and discussion is underway here and at AN. I am telling you all, this is very likely going to end up at arbcom and everybody should keep their noses very clean - arbcom is infamous for taking action against parties on all sides of disputes in contested articles. Jytdog (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich has now reverted. I suggest that we now discuss the substantive merits of my edit. Steeletrap (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Specific content of edit

My edit made two claims that appear to be contentious. First, that Griffin is a promoter of fringe science and alternative medicine. SEcond, that the Creature from Jekyl Island Promotes Conspiracy Theories about the Federal Reserve system. Can the users who disagree with those characterizations of Griffin identify themselves? I have trouble believing anyone could deny that, given the other information in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with my computer, so I haven't verified the details of your edit. Although I agree that those should be in the article; per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH, we need specific reliable sources stating:

1. Griffin is a promoter of fringe science.
2. Griffin is a promoter of alternative medicine. (These two sources need not be the same, but must meet WP:BLP reliability standards; i.e., the self-published opinion of an expert may not be adequate)
3. Jekyl Island promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve system.

As an example of potential WP:SYNTHESIS problems; if source A says "Griffin promotes X", and source B says "X is pseudoscience", we could not say Griffin promotes pseudoscience. Now, these are obviously all true, but remember WP:Verifiability, not truth. Furthermore, "promoter" may be difficult to demonstrate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for the new lead, additions to sections to make them consistent with MOS and NPOV

FYI - Griffin's book World Without Cancer includes a disclaimer clearly stating that he does not promote laetrile as a cure for cancer, and it also mentions the allegations of fraud and quackery, so I included it in the lead to satisfy NPOV in accordance with the RfC close. His videos, books and podcasts on the topic also include the disclaimer. I have also included inline text attributions wherever contentious material or criticism was used representing it as the opinion of those it reflects. I am still working on expanding the body of the article for consistency using the GA BLP format I referred to previously. Please do not revert the work I've done here, however if your intent is to improve and/or expand this BLP in a GF collaborative effort while respecting the RfC, our prior discussions and proposals, and NPOV, BLP, and RS, your collaboration is most welcome. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on my smartphone, so I cannot verify exactly what you are using, but his claim that he does not promote Laetrile is a self-published statement which is unduly self-serving, so has no place in a Wikipedia article. The NPOV tag applies to the "closing" edit, and is not resolved by your further addition of his own words. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, where do you come up with this stuff? Please read the close - 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". It goes both ways - positive and negative. Jiminy Cricket. Atsme☯^Consult 22:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please exercise restraint. I've reverted this. The close is still under review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

and Atsme just edit warred this back in. You all cannot control yourselves, and Arbcom is getting closer everyday. I want no part of this. Unwatching. Good luck all. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I followed the RfC, WP:PAG, and included everything necessary in the prose to satisfy the discussions we've had for over 60 days now. Your actions over the RfC, your Forumshopping at AN, and now your tendentious reverts here demonstrate the need for this to go to ARBCOM. You are being disruptive, unreasonable and demonstrating WP:OWN. Atsme☯^Consult 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy denies that she is anti-vaccination. The independent sources disagree. You are reliably wrong on Griffin and laetrile, and you need to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Under review? Jytdog, you are WP:Forumshopping. You requested the RfC, and then you disrespected the closer and the result, ignored the responses at the AN you initiated, and loaded everybody down with even more time-wasting questions. You actually suggested hand picking a closer. You keep asking the same questions, getting the same responses from pretty much the same editors, and continue to behave with the same tendentious editing and SQS tactics over and over again. Do you really believe an uninvolved admin will suddenly appear to support your POV despite policy? Do you believe an ARBCOM is not going to see what is happening here? I have exercised GF and an overabundance of patience with you, hoping you would at least return the GF. I will ask you one more time....

1. What exactly do you expect from this BLP? You haven't offered ONE viable solution that is fundamentally policy compliant.
2. What did you not like about my modifications, RS citations, inline text attributions, and expansion of this BLP, all of which was based entirely on our discussions, the RfC, and WP:PAG?
3. What exactly is your purpose here considering you do not edit prose, and have expressed your opinion that the article is ok like it is?

I will wait to review your answers before initiating the next step. Atsme☯^Consult 01:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I reverted the hat, I should come back and really bow out. With the way you all are behaving, this will likely end up at AE, and I am not letting you all drag me into that pit. I really am not watching this article any longer. Good luck to you all. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank god. Maybe we have a shot at of making something meaningful out of this article since you've been the main reason for the WP:SQS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed Atsme has decided to try to edit war in their preferred version despite multiple objections in the relevant talk page regarding it. Get consensus first, then change it. Yobol (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring - your revert had no basis whatsoever. Where are your collaborative edits to help me expand this article for a GA review? What input have you provided except to criticize? Where is your respect for the RfC and policy compliance? I am disappointed in your tendentious editing, Yobol, and in your propensity for showing up here whenever your reverts are needed. You don't think it's obvious? You have contributed nothing to improve or expand this article. Everything you have done here has been to discredit the BLP - the closer even noticed the direction this BLP has been going. Can you explain what part of the prose you objected to that caused you to revert without discussion, or any effort to collaborate to improve the article? WP:DONTLIKEIT is not reason enough for reverting the work of another editor, and that's all I've been seeing here. If you think you can do a better job and are willing to collaborate to get this BLP ready for a GA review, then have at it. If not, then please go away because you are not helping. Atsme☯^Consult 04:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Who's Who in America

Although the listing is an indication of notability, the material is pretty much written by the person named. (I know; I've been listed since at least 2007. I'd have to check to see my E-mail archives to see if I was listed earlier.) I haven't checked whether its four uses in the article qualify under WP:SELFPUB. If not, I'll have to remove some text, per WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually got a copy (via purchase) of the listing, which is used 4 times. In reviewing the 4 items, I see have a duplicate mention of Curtis LeMay, so one of them should be removed. While the WW material is SPS, I recall that the entry talks about what Griffin was doing for LeMay (something like "staff writer for ...."), and is not about LeMay. The material about American Media and Jekyll Island is verified via the WorldCat (OCLC) links. So need for removal is mitigated to the one duplication. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec; some modification of comment)

The only Griffin I can find reliably associated with the George Wallace campaign is Marvin Griffin. That there is a Griffin makes it difficult to find third-party sources. I, personally, don't think it unduly self-serving to claim to have been a writer for a vice-presidential candidate, so WP:SELFPUB does seem to be met, though. However, others may differ, and, as this is a potential WP:BLP violation, I'm going to let this comment stand. Basically, though, I concur with S. Rich that the material meets WP:SELFPUB. The duplication of the sentence about LaMay needs to be dealt with, but that's not a problem with the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, why the concern now and not when you and other editors were editing this BLP in 2011? [72], [73], [74] The way the lead is written now is not encyclopedic. It's an attack page, and an embarrassment. It wouldn't pass a DYK review, never mind GA. Atsme☯^Consult 04:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE. And your proposed lead fails WP:NPOV in that it does not prominently note that all his views (at least, those mentioned in the article) are non-mainstream, if not fringe. However, the view that he does not "promote" Laetrile use requires a source other than his own words, as the book reviews say that he does promote it. I mention "Who's Who" because some might think it is not self-published.

If the article is to be improved, we must use reliable sources, and, if written by Griffin, must meet WP:SELFPUB, unless published subject to editorial review for content, and with a reputation for fact-checking. (Even Who's Who in America edits for format.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, you keep making blanket statements, but you haven't provided any RS that backs up such claims. Forget amygdalin and Griffin's advocacy for freedom of choice, you're saying all his views mentioned in the article are non-mainstream. You're citing opinion without RS to back it up. Sounds like an WP:Attack page which is contrary to policy. ......! Atsme☯^Consult 07:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can't say all his views are non-mainstream without a specific source. However, his views on the Federal Reserve, laetrile, and Noah's Ark are non-mainstream, and we can find sources for each view, although not necessarily mentioning Griffin by name. Is there any view mentioned in the article which I didn't mention? Any view mentioned in the lead which is non-mainstream should be so noted in the lead, and any WP:FRINGE views must be noted as such in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Good luck to those who continue to be involved in doing whatever it is you want to do to this BLP. My opposition to the contentious statements, particularly in WP voice, is officially on record in all the noticeboards and in the AE request. I do not want my name involved as a collaborator in the attack page this article has become or where it appears to be headed as I have made known my opposition to the fundamentally noncompliance to NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you drop out, we'll have a chance of meeting WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

While I welcome the loss of Atsme to easier topics, hopefully away from fringe or pseudoscience, let us hope that other editors can now educate other editors who remain. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement in lead

"He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer is a metabolic disease that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin, and for his unsupported arguments that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure." The first part of this sentence is not clear. Cancer as a metabolic disease is discussed in the following RS--"Although cancer has historically been viewed as a disorder of proliferation, recent evidence has suggested that it should also be considered a metabolic disease. [75]. Here's another RS--"Emerging evidence indicates that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease involving disturbances in energy production through respiration and fermentation." [76], and yet another- Cancer as A Metabolic Disease: [77]. As to the second half of the statement, since I have thoroughly read the book World Without Cancer and can find nothing saying, "that [cancer] can be cured by consuming more amygdalin", either cite the source or remove this statement. Whoever wrote this whole lead sentence, obviously didn't know what they were talking about. This needs to be corrected, which I am loath to do given the edit hostilities and the 1RR--Pekay2 (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC) PS: The WP definition of metabolic disease is an anachronism and needs to be updated.--Pekay2 (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Cancer clearly involves some degree of metabolic dysfunction [78] -A1candidate 11:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• I won't presume to know one way or the other about "metabolic" --though I'd want to know more about a broader scientific consensus, rather than making a change based on one or two sources (which naturally might have been cherry-picked for this purpose). Even if a change is necessary, we would surely do okay with "He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer can be cured by consuming more amygdalin". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Caution is needed - while there may be a strict use of the term "metabolic" wrt cancer, there is also a well-established quack use too.[79] Which one is meant here? With amygdalin on the table, it's quite likely the latter. We wouldn't want to dignify an accidental use of correct terminolgy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• The arguments against the phrase amount to personal belief and WP:SYN. Cancer is not a "metabolic disease", and amygdalin certainly can't cure it. Cancer is not a single disease at all, something which conspicuously eludes advocates of virtually all forms of cancer quackery. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether cancer is a proliferation or a metabolic disease has no relevance to whether Griffin promotes quackery, and supports a wholly unevidenced conspiracy theory. - Red Herring Pekay. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether Griffin promotes quackery or supports a wholly unevidenced conspiracy theory has no relevance to cancer metabolism. According to PMID 21258394 in Nature Reviews Cancer, "metabolic alterations are required for tumour cells to be able to respond to the proliferative signals". Labelling cancer metabolism as "scientifically-unsupported" violates the consensus of medical literature. -A1candidate 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So what, the article is about Griffin, not cancer metabolism. Nomo's suggestion -"He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer can be cured by consuming more amygdalin".- will deal with any issue here. I believe we can ignore A1 in this case, even if we don't usually ignore him! ;) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is surely what is meant by the "view that cancer is a metabolic disease". It might have a metabolic aspect without being a "metabolic disease" -- such that the view that it's a "metabolic disease" is indeed scientifically unsupported. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

See PMID 24139946, which states that it "should also be considered a metabolic disease". -A1candidate 14:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This sentence "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." in the second paragraph of the lede works just fine. It should be moved to the first paragraph to replace what we see now about metabolic disease. (Some modification may help.) While we are at it, the two paragraphs contain much redundant material. For this short article a one paragraph lede would be fine. (Debates about the causes of cancer belong on those topic pages, not here.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I object in the strongest terms possible to the sentence highlighted by srich as it is far too fringe to meet NPOV. (There are no debates here about the causes of cancer - I don't understand? ) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are the sources with inline text attribution for this contentious material? Show me who said, how they said it, and why they said it as required by WP:PAG Particularly this statement: "cancer can be cured by consuming more amygdalin" which is absolutely absurd. Atsme☯^Consult 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about, didn't you leave? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate: the paper you cite is a single-author opinion piece posing a question. This is a part of the scientific discourse but falls a very long way short of an acceptable source for the claim that cancer is a metabolic disease. Cancer is a very complex set of diseases, most will have metabolic components, but to call it a metabolic disease is to come down on the side of the chicken in the perennial debate. Regardless, Griffin's views are expressed entirely in the context of laetrile, which is quackery, and therefore we have no need to weasel our way around exactly which is the correct adjective to describe how wrong he is, on the spectrum from totally wrong to completely wrong. The John Birch Society have promoted laetrile for a very long time, and they have entirely failed to modify this view in response to its refutation and subsequent place as a prominent form of illegal cancer quackery. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the PAs against me, and stay on topic. Atsme☯^Consult 02:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, your comment to Atsme is totally off-point from content and inapproriate to the creation of a GA.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. When Roxy makes a PA, there is no doubt. That Laetrile as a cure for cancer is now quackery (not just "considered" quackery) is adequately sourced, even if Atsme disputes it. That it was quackery when Griffin wrote his book may be more difficult to source, but he's still promoting it, so it may not be necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pekay2: There is no credible assertion that you were reverting a WP:BLP violation. It was a clear revert for the purpose of a potential 1RR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if I were wrong, in that it might have been a BLP violation, it is not a clear BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update on some key elements re: defamation

After reading some of the comments above, one of which basically asked so what if the statement is wrong, I had to weigh-in using a separate section because I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion. WP:BLP takes legal issues seriously or there would not be mention of strict adherence to US Laws. The policy actually needs to be updated to include other countries, such as the UK where defamation is looked upon much differently from the US. My first-hand experiences with US based defamation lawsuits are why I have always practiced extreme caution when wording a biography. In an effort to be helpful, I included some links below regarding WP, defamation, and a few instances demonstrating how opinion vs malice and false statements of fact can be kryptonite to editors who write whatever they please because they think their anonymity on WP makes them impervious to the legal system, or that as long as they cite RS they're safe. Think again because a German court disagreed with that notion. [80] And there's more you might find enlightening...

