The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept February 23, 2008 Articles for deletion Deleted March 7, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept April 23, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I was asked by email to opine about this. I have no opinion about any aspect of the biography but I do think that the lead must be changed.

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist,[1][2][3][4][5] filmmaker, and author.

See my Timbo's Rules: Rule 14. Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. (March 2012)

One might describe him as an "author and filmmaker" and then in the body observe (with footnotes) that many of his ideas are regarded as conspiracy theories, etc. — but phrasing like this in the lead is definitely out of bounds as POV.

My two cents. Signing off. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Carrite - the other case where you get piles of refs is where something is highly contested despite solid sourcing, and the only way to address the objections is to pile up references. More of a product of difficult process and disagreements among editors than the content per se. No? Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend viewing the following presentation (approx 8 min in) regarding BLPs - [1] Happy New Year everyone!! Atsme☯^Consult 21:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Alex Jones, whose profession really is "conspiracy theorist", Griffin is merely known for conspiracy theories. I'm not sure how that should be stated in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, I won't argue with you there, and I'll throw in Jesse Ventura on the same level. Griffin has been referred to as.... Atsme☯^Consult 21:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Jesse Ventura, who actually hosts a TV Series titled Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura doesn't even mention that he is a conspiracy theorist in the lede - James George Janos (born July 15, 1951), better known by his stage name, Jesse Ventura, is an American politician, actor, author, naval veteran, and former professional wrestler who served as the 38th Governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003. Yet, G. Edward Griffin who is most often referred to as a distinguished film producer, author, editor and political lecturer. is contentiously labeled a conspiracy theorist. [2] Makes no sense. Atsme☯^Consult 13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse is known for something other than his conspiracy theories, but I can see your point. On the other hand, neither Ventura nor Griffin should ever be refered to as "distinguished". I'd like to see your reference for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton once referred to the "Vast right-wing conspiracy". Do we describe her as a conspiracy theorist? As the term is derogatory, it would be disruptive (and pure POV) to do so. Let's adhere to NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we have five sources in the lead alone for "conspiracy theorist" and several more contextual ones (his view of the Fed as a "cartel" and "instrument of totalitarianism", and his views on the "suppression" of laetrile as follows: "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health"....are conspiracy theories themselves. We call a duck a duck in WP. It does not violate NPOV. The comparison to Clinton is a strawman and not helpful; Clinton has not built her career as a "crusader rabbit" against various conspiracies. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have 5 sources that are stating their opinion about Griffin. WP should not be the vehicle for their opinions. But I'll give you another example – Jeremiah Wright. Quoting from the article: "Writing for The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates characterized Wright's remarks as "crude conspiratorial antisemitism."" And in Jeremiah Wright controversy we see him quoted with "The government lied about Pearl Harbor too. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie." Should he be described as a "conspiracy theorist"? Good grief, using the term in the lede, much less in the infobox, is just wrong. It is a BLP violation that should be changed immediately, without further discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S Rich, we are just rehashing stuff. Above, I suggested that we frame an RfC and you didn't respond. Please let me know what kind of DR process you are interested in us pursuing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Srich. It is defamatory and a violation of BLP policy. His points about Hilary Clinton and Jeremiah Wright (Which by the way, are not "re-hashing") are spot on. Unless a "conspiracy theorist" characterization is SELF-applied, then it does NOT belong in the lead paragraph or in the infobox. TheSwitzerdude (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The desires to put CT in the lede/info box or simply in the article text may be a rehash of the arguments, but the examples of Jones, Ventura, Clinton, and Wright are new and illustrative. (Let's see what discussion ensues.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the examples you bring are parallel to Griffith. None of them have made a career as a "crusader rabbit" against various conspiracies (with the exception of Ventura, who has certainly ventured there in his post-governor life). Conspiracy theorist is Griffith's main bid for notability. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend White certainly made a career as a "crusader". Here is an opinion piece from The American Spectator: "The Gospel According to Wright". If we pick up 4 more sources that describe him as a duck (or rabbit), are we justified in describing him as a conspiracy theorist in the lede? If not, then why not? "Governments lie" sounds very duckish to me. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And considering that 2 of your 5 sources are from Slate.com, here is an interesting one about Wright: "The AIDS Conspiracy Handbook". – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC) And here is another one: [3]. By Christopher Hitchens no less. So we now have 3 sources that describe Wright as a conspiracy theorist. Go ahead, I'll put Wright on my watchlist and await your edit to describe him as a duck in the lede and infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) As I watch the Rose Parade, I'm Googling for more sources about Wright being a conspiracy theorist. Number 4 is from Townhall.com when it was owned by Heritage Foundation. Do I need to post the link? Do I need to come up with more? No, I think the point is well illustrated – when we have a contentious, POV-based opinion about someone we do not dress it up as a "fact" and put it in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jones and Griffin, at least, are not called anything else than conspiracy theorists in reliable sources. I'm not sure about White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite correct. Griffin is also known for his films (especially the Noah's Ark work), for promotion of laetrile, and (I believe) his promotion of gold & silver as investments. The opinion sources that "know him" as CT are grinding their axes. Also, we only have 4 sources because the McLeod citation in Salon.com is a reprint of his Pranksters book (and that description is problematic). In Koerner's blog we see a parenthetical mention of Griffin. I have little objection to most of the lede (we do need to cull the redundant info about laetrile/amygdalin). I suggest we use the brief description used by London: "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker". But using CT as the first term in the opening sentence and in the infobox as an "occupation" is improper. Again, to compare, there is much more RS available to describe White as an antisemitic-AIDS-denying-CT. But adding CT/AIDS denier to White's lede sentence or infobox would be undue as well. – S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: 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. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Arthur Rubin. A few examples: "With distinguished speakers including G. Edward Griffin...", [4], and "Mr. Griffin is a distinguished film producer, author, editor and political lecturer." [5], and "American scholar G. Edward Griffin wrote, 'To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.'" [6]. Hopefully that's enough to get the point across. And Jytdog - his name is Griffin, not Griffith. You must be thinking of Andy from the town of Mayberry.