• [81] Yikes!
• [82] The Wikipedia editor lawsuit includes 31 different entries made on Barry’s Wikipedia page that he considers erroneous and “defamatory.”
• [83] Hopefully Wales has learned by now.
• [84] This editor was lucky the Foundation stepped in.
• [85]The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact.
• [86] More on British defamation law
• [87] Excerpt: In the rare cases where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts.

Now that CAM is recognized by the NIH, #liable is trending. [88] Even with the FDA [89]. Best not forget what the latest scientific research has proven because when compared to 1980s research, it may not be as evident to a jury that it's quackery. That's why inline text attribution and RS are so important rather than the opinions of editors as we are seeing now in the lead. Atsme☯^Consult 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is flirting with a violation of WP:NLT. The intention here is to chill editors, or what? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Atsme, you are welcome to follow your own sense of what consequences would follow from your own legal exposure. You've gone well beyond the call of duty (ahem) in offering your "help" to other editors in that regard. Any further "assistance" of that sort will indeed be taken as intended to chill discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing that resembles a legal threat here, but If Alexbrn thinks otherwise, he should either report this immediately or stop accusing others of issuing threats when there are none. -A1candidate 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahem...did you ask the same question to the editors of Signpost when they published similar info? Read WP:BLP - 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: Did you feel a chill when you read that? Atsme☯^Consult 18:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec with Roxy) Oh please get a grip. Your opening post in this section is intended to put pressure on other editors to go along with the approach you favour -- pressure that comes directly from the insinuation that if they don't adopt your approach they will be putting themselves in jeopardy of legal action against defamation. If you don't mean to apply pressure of that sort, then you're not nearly as in control of your writing as you'd like to think. So stop being coy and put this tactic of yours to bed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat designed to chill to me. I thought he'd left. What is Signpost anyway, never heard of it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-02-19/News_and_notes. This isn't about me, it's about BLP and contentious material that is disputed in the lead, which means it requires inline citations and inline text attribution. Rather than harass me, go find the RS to back-up the contentious material...and please stay on topic. Atsme☯^Consult 18:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you are now in serious danger of sanctions. It is notable that the British libel laws were recently changed to permit an absolute defence of truth, and to grant privilege to scientific discourse, precisely to stop cranks and charlatans form exerting coercive pressure to silence legitimate criticism. See British Chiropractic Association v. Singh and the Defamation Act 2013. The statement is not wrong, and even if it were, it would not be defamatory because it is well sourced and attributed. Those of us who are onlookers - including those with a very great deal of experience of dealing with the claims of cranks and charlatans - are beginning to lose patience.

And incidentally, you display your ignorance by citing a 2009 piece about libel law without noting that rather famous consequence. The BCA would not, today, be able to sue Simon. What you have to remember here is that this is not two sides of a debate. This is people who advocate a refuted idea versus the scientific conclusion, based on the totality of evidence, including the evidence the quacks like as well as the evidence they don't like. In matters of science, the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view. And the places where this is disputed are a great sign of how important that is: climate change, evolution and health fraud being three of the most prominent. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no doubt Ernst and Singh defended science at a great personal cost, but they were spared legal action only because they presented the facts correctly - something many people here aren't interested in doing. -A1candidate 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy - you just made 2 reverts in violation of 1RR here. I consult you to focus on your own actions which includes adding back contentious material in defiance of 1RR AND the recent RfC that determined it to be fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. Furthermore, it isn't even sourced. Bad, bad. Atsme☯^Consult 00:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Ernst and Singh won their cases (they were not "spared legal action") because they presented facts, just as we are doing, and because the law was changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's considered one revert; consecutive edits are considered as one. Furthermore, I declare that my most recent edit, although technically a revert, does not constitute an intervening edit, so if Guy wants to revert more of Atsme's whitewashing, it's fine with me, although the monitoring admins might not agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And one of the two edits was not a revert, and the other one is basically opposed only by Atsme, since the infobox says he is known for promoting conspiracy theories. RFC consensus was: we don't call him a conspiracy theorist. Closer's rationale plainly supports a more NPOV statement of the fact that what he is known for, is promoting conspiracy theories. The issue here is a ratchet effect: every time Atsme gets anything into or out of the article, it then becomes the "consensus version" and any change is vigorously opposed. Atsme is the problem, not the reality-based editors. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate: Ernst was never part of BCA v. Singh. Singh escaped not because his statements were factually correct (they always were, even at the time of the first hearing that went against him), but because his lawyer successfully argued that the interpretation put by the BCA was not plausible, and that they should not be allowed to draw the most unfavourable interpretation simply in order to be able to sue. The change in the law then provided defences of truth, honest opinion, scientific discourse, and also required corporate entities to prove actual material damage.

Of the ideas advanced by Griffin, none are supportable, all are conspiracist nonsense, including laetrile. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, none of the crap being reverted now were my edits so save your energy and hope the subject of this BLP doesn't read WP. My last edit was Feb 9th and it was reverted in full. My hands are clean, clean, clean and I plan to keep it that way. The only thing going on now is more of the same reverts that were determined by consensus to be fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV and what we are expected to do. There are no sources cited in the 1st paragraph, no inline text attribution - keep on keeping on. This article may self-correct in one felled swoop. Time for some popcorn and a recliner!! Atsme☯^Consult 00:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's in defiance of interpretations of statements by Nyttend, which are clearly not consensus, and may or may not represent administrative action requiring consensus to overturn. Even if Nyttend is correct that "conspiracy theorist" should not be in the lead (which is disputed), Griffin is known for conspiracy theories. I would have said "promulgating" rather than "promoting", but there is no doubt that "promoting" is adequately sourced in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. That statement is entirely uncontroversial, other than to those who wish his beliefs to be true, in spite of the resounding chorus in reliable sources that they are not. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Known for...

We have a plethora of sources saying that Griffin is known for conspiracy theories, and we say it in the infobox without apparnet controversy (other than from Atsme, presumably). The RfC consensus is that we don't describe him in the first sentence as a "conspiracy theorist" (fair), but the closing rationale explicitly does not exclude noting that he is an author known for promoting conspiracy theories. This is the difference between saying that a "X is liar and former politican", and saying that "X is a former politician whose career ended when he was shown to have lied to the legislature". Is Griffin a conspiracy theorist? I ahve no idea. Does he promote conspiracy theories? Hell yes, it's what he's known for. I don't see any sense in omitting this from the lede as I added it; in fact the omission is puzzling in context. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it's very important not to relent on this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, sounds reasonable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you are attacking a living person instead of demonstrating that the PS-Fringe he wrote about is not supported by conventional and/or orthodox (mainstream) per our PAG. Where are your sources? You need to find updated sources and stop referencing information that is over 30 years old. Also make note that Popular Paranoia is not a reliable source. The contentious statements you support require high quality reliable sources with inline citations and inline text attribution. Please stop trying to discredit Griffin with blanket statements that are not sourced, and determined to be not policy compliant. You have already been warned by Callanecc to respect consensus and now you are doing what you unjustly warned me to not do. [90] I consult you to please pay heed to your own advice. In fact, the label in the infobox is also noncompliant with NPOV because the consensus determination applies equally, and it needs to be removed. Read the close if you forgot what it says. Also, WP:FRINGE clearly states The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. What you're attempting to do and have been doing all along was determined by consensus (an admin's determination which you supported) that it is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. Please respect the sanctions and the consensus. Atsme☯^Consult 13:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't disparage the mainstream by calling it orthodox. We are duty bound to reflect mainstream views. Users who come to WP rely on us to present a balanced account of mainstream views according to reliable sources. We are obligated to identify fringe views as such. The alternative would be to expunge Griffin's conspiracy theories or his biography from WP. Then everyone would be worse off. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick note - "known for: conspiracy theories" was added to the infobox by edit request while the article was protected by an uninvolved admin per this discussion, and Atsme you said OK to that twice in that discussion. I recognize that folks can change their minds, but I don't see that anybody but Atsme has ever opposed that resolution. I note that even Nyttend did not change this, in his edits implementing his close) Atsme, would you please yield to WP:CONSENSUS and let the issue of the infobox go? If you find a substantial number of people have supported undoing what we all decided to do, would you please provide diffs of support for your new position? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I am not attacking a living person, I am stating (accurately) that he promotes bullshit of a particularly pernicious kind. He promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories, and he promotes cancer quackery. Nothing in our policies on biographies or neutrality require us to whitewash an article in order to pretend that the indefensible is something other than just that.

The definition of terms such as orthodox and mainstream means that the are only pejoratives to those who believe in the unorthodox and fringe. In the case of medicine, the unorthodox and fringe is commonly termed quackery and is (rightly) controlled, because of the potential to cause real harm. Medicine is not like music. You can cheer for Justin Bieber and people will merely think you an idiot, if you cheer for laetrile quacks, you are promoting a fraud that kills people (and charges them to do so). This is not a morally neutral situation.

These are not "significant minority views" in the context of people who advocate them. The point about "significant minority views" is that we discuss them in proportion in the relevant articles: that means that in the article on the Fed, we can note that conspiracy theories exist, but it absolutely (and indeed explicitly) does not mean that we pretend they are valid, and certainly not int he context of other articles. In the article on an antivaxer, we do not pretend that anti-vaccine bullshit is valid just because a small but significant minority believes it, in an article on a creationist ditto, and in this article we don't pretend that the idea of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, or a suppressed cure for cancer, are valid just because a minority believes in them.

The fact that Griffin advocates conspiracy theories that have been comprehensively debunked, and has been harshly criticised for it, is not our problem to fix. If he doesn't like us documenting these facts he can always stop advocating bullshit. As indeed can you. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick note back @Jytdog: - I am following consensus but you are not as indicated by your advocacy to keep the contentious label in the infobox knowing full well it is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV, not to mention an unsourced contentious statement in a BLP. We agreed to add it as a compromise before the RfC because the policy question was still afloat, but that is no longer the case. Consensus and the admins close changed the landscape so now I am asking you to please respect consensus. Nyttend further stated on your TP: If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories. Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. Your request to review the consensus was upheld at AN, therefore we are all obligated to respect it, so please stop putting that monkey on my back as though I'm the one feeding it bananas.

JzG, rigor mortis has long since set in on that horse. You are not stating fact rather you are stating opinion that you consider to be fact, (POV), and that is a fact. Again, I implore you to read WP:Fringe theories again even if it was you who wrote the policy. I've already quoted from it in these discussions numerous times. If you insist on referencing 30+ year old opinions from RS, do so with inline citations and text attribution. I'll ask again, where is the diff to validate your claim that Griffin has/does advocate that cancer "can be cured by consuming more amygdalin"? I find it rather contradictory considering he clearly acknowledges [World Without Cancer] does not promote laetrile, nor any of the products mentioned herein, as a cure for cancer. All of the products we mention are regarded metabolic agents or vitamins used in nutritional therapy and prevention.. [91]. Similar disclaimers are in his book. Atsme☯^Consult 00:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As we have already established, you are approaching WP:FRINGE form the point of view of trying to use it to support your view of what this article should look like. You think that what you want is a good article. Actually what you want is a flattering article, and in this case that would fundamentally violate policy. See my latest comment below. Visit Griffin's website. This is not a mainstream scholar with a few fringey ideas, this is someone who jumped the woobicon years ago and can now only see the real world with a powerful telescope. I know you desperately want the laetrile conspiracy to be true, for some unaccountable reason, but it is not - and even if it was, this is a guy who is a Truther, a Chemtrailer, believes in the New World Order, the Illuminati, the World Jewish Conspiracy - and has published extensively stating these beliefs as if they were fact. Sooner or later, you have to recognise that these are not the opinions of a rational man. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme thanks for explaining why your stance on the infobox has changed. As I pointed out, Nyttend didn't go there; you seem to be extended extending his close even farther than he did. More importantly, I don't think anybody else watching this page shares your interpretation: i haven't seen anyone else here arguing to change the infobox. I'll be interested to hear from anyone who shares Atsme's view on this. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC) (fix typo)

Jytdog, I wish there was something more I could do to help you understand. My interpretation is correct. Nyttend was clear when he said the term was fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV, so why would you think it doesn't apply throughout the article? Moving it to a different paragraph isn't going to magically make it policy compliant. Did you read (without prejudice) the comments made by uninvolved editors during the RfC? Also, I never said we shouldn't include prominent opinions citing RS (with inline text attribution if contentious), such as he was referred to as a conspiracy theorist by so and so, etc. You just can't say it in Wiki voice as a statement of fact. Drop the stick, already. Why are you so hell bent on making this guy look bad? That is not NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 07:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand the argument you are making - you don't have to repeat it. I don't agree with your argument, nor does anyone else Talking here, as far as I can see. What I asked you to do was a) bring diffs of support for your position by others, for removing "Known for: conspiracy theories" from the Infobox (and if you cannot find diffs of support, please say so) b) if you cannot bring them, please consider that this content was the result of WP:CONSENSUS (that included you at the time) and let go of your current effort to change the infobox. Would you please respond to that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation is incorrect, and is motivated by your desire to whitewash the article, something that is abundantly clear. You said you were going to leave it alone, and that you'd accepted that laetrile is quackery. And here you are back again, doing exactly the same thing. Stop. Now. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs otherwise you are just casting more aspersions with your accusations of whitewashing, and please stop threatening me because I disagree with your POV in adding unsourced and unreliably sourced contentious material to this BLP. Yes, I did accept that sources stated laetrile is quackery. There is a big difference in following policy and accepting a particular belief. We are supposed to be NEUTRAL - I follow neutrality. Consensus has spoken and you need to respect it. Please include the diff where I said I would leave it alone. Atsme☯^Consult 01:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here you go. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

update on DR process

A couple of notes. I have decided to watch this article again. I am waiting for a close of the review of the RfC close. Once that is done, I plan to launch a second RfC to ask whether the lead, outside the first sentence, should say something about him being a conspiracy theorist or promoting conspiracy theories. This was what I intended all along but the process has been stalled by the controversial close and the dragging out of the review of the close. Editors here have clearly stated views and are not going to convince each other; we need to work DR and keep bringing in the voices of the community to help us resolve issues in a careful, stepwise fashion.Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc it is not clear to me why the RfC close review is not being closed. If you have any advice about process I would be glad to hear it. (i.e. was it the wrong venue, and I should withdraw it and post something elsewhere? was it too vague and not something that can be addressed and we should just forget about it? i would like to proceed with DR but feel we need to move deliberately, getting as much clarity as we can each step of the way. Perhaps I should proceed with the next RfC about the lead outside the first sentence and not wait? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When you are ready to frame your next RfC, I want the opportunity to make sure the question(s) meets the RfC neutrality standard, please. Atsme☯^Consult 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the close review (ie your initial comment) was probably too long and asked too many questions to be effective in asking for uninvolved opinions. Plus people are generally hesitant to involve themselves in close reviews especially when they are contentious. There is a developing consensus there a consensus would be needed to mention him as a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories, so an RfC would likely be needed for that anyway. So I'd go with the next RfC whenever you're ready. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc. Should have been starker and shorter. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And neutral. You need to specify that you want to state conspiracy theorist and promoter of conspiracy theories in Wiki voice as a statement of fact, not opinion. If you don't make that clear, or exclude from your original question, I will simply add an alternative question per RfC guidelines. Atsme☯^Consult 20:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin on the Jews

While he thinks the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery, he believes that this forgery, which asserts that Jewish bankers and Jews generally are implementing a scheme to take over the world, “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” He is quoted as saying this in the Washington Post. I believe Griffin's promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories belongs in this article. What say you guys? Steeletrap (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Who removed it? It was in before, I am certain. Of course it's relevant! Guy (Help!) 22:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

However, the link that opinion writer Milbank posts – http://www.freedom-force.org/ – is dead. Do we have sufficient Verification about Griffin dabblings? – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need a primary source when a secondary source with a reputation for fact checking has already summarised it. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps @Steeletrap: could take care of this (it would be a consecutive edit). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Having seen the original on archive.org, it's not the kind of thing we'd link anyway. Pure unadulterated bat guano. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added the material about the Jews. Let me know what you all think. Steeletrap (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That quote was taken out of context, and I consult you to read WP:REDFLAG and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The material to verify the truth of the statement is here, [92], and Griffin's response to Milbank is here which you also need to read [93]. You cannot just slap contentious material on a BLP when it's proven to be untrue. [94] Also read the following Wikipedia:Verifiable_but_not_false - True to the facts—If 5 reliable sources repeat an incorrect fact, then that does not justify repeating a known falsehood. This often occurs when later news reports have corrected the early versions of events, which appeared in "5" major newspapers. An article should not repeat the now-known incorrect versions of events. I adamantly oppose it's inclusion based on the above, and will further add that I believe it would be fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV to add it. Atsme☯^Consult 01:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You remind me of a Talmudic scholar who reads the law seeking for ways it can be interpreted to support the thing he wants to do. The point here is that these are facts. That is to say, verifiable truths based on dispassionate analysis of real-world evidence, unlike the contents of Griffin's books. Wikipedia policy introduces no prohibition whatsoever on including verifiably accurate material about people, even if they don't like it. That's because we're an encyclopaedia that aspires to be reliable. If you want to write a hagiography of Griffin, try Conservapedia, where it will no doubt be welcome. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend leaving out the piece. It is Milbank criticizing/disparaging Beck in part because he had brought Griffin onto his show. And he does this, again in part, by bringing up a disparaging comment about Griffin's dabblinga. Griffin has dabbled in a lot of areas. Is this source clear enough to say Griffin is antisemitic? Then, if it is added, what do we do to balance the opinion? Let's not permit WP to be a platform for this less than noteworthy material. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is, however, verifiably true that Griffin does state that. And he also claims that contrails are chemtrails. The problem with leaving out his more obviously crazy theories, and the fact that he is a conspiracy theory advocate, is that the net effect is to make his advocacy of quackery seem less like the conspiracist claptrap it is - which of course what Atsme wants. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to call him "antisemitic." But it is notable that Griffin thinks the notorious Protocols "accurately describe" the world around us. Steeletrap (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What a shame...

It's a shame that only the lunatic fringe cover Griffin's belief in chemtrails - I'm struggling to find anyone in reliable sources who even bothers to point and laugh at that one! Guy (Help!) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Where do you think Griffin's beliefs on chemtrails originated?--Pekay2 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this bit of babbling by "GEG" will help. [95] – S. Rich (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is why it's worrying that Atsme is trying to whitewash the article. The man is, bluntly, a loon, and unless we make the point, people might believe the weasel-worded lede and think he's actually a "researcher" of some sort. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a misconception that any derogatory information--as opposed to uncorroborated derogatory information--in a BLP violates BLP policy. This misconception got me banned, at the hand of lazy admins (and at the encouragement of Srich, a user who is currently working, in a rather subtle fashion, to purge the Griffin article of 'negative' content), for adding truthful facts to the BLPs of other fringe libertarian theorists. Steeletrap (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Atsme's definition of derogatory is off. Factual information that shows a person to be wrong is not derogatory. It is perfectly possible to be respectful of a person and still point out that their ideas are crazy. There are many people in my life who I respect and admire (usually as musicians) but whose ideas about, say, alternative medicine, are way off the scale. They are wrong, and some are in the grip of conspiracist loonery, but they are perfectly nice people. I am sure Griffin is a charming man. He is, however, a crank. There's nothing wrong with making that clear. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you are WP:Casting aspersions and have actually crossed the line in that regard. I have been quite patient with the PAs but my tolerance for such abuse is waning. Griffin stated the following at the link SRich posted: I am not saying that this is what is happening, but there is some evidence that it is - or something like it. We still have much to learn about this. Griffn's books and opinions may very well be considered science fiction by some but the reality is that not all readers agree with that opinion for whatever reason. Either way, being an author of controversial topics (or science fiction for that matter) does not justify any editorial attempts to include unsourced or unreliably sourced opinions about a BLP in Wiki voice. There are valid reasons there are no RS addressing some of the issues you referred to as "lunatic fringe". Perhaps you should spend time investigating and theorizing about the latter. We can disagree with a BLP's opinions, we can think he is a nutcase, we can feel as though we are the superior intellects and he is a nutcase, but we cannot express those feelings in Wiki voice. Atsme☯^Consult 14:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"not all readers agree with that opinion" ← yes but fools and cranks. Wikipedia rightly presents foolishness and crankiness for what it is, that's a basic tenet of our neutrality policy. There is lassitude in the sources that may be used to identify fringe stuff too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've included some diffs regarding some of the persons to whom you refer, Alex, and remind you of our policy on BLPs and other references to living persons - [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]. Atsme☯^Consult 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Conspicuous lack of quality/pertinent RS there. Any quality RS that considers such topics will plainly say that notions of chemtrails, a jewish world order and amygdalin as a "suppressed" cancer cure ... are all bollocks of the first degree which are peddled by sundry quacks, racists and loons. Where the mainstream RS goes we follow. That's in line with our neutrality policy; crying "BLP"! is not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Those links don't show any RS to support your agenda. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When Griffin says "there is some evidence" he is just making up stuff. There is no evidence, simply none, that supports the chemtrail story. Saying "we still have much to learn ..." is an argument from ignorance. (He's stringing people along with there might be evil chemtrails.") Also, there's his 2010 video OCLC 682713571 and the next post in his realityzone blog has a link to a flickr page with photos labeled as chemtrails. Actually Griffin spends his time and makes his living by talking about silly things. And too many people are willing to follow him. But we don't need to repeat his banterings. We could cut this article down to "Griffin is a former child radio actor and radio station assistant director, He attended college and got a BA and CFP. H. He served in the Army. He wrote for Curtis LeMay. He wrote a popular book about the Fed. He also wrote and produced films about the United Nations, Noah's Ark, SCOTUS, cancer & Laetrile, and foreign policy. He promotes laetrile as a cure for cancer. He appeared on the Glen Beck show." When we add more we are just hiding the pony and making him look more significant than he is. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977 that is a super-helpful comment. I am taking it (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you support actually cutting down the size in this article. (I don't want to pin you to the wall; you may have just tossed that out there). Would you please confirm if you mean that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A strict WP:SUMMARYSTYLE rendition. Specifics, supported by working links/refs would be set forth. For example, we'd say "GEG founded Freedom Force International, a [whatever it is type organization] that advocates individual liberty and less government influence" (leaving out views and goals). Remove his speculations about causes of the Biblical flood. Etc.

In keeping with WP:IMPARTIAL we should "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." (Thanks to Formerly 98 who pointed out this policy at Talk:State Policy Network#Lindall quote.) Alas, all this entails a considerable bit of editing and will be disputed at every turn. – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not an NPOV description of Freedom Force International. They are extreme libertarians, endorse the Sovereign Citizen movement, and the website is about as coherent as Time Cube. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am intrigued by this idea of greatly shrinking this article as a possible orthogonal path out of the dispute. I acknowledge that coming up with mutually acceptable descriptions for his various activities would not be easy; but if we all agree to limit ourselves to really independent, mainstream sources and hew closely to them, it might be easier. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. I imagine that Griffin enjoys seeing a big article with lots of critical remarks. After all, "Bad News Is Better Than No News". Consider, he won't change, nor will his devotees. Also consider how popular the article is. On WP it got 15,631page views in the last 90 days. (This number is skewed by a spike in views mid-December.) We don't know how many views are repeats or related to editing efforts, but compare this to John Kenneth Galbraith who got 30,873 page views in the same period (no spikes involved). Galbraith is a very significant figure amongst economists, but why doesn't he get many more page views? I submit that Galbraith is old news, but Griffin is new news because of this WP controversy. With this in mind, the best way present Griffin is to present basic biographical information and then "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." By doing so we don't describe Freedom Force as "extreme libertarians", and we don't present his views about cancer in the name of BALANCE. Perhaps editors on each side will be discouraged because they don't have a platform or vehicle to promote/debunk Griffin, but for interested (future) readers we will present a short Micropædia type article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is the policy that supports such a proposal? Based on my interpretation of WP's goals, the encyclopedia promotes the exact opposite. Atsme☯^Consult 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:5P and WP:NOTEVERYTHING should be applied. – S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Applied perhaps, but not the end-all. See WP:Article_size and Wikipedia:Article_development. What you are supporting is Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/Start-Class_criteria which is not unlike WP:STATUSQUO and discourages WP:GA. Which one do you think is best for the project? Atsme☯^Consult 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles develop by more closely revflecting reality, not by more closely reflecting the world as crackpots fantasise it. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I really would appreciate it if you would stick to content improvement and stop with POV derogatory comments. It is not helping this article improve. Atsme☯^Consult 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am encouraged that you consider listing the idiot ideas he promotes as "derogatory" - that does give me some small hope that you will, eventually, realise the inevitable implication of his advocacy of these crackpot notions. I like Jytdog's idea of a shorter article, though to be fair it will be hard to stick rigidly to reliable mainstream sources since almost all coverage of Griffin occurs within the conspirosphere (Alex Jones' show, Glenn Beck's show and various crazy websites, not least Griffin's own). Guy (Help!) 10:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Known for...

• 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." (MediaMatters)
• 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. (Salon)
• The filmmakers bring in advocate and conspiracist G. Edward Griffin (Australian Science)
• To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” (Washington Post)
• He also defended the information in his book, noting critics say, " 'All these conspiracy theorists are stupid,' and then they throw me in the middle of it." (NJ), showing Griffin's own acknowledgement that he is considered a conspiracy theory advocate.

One of his books is called "The Capitalist Conspiracy".

He advocates the following:

• Federal reserve Jewish conspiracy ([102])
• Chemtrails are sprayed form aircraft.
• Laetrile is a cancer cure suppressed by the medical establishment.
• JFK assassination conspiracies.
• CFR as a conspiracy to make America part of global collectivization, and pursuing eugenics policies.
• 9/11 an inside job.
• Anti-vaccine conspiracies,. including promoting the work of Mary Tocco.
• Illuminati and the Secret Covenant.
• IRS conspiracy theories.
• New World Order.
• Codex alimentarius is a conspiracy.
• Global warming is a conspiracy.
• Gun control is a conspiracy.

I am flipping through freedomforceinternational.org and checking items off in list of conspiracy theories. Google shows he has spoken up about most of them, and in every case, supporting the conspiracist view. Even Ba'hai conspiracies, which is, well, niche, for an American, so kudos to him for that, at least.

He's featured on: Infowars, Whale, David Icke, Stormfront, Natural News and others.

Can we stop pussyfooting around now? Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, you are just generalizing based on POV which flies in the face of BLP and NPOV. You have yet to provide RS with inline citations and text attributions. It's easy to make spurious allegations that are not based on anything substantive, most of which you have taken completely out of context, and I wish you would stop. It smells like blog-like comments not encyclopedic content. Why are you trying to inject WP with such tabloidish, blogish characteristics? Atsme☯^Consult 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So you keep saying, but I notice that once again you didn't actually address any of the facts, instead choosing to attack a strawman characterisation of the agenda you assert lies behind them. There is a reason why mainstream is called mainstream: supporting the mainstream view is not a POV.

I have no caring about the Fed, but you assert that a fringe claim of a vast Jewish conspiracy is legitimate.

You ignore issues like AIDS denial, chemtrails, and JFK conspiracies, all demonstrably advanced by Griffin.

You continually assert in-vitro studies as if they nullify a substantial medical and legal consensus that laetrile is a fraudulent quack treatment.

Griffin is a crank. Accept it and move on. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If Griffin were an anti-Semite pushing claims that the Jews ran everything - I think the ADL would have noted him at Jewish "Control" of the Federal Reserve: A Classic Anti-Semitic Myth. Griffin is not even a footnote - and his book was well-known by 1995. In fact the ADL has absolutely no mention of Griffin on its entire website. And the notorious JBS specifically had many Jewish members - to the chagrin of some radical religious types. Sorry -- trying to use the contentious claim of "anti-Semitic" fails after due diligence in searching sources. Collect (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My increasing skepticism of this article's factual accuracy

I note that several contributors of Forbes magazine have made some interesting comments about The Creature from Jekyll Island:

• Shah Gilani (5/31/2013): "But it’s not theory; the facts are part of American history, most of which has been buried...If you want to know how it happened and how we got from there to here, The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin will rivet you, enlighten you and disgust you. Read it, it is American history of the darkest order." (Fix America: Fire The Fed)

• Nathan Lewis (3/14/2013): "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." (Let's Meet The Hard Money Extremists)

• Nathan Lewis (11/13/2014): "Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island is an excellent account of how the Fed came into being." (If Alan Greenspan Wants To 'End The Fed', Times Must Be Changing)

Being increasingly skeptical about Wikipedia's claim that Griffin's book is a conspiracy theory, I looked at whether it was cited by any academicians, and I note the following two sources that cited it:

• An economics textbook by Springer, The Fed at One Hundred (ISBN 978-3-319-06214-3), cited Griffin's work in A Pre-history of the Federal Reserve as follows: "Though the federal reserve bill was drafted and discussed in rather secretive terms (Griffin 1994; Rothbard 1994), its passage brought very little public protest." (Page 10)

Curious about who "Rothbard 1994" is, since he was cited right alongside Griffin's work, I did a quick search and discovered that he is Murray Rothbard, a highly influential economist and well-respected by peers in his field of expertise. His 1994 book, The Case Against the Fed, seems to have made similar assertions to those of Griffin's book. The second scholarly source that cites Griffin is the following:

• A peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, published by Wiley, titled "Should we audit the fed?". I can't access the full text of this article, but I note that the article is clearly anti-Fed and cites Griffin as one of its sources.

While there are some newspaper reports that claim to have "debunked" Griffin's work, I can't find any reputable scholarly sources that have done so. Unless someone could show me a good academic source, preferably something written by an expert economist or economic historian, I think there are some serious issues with this article's factual accuracy.

-A1candidate 03:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not cited any RS references for these assertions. Forbes publishes many bloggers such as Lewis and Gilani, many of them self-styled pundits on business and economics schooled largely in fringe theories and popular political and media conjecture. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See ISBN 978-3-319-06214-3 -A1candidate 03:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Murry Rothbard, as an economist, is WP:FRINGE. In fact, our article presently states that he refuses to publish in mainstream journals. I believe him to be correct, more often than not (although his statements about Griffin and the Fed are not); but Wikipedia has no need of my opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states that if, we find no reliable sources that approve of Griffin's work, we need not find reliable sources which "debunk" it, to avoid implying that his work is credible. And there is no evidence that the authors of Should we audit the fed? use Griffin's work as other than examples of fringe commentary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The criticism of the sources A1candidate cited are not valid and will not hold up in an RfC. Every single one of them fits the requirements of RS per the relevance of the material to the subject of discussion, therefore the argument that they are unreliable is not substantive. For example Popular Paranoia is clearly an unreliable source. It is not much different from a collection of Mad Magazine articles as it relates to G. Edward Griffin's literary work but the opposition refuses to remove it. I have little to no confidence in the determination of RS by the opposition because all I have seen are denials of everything that reflects positively of Griffin. When analyzing all the issues and the RS currently being used to discredit Griffin, it becomes clear we have a compendium of issues that need to be addressed because almost every single source is negative while positive sources are being labeled unreliable. The outdated journal research, specifically that which is 25 to 30 years old, needs to be replaced with updated material as I've suggested numerous times. Questionable sources can be cited with inline citations and text attributions depending on their relevance and prominence to the subject. Calling RS unreliable simply because editors may not like or agree with them doesn't make them unreliable. It's like the ridiculous argument that an opinion becomes a statement of fact because critics of the subject say so. Atsme☯^Consult 12:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You and A1candidate will certainly agree on many things, since neither of you considers that reality-based science is any more valid than woo. As to an RfC? You may be surprised. Wikipedia is, by now, not bad at resisting whacknuttery. Our article on homeopathy, the One Quackery To Rule Them All, is under constant assault, and yet we have managed to keep it neutral and accurate. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've asked for a good academic source which explicitly states that Griffin's work is factually incorrect, and until now, nobody has yet to provide such a source. As far as The Creature from Jekyll Island is concerned, I note again that it has been positively reviewed by Forbes magazine contributors, cited as a factual source by an economics textbook published by Springer on the history of the Fed [103], and cited as a reference by an academic journal published by Wiley [104]. Again, can anyone please show me a good academic source, preferably something written by an expert economist or economic historian, that disputes the factual accuracy of Griffin's book? I believe my request is reasonable enough to deserve an honest reply. -A1candidate 17:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you think that the book is accurate in a meaningful and significant sense?? Oh dear... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

With regard to Forbes, that has been responded to.

with regard to the book, The Fed at 100 (which I wouldn't call a "textbook" at all - but that is wonderful puffery), it says: "Though the Federal Reserve bill was drafted and discussed in rather secretive terms (Griffin 1994; Rothbard 1994), its passage brought very little public protest. Partly this was because, as previously noted, the bill did nothing to drastically change the monetary landscape of the United States. More important was that the public and banking establishment actually had reason to demand that such a bill be passed (Bagus and Howden 2012a: 167)." The source contradicts what Atsme has been saying about the Fed being controversial from the getgo, and by no means supports Griffin's wild claims about it. It is just cited to support the "rather secretive" nature of the discussions (which the author does not describe as the dark conspiracy that Griffin does). This seems to be a good source for statements about the Fed.

with regard to the article (and citing the distinguished publisher is yet more puffery), it says "There is much controversy about the Fed, including its history, lack of transparency, and relationships with banks (see Exhibit 2). The founding of the Fed is not without its own controversy. A handful of powerful individuals from the United States and Europe developed the idea of the Federal Reserve in a clandestine meeting in 1910 on Jekyll Island, Georgia. The attendees represented approximately 25 percent of the world’s total wealth at the time. The resulting Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was voted on and approved by Congress, with 20 percent of House representatives and 27 percent of senators not in attendance. In his book The Creature from Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin argues that this approach was an attempt to consolidate control of the world money supplies and banks in the hands of the most powerful and wealthy people of the time. However, the final bill included only portions of what was derived from the Jekyll Island meeting, and votes of representatives and senators not in attendance would have likely offset each other, according to the Congressional Record." This article supports Atsme's claim that the Fed has always been controversial, it supports that the facts Griffin wrote about the planning for the Fed are good, but it does not support his conspiracy theories about the Fed nor his conclusions that we are all its slaves. I also want to note that the article is an opinion piece on whether or not, in the author's opinion, we should audit the Fed. it is not clear to me what kind of content this would be a reliable source for. (i mean that; this is not a source I would reach for, for information about the Fed per se. I am not sure what content I would source from it)

Like many people on the FRINGE, Griffin mixes some actual facts in with his wild theories. His conclusions are not mainstream. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The main thrust of Griffin's "conspiracy theory" is that the Fed was created in Jekyll Island in a secretive meeting by a group of (mostly) business and banking leaders. This is readily acknowledged by the Fed itself [105]. Surely, the Fed would be a reliable source for "conspiracy theories" about itself? -A1candidate 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is unproductive to repeat the same inaccurate statement in different parts of the same Talk page. I already responded to this below, here. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Can anyone please show me a good academic source, preferably something written by an expert economist or economic historian, that disputes the factual accuracy of Griffin's book? -A1candidate 20:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin's conclusions in that book are that the Fed should be abolished because: (see Creature p iii):

• It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives. (Chapter 1.)

• It is a cartel operating against the public interest. (Chapter 3.)

• It is the supreme instrument of usury. (Chapter 10.)

• It generates our most unfair tax. (Chapter 10.)

• It encourages war. (Chapter 14.)

• It destabilizes the economy. (Chapter 23.)

• It is an instrument of totalitarianism. (Chapters 5 and 26.)

The big conclusion that the Fed should be abolished, and everyone of those supporting claims, is a FRINGE notion in mainstream economics. Both of the sources you provided do not support any of those claims nor the conclusion. Please provide mainstream sources that support those claims and the conclusion. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources you brought also clearly refute your claim that the Fed was created at Jekyll Island. Hell, Griffin doesn't even say that. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why I should comply to your request when you keep ignoring mine, but for the sake of a good-natured discussion, I'll see if any mainstream sources support some of these claims:

• It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives

Forbes: "100 Years Later, The Federal Reserve Has Failed At Everything It's Tried[106]"

• It is a cartel operating against the public interest.

Bloomberg Business: "The Jekyll Island collaborators knew that public reports of their meeting would scupper their plans. [107]"

• It is the supreme instrument of usury/ It generates our most unfair tax/ Encourages war

CNBC: "And if Americans find out that the lion's share of their income tax payments are going to service the debt, prepare for a new American revolution [108]"

• It destabilizes the economy

The Guardian: "Federal Reserve put financial system at risk, Senate report finds [109]"

• It is an instrument of totalitarianism

The Journal of Finance: In a well-publicized effort to disrupt this process [of economic deregulation], in March, 1980, the Federal Reserve imposed a series of temporary controls on consumer credit [110].

The main conclusion of Griffin's book is that the Fed should be abolished, a view that is supported by no other economist as mainstream as Milton Friedman. Since you're unable to provide any academic sources disputing the factual accuracy of Griffin's book, I'll have to assume that the main themes of the book are neither "conspiracy" nor "theory".

I'll repeat what I requested: Could you show me a good academic source, preferably something written by an expert economist or economic historian, that disputes the factual accuracy of Griffin's book? -A1candidate 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A1, Griffin's claims are extraordinary, and as such they require direct and extraordinary sourcing in WP to claim they are valid. Please don't waste time bringing things like the opinion piece from CNBC which is not a reliable source for anything other than the author's opinion. None of the solid sources you brought says that Griffin's conclusion to ban the Fed nor any of his individual arguments are mainstream economics. Not one. I would never deny that you are going to find people who buy into the conspiracy theory but that is different from proving they are mainstream economics - the individual sources don't even support the ideas you say they do (e.g. the Bloomberg article never says" anything close to the Fed being "a cartel operating against the public interest". The article by Kane (which I would need to explore the context of further before being able to say where Kane stands with regard to the mainstream) says nothing about totalitarianism - nothing. That is no where near good enough to support the claim that Griffin's views are mainstream economics. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• You ignored the Senate report that says the Fed destabilizes the economy and puts the financial system at risk.
• You ignored Milton Friedman's case for abolishing the Fed
• You ignored my request for reputable academic sources disputing Griffin's work

-A1candidate 23:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A1, I deal with FRINGE stuff a lot. I am not going to play the jumping-through-hoops game with you to prove that the sky is blue. The Fed is mainstream - it is pillar of our system and it is going to be that way for a long time. Griffin is FRINGE with his claims that it is and was part of a grand conspiracy to Destroy America As We Know It And Love It And So Must Be Destroyed. You have dramatically mis-read several sources (including Griffin's overall point) in this discussion. I said none of the sources support any of Griffin's claims and I meant it. The Senate report, for example, did not say that the Fed as an institution continually destabilizes the US economy; and what the Senate chided the Fed for, was not regulating enough leading up to the recent crash.

The one decent thing you have brought up is Milton Friedman, who has indeed advocated for abolishing the Fed. I'll ask you to watch this brief video where he talks about. Watch his face while he says it. He is wryly grinning. Why? Because he knows the idea is batshit crazy by mainstream economics and will never be enacted. But you are right, he does say it - and he follows it by saying that he would replace it with a computer. (see video and see this. the monetary supply needs minding. What does Griffin say? He wants to put us on a gold/silver standard. Batshit crazy. Friedman doesn't go anywhere near that. So yes the ideas touch but it is in crossing, not because Friedman finds griffin reasonable. And what does Griffin say about Friedman? " Let us return to those unworkable theories regarding monetary reform. Prominent in this category are the Monetarists and the Supply-Siders. The Monetarists, adhering to the theories of Milton Friedman, believe that money should continue to be be created by the Mandrake Mechanism of the Federal Reserve, but that the supply should be determined by a strict formula established by Congress, not the Fed. The Supply-Siders ... (blah blah blah). These groups are alike in their underlying philosophy. Each has a different goal and a different formula, but they agree on method: manipulation of the money supply. They share the same conviction that the free market will not work without assistance; the same faith in the wisdom and integrity of politically-created formulas, bureaus, and agencies. The Fed remains unscathed throughout all these debates because it is the ultimate mechanism for intervention. These people don't really want to change it. They just want their turn at running it. " Griffin is not a friend of Freidman. He is way, way out there, in la-la land. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, it seems to me YOU are 'way out there' pushing your FRINGE focus POV into legitimate areas of controversy among educated people. You cast your opinions as facts. Your behavior pegs you as a classic bully. Your arrogance and rudeness to fellow editors is unconscionable. I implore you to please stop this line of abusive intrusions.--Pekay2 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• If the best thing you can come up with to discredit Friedman is a pseudoscientific attempt at mind-reading his thoughts and facial expressions, then may I suggest you stop reading SBM.
• This conversation with you is a good example where extending the olive branch to some editors can only get you that far: How do these massive blocks of text relate to my original request for an academic RS?

-A1candidate 10:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I provided you evidence from Friedman that he doesn't agree with Griffin and evidence from Griffin that he doesn't Friedman. They don't inhabit the same world. On the one hand we have a Nobel laureate in economics and on the other, a guy who took a few courses in financial planning to get a CFP designation and wrote a book full of conspiracy theories and wild claims.

about your request. First, I used the sources you brought, that you haven't read. They refute his claims in that they accept the existence of the Fed and describe how it is vital part of the American economy. They each:

see it is capable of "accomplishing its stated objectives"

do not see it as "a cartel operating against the public interest"

do not consider it a "supreme instrument of usury"

do not see it "generating our most unfair tax"

do not describe it "as encouraging war"

do not see it as "destabilizing the economy"

do not see it as "an instrument of totalitarianism"

they do not call for its banishment and replacing it with the gold standard.

And you will find this lack of support over and over in mainstream economics texts because Griffin's ideas are FRINGE. Just like you will find lack of support in the mainstream literature, but probably not outright refutation, of FRINGE medical ideas like Magnet therapy. See WP:PARITY. A1, his core idea is that the Fed is the product of a conspiracy of a few rich men (mostly Jews) who got most of what they wanted in the creation of the Fed, that that it continues to be the tool of this cabal, and functions to protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us - in the course of keeping the rich wealthy all our interests are sacrificed. This is just crazy talk. (note - struck "mostly jews" Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC))

If you can find it, see for example how "Monetary Theory and Policy", by Carl Walsh, the standard textbook on monetary policy, discusses the Fed. It describes central banks in other countries, and the Fed, their role in their economies , and how they do their jobs, from a mainstream view that treats central banks for what they - central institutions of our actual economies, in the real world. None of this crazy talk.

There are seeds of truth in what Griffin writes. On the "capable" thing - The Fed's actions prior to the Great Depression are widely credited to helping worsen that event. At the same time, it is widely seen as preventing the frequent seesaw of crashes/panics that happened before the Fed was created - it has stabilized the economy (see the sources you brought). On the "totalitarian" thing - It does function with independence from the executive and legislative branches; but this is seen as a good thing as it keeps the Fed free of short-term political pressures. (see the sources you brought). etc etc. Griffin takes seeds of truth and has built a conspiracy laden structure that is not shared by the mainstream. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

his ideas are FRINGE - they are wild conspiracy theories. See WP:PARITY. You are not going to find mainstream economics texts actually refuting the idea that the Fed is "an instrument of totalitarianism" Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone confirm the accuracy of Jytdog's claims regarding Griffin's book? It's one thing for Griffin to assert that the Fed has its origins in a secret meeting of bankers and politicians. It's quite another to assert, as Jytdog claims Griffin does, that the Fed is the "product of a conspiracy of a few rich men (mostly Jews)". The former is historical fact, but the latter is an unfounded, conspiratorial accusation against the Jews. -A1candidate 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

this is concern trolling. i provided a free link to Creature above. And there has been extensive discussion of Griffin's views on the jews on this page. Do your own homework, and see Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_demands_that_others_find_sources_for_his.2Fher_own_statements. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (missed this one when I struck the others. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)_

You misled me, and you continue to mislead me. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. -A1candidate 14:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the sources provided is not helpful. You have acknowledged that you haven't read any of the sources we are discussing, and your lack of information - which is your responsibilty - is not valid grounds to raise objections. really, go to the library and read some mainstream textbooks (like Carl Walsh) on monetary policy. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to back off the "mostly jews" statement and have struck it. that was overly broad. Griffin does take great pains to emphasize the importance of Paul Warburg (Jew) and he tells a story about how in the lead up to Jekyll Island, JP Morgan became a front for the Rothschilds. Of the 7 men at Jekyll, you have Paul Warburg, one representative of Kuhn, Loeb & Company (Jewish), and 3 reps from JP Morgan (according to Griffin, agent of the Rothschilds). That is 5 out of the 7. He doesn't make a big deal out of Jews in the book per se (although his reference to them as Jews is bizarre and has no place in a serious economic history) and as I mentioned above, there is another section on this page about his views on Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other anti-semitic canards - they are pretty much true in his eyes. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (striking stuff I don't stand by said this way Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

Morgan was Episcopalian -- the striving to find a "Jewish connection" here I find, frankly, abhorrent indeed. To stretch into any sort of claim that Griffin is an anti-Semite is also, frankly, abhorrent. Such statements are contentious in the extreme, and require strong secondary reliable sources making the assertion as fact. AFAICT, he described the Protocols as a forgery and fraud - so I suggest you find far stronger sources than so far presented for any such accusations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said Morgan was a Jew. please stop reacting to things i didn't say Collect. For the nature of the relationship between Morgan/his bank and the Rothschild's that I mentioned above, see Creature p 413ff, starting with the section called, in great conspiratorial fashion "Concealed alliance with Rothschilds?". He wrote what he wrote there, and his many references to the jewishness of this or that person are entirely his own (and are irrelevant to any serious history). As for what Dana Milbank wrote in WaPo about him being an anti-semite, the stuff Milbank wrote are actual quotes from Griffin. It is also true that while Griffin's original piece says "There is no doubt that the Protocols accurately describe much of what is happening in our world today,", he makes clear later in the piece that what he means by "what is happening in our world today" is a collectivist conspiracy that is not religious/ethnic in nature but includes christians, jews, etc. And he shows there how he has gotten hammered by his fans for saying "it's not the jews" and that the protocols are not literally true. Nonetheless, his writings are clearly very fertile ground for anti-semites to plow. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of anything at all, I was reacting to the thin "Rothschild connection" fluff -- I do suggest, however, that "George Gnarph wrote something that some anti-Semites cite" is grossly insufficient to suggest "George Gnarph is an anti-Semite." Is that clear? Collect (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, your source is partisan and not credible, so it is safe to say it is questionable. See the following: [111] Griffin responds here: [112] Further, Milbank has no credibility with his own peers [113] [114] I'm surprised he is still employed. Atsme☯^Consult 01:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

almost everything I wrote is based on Creature itself (again please read Creature pp 413ff); you can also search it for references to "jew" and ask yourself each time what it is doing there. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia violates scientific consensus

According to review article PMID 20448661, published in Nature Reviews Urology:

"Thinking about kidney cancer as a metabolic disease and targeting the kidney cancer gene metabolic abnormalities provides a potentially different paradigm for the development of therapy for this disease. "

By denying this central fact of science and claiming that cancer as a metabolic disease is "scientifically-unsupported", Wikipedia continues to violate scientific consensus across many topics.

-A1candidate 03:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The view of cancer as a metabolic (as opposed to genetic) disease is not mainstream and would be undue weight in this article. This is also not the article to have a discussion about this fact. Yobol (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between "not mainstream" and "scientifically unsupported". -A1candidate 04:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The views of Griffin, and his definition of "metabolic disease" is most certainly unsupported (he views cancer as a metabolic disease in the sense that laetrile is "vitamin B17" and is a "metabolic" because cancer is a deficiency in "vitamin B17" much like scurvy is a deficiency in vitamin C). In this sense, yes, it is not a metabolic disease that can be treated like a vitamin deficiency, and yes, that view is completely unsupported. Yobol (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I would recommend either defining what Griffin means by "metabolic", or removing the "metabolic" word altogether. -A1candidate 04:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have clarified what type of metabolic disease Griffin believes, so there can be no confusion. Yobol (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nutritional deficiency might be a better term, although I don't feel too strongly about this. -A1candidate 04:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a part of the refuted claim that laetrile is a vitamin (and indeed Griffin uses the term "vitamin B17"). It is, of course, no such thing. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Using medical reviews from the 1970s

According to WP:MEDDATE, we need to use up-to-date evidence. There are several review articles about laetrile published in the last 5 years, so we need to use those instead. -A1candidate 03:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The views of laetrile have not changed since the 1970s, though we can certainly add this Cochrane review if you think it necessary. Yobol (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Cochrane reviews are among the best sources one can find, even if some people disagree. -A1candidate 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hat off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, the Cochrane reviews are among the best sources one can find, even if SBM and Church leader David Gorski disagree. -A1candidate 04:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Is there a reason for bringing up Gorski and SBM here, or are you just trolling? Yobol (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC) I brought that up because some editors here have opposed the addition of Cochrane reviews (based on what SBM said) -A1candidate 04:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC) So you are bringing up an off topic discussion just to poke a stick at other editors? Not very civil, I think. Hatting. Feel free to add a comment that doesn't intentionally stir a hornets' nest on an already controversial topic. Yobol (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews are always at the mercy of the available data (I can think of one dominated by the reviewers' own work, including double-counting data sets). In the main, though, Cochrane is reliable in documenting the current clinical evidence. It does not, by design, assess the fundamental scientific validity of something (hence weak positive reviews of homeopathy have periodically appeared, often based on industry-funded studies, despite the fact that there is no reason to think it should work, no way it can work, and no good evidence it does work beyond placebo). And of course Ioannidis predicts that an inert treatment will accumulate a weak net positive evidence base due to inherent biases in the publication system.

In this case the salient point is that the question was settled in the 1970s, so has not been investigated further. The claim that laetrile is a vitamin, is refuted. The claim that it cures cancer, is refuted. The only demonstrable effect in trials was cyanide toxicity. Given that there is no plausible mechanism of action, and promoting it in clinical practice is currently illegal in the US and elsewhere, it would be quite remarkable if there were any more recent clinical trials. What IRB would sign off on such a study?

The relativism of "different ways of knowing" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the day, Gerson, laetrile etc. were tested, found to be bogus, and abandoned by any remotely ethical practitioner. Unethical practitioners known full well that they need a constant pipeline of new marks - patients with untreated cancer tend to die shortly after they run out of money - so they are mounting an assiduous campaign of propaganda, fuelled by conspiracist cranks like Mike Adams and of course Griffin. And the regulatory authorities are hampered in dealing with this by a legislature packed with people sympathetic to an anti-science agenda. When you find legislatures passing laws to protect quacks who promote risky treatments for "chronic Lyme disease", a non-existent condition, you have a real problem. It's taken three decades to fail to stop cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski. Robert O. Young, the medically unqualified live blood and alkaline diet kook, is only now looking at actual jail time if he's convicted.

For the same reason you won't find modern experiments exploring vitalism or the role of humours. The question is settled and the Declaration of Helsinki mandates that human trials are not warranted unless there is a real prospect of benefit.

It is extremely unfortunate that people continue to promote this fraudulent "cure", and doubly unfortunate that people are trying to use this article to legislate legitimacy for a particularly pernicious form of quackery. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

More

"[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 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."

Pranksters - Making Mischief In the Modern World, Kembrew McLeod

"NWO writers, including G. Edward Griffin, William T. Still, and David Icke, among others, argue that (in Still's words) “wealthy ... revolution, that Bolshevism was the work of a “Jewish conspiracy”—more precisely, a conspiracy of Jewish bankers."

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the New World Order, Alan Axelrod, PhD

There's a review of "World Without Cancer" in the American Journal of Public Health: "The author accepts the "conspiracy" theory, i.e. that policy-rtiakers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". This was in 1976, before the matter was settled. Note the explicit reference to Griffin's promotion of the conspiracy theory.

He's also quoted in Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. A Google Books search for references to G. Edward Griffin turns up, as Atsme notes, one or two respectable books. Along with a couple of thousand or more batshit crazy volumes preaching the same insanity that Griffin advocates in his books, including 9/11 "Truth", cancer conspiracies, antisemtiic conspiracies, financial conspiracies, gun control conspiracies, communist conspiracies re the UN and other groups, AIDS conspiracies and more. So many, many more. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As a devil's advocate (and, yes, I am implying that Griffin should be considered a "devil"), I should point out that being touted by conspiracy theorists does not make one a conspiracy theorist. Pons and Fleishmann were probably just mistaken, but are touted as being suppressed by the cold fusion crowd. Being recognized as conspiracy theorists by experts such as McLeod and Axelrod, is another matter entirely, except we cannot use expert testimony about controversial statements in WP:BLPs unless the publisher also has a reputation for fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A good friend knew Fleischmann well. He did not advocate the idea of a conspiracy. Jones did, and I believe Pons may have done. I have already agreed that Griffin should not be called a conspiracy theorist - unlike Ralph W. Moss, he does not originate most of the conspiracy theories he promotes. He is, however, an advocate of conspiracy theories, and asserted as a reliable source for same by sundry crackpots (including Glenn Beck). Can you name an idea he promotes which is not a conspiracy theory? I suspect even his laundry list contains references to shadowy cabals and a sinister Communist conspiracy to make his laundry collective property. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I will ask yet again to stop making accusations without inline citations and text attribution. I find the POV comments about Griffin quite tiresome. I need diffs, please. If you will notice, I provide diffs for my comments. None of the editors who oppose my position have provided diffs or links to RS - we're just hearing POV and relentless defamatory statements about a BLP without anything to back it up. Isn't that in itself a violation of BLP policy? Guy, I have asked you repeatedly to stop with the spurious comments. I really am concerned about your unsourced claims and how they reflect on WP. Atsme☯^Consult 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What accusations? And inline citations are not required in a talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

All of your references to "conspiracy theorist"; "batshit crazy volumes preaching the same insanity that Griffin advocates in his books" and the like. Arthur isn't helping, either, with comments like he made above. Is that how admins are supposed to behave? Are you setting an example for editors who once looked up to you? It is not contributing to making this a better article. I think it's deplorable behavior. If your discussion here is not to improve the article and/or talk about RS and adding citations, (which requires at least a link or something we can evaluate), then what the heck are you doing? Ranting and raving about how much you dislike Griffin? How is that helpful, Guy? [115]. Atsme☯^Consult 02:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, really? Please do enlighten me: which of the following ideas advocated by Griffin in his books is not an insane conspiracy theory?

• That the Fed is part of an international Jewish conspiracy against the individual (Creature form Jekyll Island));
• That laetrile is a vitamin, lack of which cures cancer, and can therefore itself cure cancer, but that these facts are suppressed by the medical and scientific communities for profit (World Without Cancer);
• That the United Nations is a vast communist conspiracy to collectivise the world (Fearful master);
• That capitalism is a conspiracy of the Illuminati (The Capitalist Conspiracy);
• That AIDS is a fraud perpetrated by "Big Pharma" and that government colludes in a conspiracy to promote it (various interviews in 2010, e.g. transcript);
• That aircraft are spraying chemtrails (various interviews, e.g. "Truth Media");
• That the 9/11 attacks were a false flag operation or at least had the collusion by the US authorities (e.g. Alex Jones, from 9:40 to end);

He also pretty much invented the "Rhodesian Network", a shadowy cabal with a goal of collectivist world government, promotes belief in the New World Order and so on. He is still advocating laetrile, which was almost excusable at the time (less the conspiracy theories and obviously false "vitamin" bullshit). He is, in short, a magnet for crank ideas.

In fact, I can't find any idea he promotes which is anything other than a batshit crazy conspiracy theory. Feel free to highlight any examples of legitimate ideas for which he is known. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can show me a good academic source that disputes that factual accuracy of The Creature from Jekyll Island , I would tend to think that some assertions contained in his book that are cited by reputable academic sources might be legitimate. -A1candidate 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Which assertions are those? jps (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that the Fed was secretly created in Jekyll Island, a historical fact which the Fed itself readily admits [116]. -A1candidate 20:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

baloney. The Fed was created by law, in public. By the way, jps, see the section above for A1's attempt to find good sources that support Griffin's conspiracy theories about the fed. The source provided does not say "created", but rather "A clandestine meeting on Jekyll Island 100 years ago was a pivotal step in the evolution of the Federal Reserve System". very different thing. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

You need to look up what the word "clandestine" means. -A1candidate 20:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

you need to look up the word "created" means. No one denies that the meeting was secret. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The title of the page is "Jekyll Island and the Creation of the Federal Reserve". -A1candidate 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, your RS argument is baseless. The sources A1 cited are reliable for the material. In the interim, I reverted an edit that was contrary to consensus. That is why we need to get the contentious material out of the infobox until a new RfC determines otherwise. Atsme☯^Consult 00:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it is a verifiable fact that the Federal Reserve was created during a meeting on Jekyll Island? jps (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the Financial Times, a "week of plotting on Jekyll created a blueprint that became the Federal Reserve". [117]. To put it concisely, the plans for the creation of the Federal Reserve were created there. -A1candidate 11:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Do you see this statement as different from your previous statement, "the Fed was secretly created in Jekyll Island"? 2) Is it okay to declare categorically that this was where "the plans for the creation of the Federal Reserve" were created? Surely there were events after this "blueprint" creation that also contributed. jps (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Of course there's a difference: The creation in Jekyll Island was on paper, and that's the type of creation I was referring to.

2) Yes, there were no major revisions implemented after the Jekyll meeting that I'm aware of.

-A1candidate 12:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are now claiming that the "creation" of the Fed was on paper. Can you tell me which paper it was? I would like to be clear about how a "paper creation" proceeds. I would point out that that the plan that was outlined at Jekyll island was the Aldrich Plan. It was not what created the Federal Reserve system as the plan was ultimately rejected in favor of the Federal Reserve Act which included the Glass provisions, so it is pretty clear that this wasn't the final revision. jps (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The creation of the Fed on paper was the Suggested Plan for Monetary Legislation, submitted by Aldrich to the National Monetary Comission on January 16, 1911. This was later known as the Aldrich Plan, which is technically similar to the Federal Reserve Act 1913. According to Bloomberg: "Although the Glass-Owen bill was a compromise, the core of the Aldrich plan remained [118]". I am not very familiar with details of the Glass provisions, but I doubt it changed the basic idea of a central bank per the prevailing European model proposed by Aldrich. -A1candidate 14:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. So we're on the same page. I would contend that our understanding of what happened is exactly why it is problematic to argue that the "Fed was secretly created in Jekyll Island". The Aldrich plan was secretly created on Jekyll Island. This plan was modified by the Glass provisions so that the actual implementation of the Fed was more palatable to those in line with Carter Glass's regulatory philosophy. Careful wording does matter and so we should identify exactly what happened in order to contrast with the bloviating that Griffin engages in. Griffin does not take the Glass provisions seriously in spite of the fact that it is highly doubtful that the Federal Reserve Act would have passed without them. This is where the divergence happens. Collusion is what Griffin thinks is important in the history but, in fact, there is another line of populist market regulation that gets swept under the rug because it directly conflicts with Griffin's belief in libertarianism. jps (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please relax, Guy. There is no urgency here. Your generalized recaps vs the sources you included reflect opposing views, not NPOV. Uhm Guy, I don't have a POV, but I found yours...it was in Griffin's BLP. Our job is to write biographies using RS according to BLP policy with emphasis on strict adherence to US laws, NPOV, V, and no OR. Further, WP:FRINGEBLP states: Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). That isn't what you've been doing. As for RS, when a topic gets 15 million hits on sites like this one, [119], and it ranks 56,892 on Alexus, it is safe to say it has some notability. Therefore mention belongs in a BLP per policy dictates. You are trying to suppress that aspect of this BLP. I don't think we should either "promote" or "debunk" a topic because doing so is not maintaining NPOV. We write passages based on RS. Policy requires that we use inline citations and inline text attribution if we think the material we add will be challenged. We write about it in such a way that we do not give minority views UNDUE WEIGHT, rather we base what we write on RS, V not false, NPOV and relevance/notability, which means we include minority views when they can be cited using RS. I get it, Guy. It's really a very simple formula, and I don't understand why you are so concerned about what I'm doing, planning to write or have already written, especially when none of the other editors discuss anything first. You have yet to prove anything I have written was not policy compliant. Based on the lack of a dispassionate tone in your comments, it appears that you are much too involved with your own advocacy to be collaborating on this BLP.

I am not going to reply one by one to your wall of text. Instead, I will focus on the chemtrail topic which represents one of the least popular topics in Griffin's body of literary works. Hopefully it will demonstrate the dynamics of popular perception regarding these controversial topics. Ironically, based on PEW research results [120], what some consider to be mainstream is actually the minority view: [121] [122] [123] type "chemtrails" in the search engine and up come 259 results [124] [125] [126] [127] Happy reading. Atsme☯^Consult 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that belief in chemtrails are not WP:FRINGE beliefs? jps (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you came to class late, you might want to read what I've already written above, and then read WP:FRINGEBLP. Our job is to write about what RS have reported (V not false), cite those sources, use inline text attribution if we think it will be challenged or if it's contentious material. Jiminy Cricket, why is that so hard for some to understand.....<----rhetorical question. Atsme☯^Consult 20:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the problem is that every one of Griffin's views is a minority view, if not fringe. It is undue weight not to mention that in the lead, and wherever the views are mentioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthurrrrr....that may very well be true, but it doesn't reflect anything like that in RS, which is what our editing is dependent upon. Atsme☯^Consult 00:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

For each of his views, reliable sources have been presented that they are fringe. What more do we need? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Technically the Fed is a "cartel" - it is group of independent banks which agree on interest rates etc. Maybe not the "fringe" view, but scarily correct in a sense. Collect (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme The question I posed was not answered by you. Are you claiming that belief in chemtrails is reliably sourced as being a mainstream view and therefore not under the purview of WP:FRINGE? I'm really curious. jps (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

jps before I can respond, please qualify your question with what you consider to be "mainstream view". Atsme☯^Consult 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mainstream view" = one that is not covered by WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a bullshit request. Just answer the question. Or don't -- but then don't complain if even fewer editors than before take you seriously. This should have been an easy one for you... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The definition of a mainstream view is one that has little or no informed dissent among the relevant professional community.

See our article on chemtrail conspiracy theory for the mainstream view. Griffin issued the following call for help: "It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many laboratory tests we collect, they always seem to come up with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction." These are chemtrail conspiracy canards, there is no evidence linking these to contrails, and actually covert spraying from commercial aircraft would be a ruinously inefficient way to do this.

See our article on human immunodeficiency virus for the mainstream view on HIV and AIDS. Griffin asserts that there is no such thing as HIV (transcript), saying "It’s an immunodeficiency, but there’s no virus. Immunodeficiencies are caused by the treatment, the drugs that they give people to try and treat the AIDS — that’s what kills the immune system".

See our article on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) for the mainstream view on NWO conspiracy theories. Griffin is described as "the pre-eminent anti-NWO scholar" and it is claimed that a presentation on The Capitalist Conspiracy is "an introduction and overview of many key aspects of the New World Order".

See our article on Amygdalin#Cancer_treatment for the mainstream view on laetrile. Griffin asserts in the Introduction to World Without Cancer: During 1950 after many years of research, a dedicated biochemist by the name of Dr. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr., isolated a new vitamin that he numbered B-17 and called ‘Laetrile’. As the years rolled by, thousands became convinced that Krebs had finally found the complete control for all cancers, a conviction that even more people share today. Back in 1950 Ernest Krebs could have had little idea of the hornet’s nest he was about to stir up. The pharmaceutical multinationals, unable to patent or claim exclusive rights to the vitamin, launched a propaganda attack of unprecedented viciousness against B-17, despite the fact that hard proof of its efficiency in controlling all forms of cancer surrounds us in overwhelming abundance. Not one word of this is true, other than that Krebs was the apparent originator of the false idea.

See our article Federal Reserve System for the mainstream view of the Fed. In the Introduction to Creature form Jekyll Island, Griffin asserts that it is a cartel, the supreme instrument of usury and an instrument of totalitarianism among other things.

See our article on Noah's Ark for the mainstream view of the historicity of the Flood (and see also Genesis flood narrative#Historicity). Griffin asserts that the Ark existed and that the remains rest at the Durupınar site. Again, our article gives the mainstream perspective on this.

See our article on September 11 2001 attacks for the mainstream view on 9/11. Griffin asserts that The offical version of 9/11 has all the earmarks of a cover up. He claims that The official explanation is contradicted by many facts that have come to light in recent years and now are a matter of public record, and that the freefall collapse of the buildings was contrary to the laws of physics (it wasn't free-fall, and the physics is, by now, well understood). He considers 9/11 to have been a ploy, part of a scheme to establish a world government.

See our article on the Council for Foreign Relations for the mainstream view of the CFR. Griffin calls CFR an outer ring of the most powerful secret society in history.

Can you provide a single example of an idea for which Griffin is known, which is correct? Or a single conspiracy about which he pontificates, that actually provably exists? The closest I can find is gun control: Griffin states that private gun ownership deters crime and saves lives, which is, of course, simply false, but at least on this issue he advocates a significant sizeable minority view rather than a lunatic fringe.

I'm amused by the colossal irony of your refusing to respond to a series of specific points because it's a "wall of text". Note that the points above are broken down into bitseize portions for you. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you so much for the great wall of text. It would make China proud. jps in response to your question, I probably see things much differently from most editors. I've actually lived long enough to know not to believe everything I read, especially that which originates from government agencies, and even more so if it involves medical research published over 35 years ago, the latter of which I red flag and look for updates. I'm pretty sure we're not bleeding out patients to rid them of their demons anymore. I no longer blindly accept what's reported as mainstream even though it may be the prevailing view. We're not supposed to do OR, but we can use tertiary sources to verify. I also believe contentious material needs to be Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false, therefore I practice a more common sense approach. What I've seen reflected here and in some of the articles on WP are statements that were taken out of context or cherry picked opinions stated as fact, and scanned summaries based on POV, some not even included in the cited sources. Regarding chemtrails, I did some research and found the following sources that gave me pause: [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133]. When writing the summary for Griffin's book in the BLP, I would state the mainstream view, but I would also include biographical passages describing what motivated Griffin to write the book. There is no reason to discredit him for writing about topics that are controversial. People don't need WP to censor information or screen what they can or can't read. We're an encyclopedia - defined as comprehensive in terms of information. We have to ask ourselves if we are going to write NPOV articles based on verifiable information written by reputable authors and RS, or are we going to inject our own POV using mainstream as an excuse? Atsme☯^Consult 02:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So do you think that the POV that Griffin advocates regarding chemtrails is not a WP:FRINGE perspective? Do you think it needs to be treated as WP:FRINGE avers? Or do you believe that it is not a fringe position? jps (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

jps, we are writing a BLP, not an article on chemtrails. I already provided answers to your questions. Also see WP:FRINGEBLP, and please try to understand what our focus is here. We are writing a biography; i.e., "an account of someone's life written by someone else." Chemtrails are not Griffin's life, and the book he wrote about chemtrails are not what made him notable. He did write a book about chemtrails - did you read it? POV doesn't belong in this article and it certainly doesn't belong in Wiki voice. Our job is to write about an author who wrote a book about chemtrails from a NPOV in a dispassionate tone, and that does not include passing judgment, or turning this into an opinion piece based on what partisan sources have written. Please read some of the FA which are excellent examples of what we should be striving to accomplish. Atsme☯^Consult 02:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Why won't you answer the simple yes-or-no question? Either you think chemtrails are covered by WP:FRINGE or not. I don't care which one it is, I just want to know what you think. jps (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Accidental revert

comments about resolved reverting issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologize for that revert - it was purely by accident and I didn't even know it happened. I would have self-reverted had I known. I was moving through the diffs clicking on "next edit", and it must have accidentally reverted. Sorry. It was inadvertent. Atsme☯Consult 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC) I assume (accurately I hope) that you were referring to this, which I reverted. I just self-reverted so that you can self-revert. I am back and 0R. If you self-revert you will also be at 0R.. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, thank you. I self-reverted. My edit settings are such that I have to add an edit summary, or it won't complete the edit. For some reason, it didn't ask me this time. I guess when you accidentally hit undo on the diff page, it just does undoes. Atsme☯Consult 02:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Atsme, your POV is so far out of line with reality in respect of laetrile that you should not be editing the articl;e at all without prior consensus on this talk page. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Guy, the reality is that I don't have a POV with regards to this BLP which is apparently what troubles you. What you expect of me is noncompliant with WP:Editing policy. Please try to exercise some constraint, respect consensus and stop the PAs. Jiminy Cricket, Guy, we should be thanking our lucky stars everyone in the world doesn't think the same way, otherwise there would be no point to collaboration. Atsme☯Consult 14:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Note that Atsme's edit here is a revert, not protected by any exceptions to nRR. It doesn't clearly either reflect consensus or reverting a WP:BLP violation; in fact, I would say it does neither. Additional removals of "conspiracy theories" should be consider edit warring, even if it were reinserted by an existing editor while logged out. I don't think it necessary to inform the editor, on his talk page, of the details of his edit warring, as he has already been (properly) warned on previous occasions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's true -- but I think it's the only time Atsme has edited the article recently (apart from the "accidental" ones, which she has self-reverted). I'm confident Atsme won't revert again for at least another week. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that Atsme won't intentionally revert for at least another week, but remember WP:CIR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm equally confident that Atsme must self-revert there, since the book A World Without Cancer does indeed posit a conspiracy to suppress the non-existent vitamin B17, and Atsme could not pretend not to know this. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AN review has been closed

See the close. I need to reflect on what the next best steps are. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair statement. There is no possible doubt that Griffin is known almost exclusively as a proponent of conspiracy theories, my view is that calling him a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's voice is poor form, but as Drmies notes, it's clear we have to mention the elephant in the room - especially since the room contains essentially nothing but elephant - there's ample precedent for doing so in cases directly comparable to this. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy with that close. It did not give me what I wanted (which was overturn the close and the implementing edit) but it gave me what I needed to continue the DR process; namely - it questioned the breadth and definitiveness of the RfC close, makes clear that the tension between PSCI and BLP is live and relevant, and questions the implementing edit. Those are now open for further exploration through further DR. Callanecc as the admin overseeing us, please 1) let me know if you disagree with any of that; and 2) please let all of us know if the Review close will change the way you use the RfC close in your judgements going forward (you have cited it more than once, I believe). I want us all to be able to proceed soundly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I still think the first sentence should note that he is primarily known for the promotion of conspiracy theories, since that is basically the source of his notability. There is an important and relevant difference between X is a conspiracy theorist and X is an author known for promulgating conspiracy theories. However, I am confident that will be fixed before the WP:DEADLINE, what's much more important is to ensure that we do not err on the side of representing obvious nonsense as fact, and that is currently going acceptably well IMO.

Aside: I had not noticed that many of his books are published by American Media, publisher of the National Enquirer. That explains a lot! Guy (Help!) 08:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, callanecc. Jytdog (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am elated to see this discussion. Thank you Jytdog for your understanding, and Callanecc for your diligence and outstanding ability to herd cats. (Sidebar note for Guy - see my explanation below about American Media because you may want to strike thru the incorrect references. Read the blue box at [134]. The American Media that publishes Griffin's books are his own company, not the one you mentioned.) Back on topic - I've never had an issue with including passages citing RS that refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" using inline citations and text attribution. I don't think we should use either of those terms in Wiki voice per consensus. For accuracy I suggest using author of controversial topics in the lead in Wiki voice. Let the passages with inline text attribution bring the opinion of "conspiracy theorist" to the article, that way WP's hands are clean, we maintain a dispassionate tone and compliance with NPOV. It should also appease both sides which in and of itself confirms NPOV. By stepping out of the political arena, we can more readily see an author who dissects controversial topics, provides conspiratorial evidence, and promotes his views about freedom from big government, the latter being the most dominant aspect and motivational force behind his books. We simply provide the facts and prevailing opinions properly sourced in an encyclopedic MOS, and let our readers form their own opinions. --Atsme☯^Consult 20:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that note re American Media being his own self-publishing company, I have clarified this in the article.

He is not an "author of controversial topics". The New World Order conspiracy theory is not a "controversial topic", it is a conspiracy theory. This also applies to his claims on HIV-AIDS< laetrile, chemtrails, 9/11 and many more. The view that 9/11 was a false-flag operation, heavily promoted by Griffin on his website, is not "controversial", it is wrong. The view that the medical establishment is covering up a cure for cancer and the real cause of AIDS is not "controversial"< it is simply wrong. The view that commercial aircraft are spraying chemicals for nefarious purposes is not "controversial". it's simply wrong. Arguably his espousal of antisemtic conspiracy theories is controversial, but it is controversial primarily because it is dangerous nonsense.

We should not use weasel words. Griffin is an author promoting conspiracy theories, and most of what he writes is at best a gross distortion of the truth if not outright invention. That is why we have so much trouble with reliable sources: most reliable sources simply ignore him. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not acceptable

The RfC just (barely) agreed that calling Griffin a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence was not on. This is broadly OK, but as Drmies' review clearly notes, does not rpeclude noting that he is primarily known for advancing conspiracy theories, since this is unambiguously true.

Atsme made this edit with the edit summary "reverted noncompliant material per RfC consensus". The RfC has nothing to say whatsoever about references in the body to conspiracy theories. The edit needs to be self-reverted, or administratively reverted. Atsme, revert yourself now please. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It has already been reverted, by someone else ([135]). Atsme is done on this article for at least the next week. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? [136] I recommend that you both alter your course of direction based on what Nyttend explained to Jytdog regarding his close and determination as an admin regarding NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend has declined to defend his action. Another admin has now closed a review of that action with a different view. This will all be sorted out properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where Drmies statement [137] in closing Jytdog's request for review at AN gives any editor a license to hack away at Griffin using statements of fact in Wiki voice that this BLP is a conspiracy theorist or that his books are conspiracy theories. They are opinions of critics not statements of fact. Also allow me to draw attention to the lack of inline citations regarding the contentious material that is relentlessly added back in violation of consensus, which apparently involved editors have been unable to cite using even one RS with inline text attribution. Atsme☯^Consult 23:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be unable to distinguish between calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, and noting the well-established fact that virtually all his writing promotes conspiracy theories, anywhere within the body. I venture to suggest that you are alone in that. Guy (Help!) 06:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am quite capable of distinguishing the differences, thank you. What I see is an activist who promotes freedom from big government which is at the core of most the controversial topics he writes about, not to mention the fact it can be confirmed at his own website, [138]. I see it because I'm trying to write his biography. You don't see it because you're focused on calling him a promoter of conspiracy theories. You have to step back to see which approach is encyclopedic vs most suitable for Popular Paranoia. Atsme☯^Consult 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If that is what you see, then you are looking through rose-tinted spectacles. The chemtrail conspiracy theory he advocates is nothing to do with freedom from big government. Nor is AIDS denialism,. 9/11 "Truth", the New World Order or any of the other conspiracy theories he promotes, because they are entirely illusory. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, your POV is showing. Rein it in, please. Atsme☯^Consult 02:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin is a classic case of someone who decides that one standard story is "not as it seems" and therefore basically accepts any story that goes against the prevailing understanding. He refuses to offer discernment because he thinks that there is no way to tell. He has lost his confidence in anyone who says anything that is supported by anyone in power (and he believes that "collectivists" are the only ones in power). Even politicians he likes he thinks are bought and sold and only offer glimpses into the truth on occasion. He may like Ted Cruz, but he still thinks he is a dangerously deluded collectivist. So all this just goes into one big pot and gets stirred. jps (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Links

I linked the citations to the articles of the two main publishers of his books, as this provides relevant context. I wonder whether we should discuss this in the article since Western Islands (publisher) is the publishing arm of the John Birch Society (so is likely to have judged the content for ideological consonance, not factual accuracy), and American Media (publisher) is the publisher of the National Enquirer, so has no discernible editorial standards at all.

I also removed the classification of his film on Jekyll Island as a documentary - we typically do not use that self-assigned category when the content contains substantial elements of fiction, see e.g. Zeitgeist (film series), where consensus is that we use the term "documentary style" to avoid confusion. I have no objection to using this classification if people think a classification is needed, personally I don't think so, any classification is going to annoy someone so better have none. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. POV is showing, and so is what appears to be a zest for tabloid journalism in your further attempts to discredit this BLP. You have incorrectly identified Griffin's American Media company. Hmmm, mistaken identities - I think Breitbart is hiring writers. Please check your sources more carefully, and read or re-read some of the things we've already discussed on this TP. Above all, stop trying to make this an attack page. It will not stick, and neither will any attempts to suppress RS material to make this article NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 16:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't think readers are entitled to know these things? Why not? Guy (Help!) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Please go back and review what I wrote because your question doesn't relate. What I said is that your statement about American Media (publisher) incorrectly identifies the company that publishes Griffin. There was already a discussion about it a month or so ago. The American Media that publishes Griffin is his own company, not the one you wikilinked above.

Before we do anything else, please source the lead passage that states in Wiki voice that Griffin is "advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin,? Where is that source and the inline text attribution for it? I haven't been able to find anything that is even remotely close. If it cannot be sourced, it has to be removed. In fact, the sources I've provided dispute that statement.

I also noticed that support remains for Popular Paranoia by Kenn Thomas even though it is not a RS for citing contentious material in Wiki voice as was done in the lead. Perhaps a discussion needs to be opened at RS-N if it isn't voluntarily replaced with a RS and inline text attribution. I think the more eyes we get on this article, the better.

Also, Media Matters is a self-professed progressive research and information center that resounds with "ideological consonance, not factual accuracy" [139] in much the same way you described Western Islands so we have to be careful how we use such sources. I also believe the 30+ year old OR has to be updated, and I'm not referring to the 2011 Cochran Report that compiles the same 30+ year old research. Several editors have provided updated RS, updated scientific research (2013 - 2015) from FDA, NIH, ACA as well as peer reviewed journals and scholarly publications that are in compliance with WP:FRINGE, disclaimers by Griffin, recent RS interview with a Pulitzer Prize winning author, and numerous other RS of similar caliber. Why have you not considered adding any of that RS material since it actually will help achieve NPOV and balance? Atsme☯^Consult 19:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is evidence that this is not the same American Media then feel free to point it out again for me, the fact of his books being self-published and therefore subject to absolutely no fact-checking at all would be even more significant, so thank you for that.

Now, are you disputing the fact that Griffin advocates the view that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin? You have an uphill struggle there since he wrote an entire book stating just that.

Finally, please stop beating the dead horse of the in-vitro study. It does not matter that the study refuting laetrile was 30 years ago, the Declaration of Helsinki means that there will never be another unless compelling evidence arises to show that laetrile has a beneficial effect as claimed by its proponents, to offset the documented cyanide toxicity. The result you keep trumpeting does not do that. [140], [141] and [142] (updated Feb 2014) represent the current consensus view. The hierarchy of evidence in medical studies puts meta-analyses at the top and in-vitro studies at the bottom, and it does this for excellent reasons: the effect size has a habit of diminishing rapidly between initial studies and real-world patients, and most compounds do nto in any case make even as far as patient trials, because there is unacceptable toxicity or because the compound is not sufficiently bioavailable. Krebs only called laetrile a vitamin to get round drug legislation anyway. The debate on this study you keep promoting, is over: you lost. Move on. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

*Jiminy Cricket, Guy. Now you want me to do your research for you. You made the gaff, but I'll be nice and provide the link: [143] Entity #C1089129 American Media, Inc. G. Edward Griffin, agent. BTW, the corporation is no longer active. Also, to what books are you referring that are fact-checked? Most are just proof-read by copy editors, not fact-checked. Oh, wait - you must be talking about some of the academic publications out there - the ones that are fact checked by associates helping each other, all of whom share the same POV and are paid by the same entity who either instructed them or gave them permission to write the book or paper, the latter of which was probably funded by the person or group whose POV they're pushing. I seriously doubt fact-checking is done by a reliable and/or neutral 3rd party entity, which is why I have to laugh at the excuse that one source is more reliable than another because it's fact-checked. (Peer reviewed is a different story.) Career writers/publishers already know the little secret about fact checking. [pause while I Google it]. Guess what I found - and it's published by one of your trusted sources: [144] I have long since learned that a common reason for fact checking is to clear the material of anything that may be considered defamatory or that could result in civil litigation or worse. Fact checking is a byproduct of the latter and why professionals maintain E&O policies. I would think WP follows a similar order with regards to fact checking articles whereas their policies are probably more closely scrutinized (by legal) which is why I choose to strictly adhere to policy. Atsme☯^Consult 17:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "doing my research for me", it's helping me to correct a minor and predictable error given the similar names of the two entities (this is, at least nominally, a collaborative exercise). Nobody is immune from human error, the only rational response to an error being pointed out is to correct it, which I had done some hours before you made your above comment.

You are once again discussing the law of defamation. You've been advised before not to go there, per WP:NLT. I think you need tot read very carefully there. Safer to stick with WP:BLP which includes the potential real-world impacts without risking a chilling effect. As it happens I am rather well informed on the libel law of my country, since several of my friends were involved in the passage of the Defamation Act 2013, and in particular its defences for exactly this kind of discourse. I am not sure you're up to speed on this, and its impact on libel tourism.

Thank you for the link to Media Matters America, by the way - I had not thought to check their other commentaries even though I recently read The Fox Effect. A search yields some potentially useful material. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Next steps

OK, I have been reflecting on the state of the article, the AN review of the close, and RfC and its close. I re-read the article a few times this weekend, and I think it is pretty good, and gives the reader a reasonable sense of the guy. I don't think the current article makes any party working here perfectly happy... but what we all need to aim for, is "good enough", so that the article can remain stable and we can all think about other stuff. Let's leave the lead alone for a bit.

I want to ask everybody here, to step back and re-read the article, and propose what they would add to, or take away from, the body of the article - keeping in mind that there are strong views by other people here - please do not suggest things that will obviously be dead on arrival, but things that we could possibly agree on.

I've set this up with a section for proposals, so people have the chance to say what they would change clearly, and section(s) below for discussion of each proposal, so that this remains somewhat workable. Please comment in the discussion section, one discussion for each proposal. (if you open a discussion on someone's proposal, please make a new subsection for that proposal) I'll go first, have set up a subsection for anybody to comment on it. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposals

• I think it would be good to expand the Creature section a bit: to add:
  • a 2nd paragraph summarizing Griffin's key points and conclusion that the Fed should be abolished and the US should go to a gold/silver-based currency.
  • a 3rd paragraph on Griffin's adoption by the Tea Party and those who advocate investing in gold and silver. the current line about Ron Paul would be moved there. (I am hesitant on the Tea Party thing, as that will bring us under yet another arbcom decision, but I think it should be here)

That is really the only significant thing I see as lacking in the article. I wouldn't make any big changes otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

discussion of Jytdog proposal

no consensus to add Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I fear there is no reasonable basis to attach the Tea Party to him or he to the Tea Party. The only conceivable connection is "Jekyll Island" but that is an incredibly tenuous connection indeed - positing that a person who wrote a book fifteen years before a movement existed is connected to that movement because some members of that movement cite that book. Simply speaking at "Boston Tea Party 2010"[145] is a very weak link as his speech dealt with his published positions and not with a "political movement". An"interview" with him shows him not making any political stance on the "movement". Collect (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC) here is the source for the tea party connection - it was introduced above, somewhere. it says that the tea party adopted him, not vice versa. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC) So if the Tea Party "adopted" Ben Franklin, we should then link Franklin to the Tea Party? [146] cites Calvin Coolidge, Thomas Jefferson, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Ronald Reagan, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry. [147] cites Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Patrick Henry, James Madison and John Paul Jones. Being "adopted" by any groups does not make one actually affiliated with the group. In the 30s many people attended "Communist meetings" but as we learned - that did not make them "Communists" - right? Or ought we add "adopted by Communists in the 1930s" to all their biographies? I sure hope not. [148] Chip Berlet makes this comment about Griffin: author of "The Creature from Jekyll Island," a favorite of Birchers because it “exposes” the alleged secret conspiracy behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System. This crusty old conspiracy theory has been repeatedly debunked without the slightest claim that he was "affiliated" with the TPm. Berlet, who has been known to voice strong opinions on rare occasions, make no TPm connection to Griffin. Enough? The Tea Party liking your book does not make you aligned or connected with such a group. Collect (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Excuse me, but am I missing something here? Am I seeing POV regarding what appears to be admonishment of the Tea Party, or I have I misunderstood something? Why are we discussing political party affiliations in this manner? How is this NPOV? Please explain. Atsme☯Consult 16:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC) thanks collect. the content i was proposing would be about the book, not about Griffin. I think Tea Party adoption of the book is one of the reasons that justifies giving discussion of the book any weight in this article. but if others are opposed i am happy to drop the suggestion. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC) So if ISIS mentioned the book in a news release we could then add the BLP to any ISIS category? I fail to see why that would make sense. Collect (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC) not what i am saying, Collect. I am not interesting in debating. I made my proposal; you oppose it. Others are weighing in. We'll see where things stand in a while. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Your proposal should prove interesting considering how most of what you mentioned is irrelevant to this BLP and flies in the face of NPOV, but there is a chance I've misinterpreted your intentions. I'm looking forward to seeing how you intend to write the passages and source whatever passages are added. Once it's all done, I'll nominate it for GA and we'll go from there. Atsme☯Consult 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I don't know that there will be consensus for adding the content i proposed. we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, can you give an outline of the actual text you're proposing? Guy (Help!) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for asking! The proposal above is the outline. The actual 2nd and 3rd paragraphs would look something like this. According to the preface of the book, Griffin argues that Federal Reserve should be abolished because: "It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives. It is a cartel operating against the public interest. It is the supreme instrument of usury. It generates our most unfair tax. It encourages war. It destabilizes the economy. It is an instrument of totalitarianism." Griffin also argues that the Federal Reserve should be replaced with a currency backed by precious metals. Griffin's ideas about the Federal Reserve and precious metals have become widespread in Tea Party,and have been cited by Rand Paul (copy sentence and ref from existing text). His ideas have also been widely cited by brokers and investment firms specializing in Precious metal there you go.Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Out of all of that you have a Tea Party supporter liking the Jekyll book, a gold dealer liking it, and naught else. No. Not only insufficient to link him to the Tea Party (which would place this article under ArbCom sanctions, by the way) but no source even saying it is important to the TPm at all, nor anything saying he particularly associates himself in any way with the TPm. Last paragraph is "scratched at the post", I fear. Collect (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC) thanks Collect, your opposition is clear. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Asserting that it's widespread with teabaggers is a stretch. Paul has said much more on the subject, I believe, so may well be supportable independently. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Guy and Collect, what content, if any, do you think it would be reasonable to generate about Creature, based on [the CJR ref? We currently don't use it, and it is a good, neutral source in my view. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Your "second paragraph" as you referred to it looks fine from here. Barstow basically says nothing on point for a BLP -- he says that you "need to read the book" to understand what some of the people were saying, but that has no nexus to Griffin. Collect (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your thoughts Collect. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I basically agree. It is probably true but the sources that make the link are unreliable, as indeed are most sources that discuss the influence of Griffin. Mainstream sources basically ignore his ideas, for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC) ok, enough opposition that this proposal is dead. Thanks everybody for commenting. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Protocols

[149] does not appear at any reading to show anti-Semitism by Griffin:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which supposedly is the minutes of secret Zionist meetings in Basle, is merely a composite of material drawn from these three books. Furthermore, the language of the Protocols is not the language of conspirators. It is the language of propagandists. It is written, not in self-approving terms that would place the authors in a favorable light, but in such harsh terms as to arouse animosity on the part of the reader against the authors. For example, consider this statement: “We shall everywhere arouse ferment, struggle, and enmity—we shall unleash a world war—we shall bring the people to such a pass that they will voluntarily offer us world domination.” The conclusion is inescapable that phrases such as these are the skillful work of Okhrana propagandists seeking to turn public sentiment against the revolutionaries.

appears reasonably clearly stated.

It certainly is true that present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order (along with a great many non-political Zionists), but that does not prove that the Protocols are authentic

appears to use part of a sentence without the rest where it is clear he is disabusing a letter writer of his miscomprehension of the nugatory value of the "Protocols". It does not appear "anti-Semitic to me in context.

Cults etc. The Straight Scoop:[150] appears to mention Griffin once:

(Federal Reserve) ... a 'cartel operating against the public interest', 'is the supreme instrument of usury' -- to borrow a few choice phrases from G. Edward Griffin, author of 'The Creature From Jekyll Island'

'Jekyll Island, Georgia' carries the same sinister connotations that place names like 'Munich' came to have in the run-up to World War II and that 'Yalta' did in the McCarthy era.

Goldwag specifies that the secrecy was notable with the bankers meeting in a private railroad car. The ones who find it a "conspiracy of plutocrats" (more often than "conspiracy of Jews" by a mile) who agreed (actual fact per Goldwag) to "evolve and compile a scientific currency system for the United States, a system model that would embody all that was best in Europe" after the Panic of 1907. Not much in that book to hang one's hat on about Griffin specifically being a conspiracy theorist himself, in fact. And absolutely nothing in the entire book linking him to "anti-Semitism." He may be "antiplutocrat" however.

They are trying just to waste money to make America weaker. A strong nation is not a candidate to surrender its sovereignty, but a weak nation is.

Was not about the Jekyll Island meeting itself or the Fed - it was in relation to the "Trilateral Commission", the IMF etc. The current Greek government appears to subscribe to the belief that when you borrow money, the lenders will try to run your country <g>, and I find a number of non-conspiracy sources delving into secret agreements about the "too big to fail" decisions of the government. Griffin is not much more of a conspiracy peddler than MSNBC is on that. Hope this all helps. Collect (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You basically echo what I write above, leaving out (!) the essential quote:"There is no doubt that the Protocols accurately describe much of what is happening in our world today". Which is the hook upon which antisemites run with his work, and with which he is hung by those claiming he is or gives succor to antisemites. It says that. It is perhaps unfortunate, but there it is. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In which event it would be grossly inapt for us to term him "anti-Semitic," Cheers, Collect (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ATT is your friend. It is fair and true to say that he is accused of giving succour to antisemites (and by whom, and why). It clearly touches a nerve. I suspect Griffin regrets the words he used, since they are so obviously open to misinterpretation, as he would have it. The intersection between antisemitism and New World Order / Illuminati conspiracy theories is sufficiently strong that there is legitimate doubt there I would say, but we don't do original research. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are taking it out of context and misinterpreting what he said. Please stop cherry-picking one sentence at a time from entire lectures and books. See the following and read the entire article because it disputes your claim: Collectivists are our enemy, no one else. Collectivists come in all sizes, colors, religions, and nationalities. They belong to different groups and groups within groups. Some are Jews, some are Christians, some are Blacks, some are Orientals, some are Caucasians, some are Leninists, and some are Fabians. But they are all determined to create a world order based on the model of collectivism. If they succeed, we will be but surfs in a high-tech feudalism with them as our lords and masters. We must not let them succeed. [151] Atsme☯^Consult 03:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not doing that at all. We have evidence that people interpret his statements in that way, and Griffin says that they are taking it out of context. Me, I don't really have a view on whether it's fair to call him an antisemite just because he promotes a bunch of conspiracy theories commonly asserted by antisemites. It's likely that his motivation is different from theirs. On the other hand, when you're cited as an authority on the Stormfront website, you probably ought to think long and hard about how your words might be interpreted. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(off topic) he really did write "surfs", didn't he. well we all make typos. but that's a pretty funny one in such a heavy passage. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad your spill chucker works. <g> Collect (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(further on the theme) spill chucker! Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom decisions that are at play: decision that is primary is on pseudoscience

I was curious and checked; just wanted to share my work.

• 2014 Aug 5. Srich first put the notice at the top of the Talk page citing the Austrian economics decision, noting that "Reason: Griffin's book on the Federal Reserve takes an Austrian Economics view of the topic"
• 2014 Dec 15. Callanecc changed it to BLP as the primary ruling, and added PSEUDO as an additional secondary ruling. Kept the austrian economics as an additional secondary. Edit note read: "Changing to BLP as they unequivocally cover the whole article (also added note re Austrian economics and ARBPSUEDO sanctions))"
• 2014 Dec 29. Callanecc changed it to make PSEUDO primary, BLP secondary, kept austrian economics as secondary. edit note said: "Change to psuedo DS as that's what the disagreement relates to"

The PSEUDO decision applies to: "pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted."

So just FYI Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. One question - where does BLP fit into the mix considering we are editing a BLP, and it is my understanding that BLP policy (and sanctions) take priority over all of the above? Atsme☯^Consult 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the actual policies, yes. Certain questionable interpretations of policy, probably not. Sanctions, no, except that removing real BLP violations should not be subject to sanctions. However, even calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is probably not a BLP violation; it might be undue weight, but it is adequately sourced. It's only a BLP violation if sources do not exist; not just because they don't presently appear in the article, itself. Similarly, using his statement that he does not promote Laetrile use is a BLP violation, as a controversial statement, not only not from reliable sources (other than his own words), but contradicted by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that as a WP:NPOV violation, not a WP:BLP violation. I think BLP violations refer to unsourced negative statements. An unsourced statement that he is kind to dogs would not violate BLP, IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

But we don't know what he would consider negative and positive. There can be a tendency to impute a view based our own perspectives. Describing someone as "xenophobic" is not negative if the person really does hate/fear foreigners; if we said that such a person was "cosmopolitan", this would (particularly if unsourced) be a BLP violation even if it sounded positive to us. The notion that we should worry about "negative" statements is a pretty slippery part of BLP, and I think we should focus more on making sure things are sourced properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all content " whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable", Second Quantization (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, and says that all unsourced material can be removed from biographies. As a simple-minded fellow I interpret a violation of WP:BLP as being a thing which, if done persistently, would result in sanctions over and above those for simply edit warring. Edit warriors get cool-off blocks, zealous promoters of negative unsourced material in biographies get blocked until they persuade people they are not going to carry on doing it. But I freely admit that in the All New Process-Driven Wikipedia I could very well be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

oh don't be disheartened, Guy. This article is especially difficult. fwiw in my COIN work I come across promotional BLP violations all the time - eg Marc Bell (entrepreneur). There are both negative and positive POV-pushers in BLPs Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

the focus of BLP is "contentious material" - which it defines as material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" and that is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". unsourced hagiography is as much a violation as is unsourced negative information.Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone reading this BLP would call it a "hagiography" by any means, but YMMV. Collect (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One revert per seven days imposed on this article

Bumping thread. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have imposed a one revert per seven days restriction on this article as an arbitration enforcement action for one month in the hope that it will at least slow down edit wars. I will also note that tag team edit warring is disruptive and may result in the editors involved being further restricted (such as with 0RR or an article ban). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc thank you for imposing DS. Since you have been overwatching this article for a while and have now stepped in to impose DS (thank you for that), you may be the most appropriate person to review and close the 3RR case I opened last night, which is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Atsme_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have withdrawn that 3RR case and have posted a link to it at the AE opened by Atsme against Steeletrap here Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I think some kind of warning is needed for editors who won't see your message here. I don't know how such things are done, but it seems likely that new editors will come to the article and unknowingly violate this restriction. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a large edit notice on the article which is designed so that you need to scroll past it to be able to edit the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My mistake. I've never edited the article, just a spectator here due to the fringe Jeckyll Island stuff. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

quick note

I am unwatching this article again. I don't have the bandwidth for this. Good luck all. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)