It was quite refreshing to read the comments by Carrite, TheSwitzerdude (talk), and Srich32977. Now if we can just get past the recurring obstacles of WP:SQS and WP:OWN demonstrated by some who haven't even contributed one sentence of prose to improve/expand the article. Why expend so much energy in a starter article? Perhaps because it is much easier to maintain a WP:Coatrack whereas improving/expanding threatens POV. Isn't that similar behavior to what we'd see if there was an underlying motive, or WP:COI? The WP:UNDUE aspects along with Griffin's book World Without Cancer have taken on a life of their own. The focus is continuously diverted away from what is best for the BLP to what is best for....what, exactly? There has been far too much disruption over the minor policy compliant changes that have been proposed. If we can't move forward with improvements/expansion, we should skip the RfC because of the sensitivity of the BLP and Pseudoscience sanctions on this article, and go straight to a higher level of DR where we have a better shot at neutral eyes seeing it that are also trained in BLP matters. Atsme☯^Consult 22:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to have meaningful discussions with you when you take the view that only you and others who agree with you are "policy compliant" and "neutral". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept their view as being policy compliant and neutral because I respect their judgement as Master editors. Carrite has collaborated on countless articles (including over 500 BLPs political biographies), and Srich32977 is also a Master editor (with over 78,000 edits). Together they dwarf the experience and edit counts of all of us combined. I have chosen to learn from editors like them, and I feel fortunate to be able to collaborate with them. Doing so has improved my work as an editor on WP, even though I have enjoyed a very successful career as an accomplished publisher/writer/producer in the real world. We are never beyond learning, especially when we venture into disciplines with learning curves like the ones WP presents. Not every editor sets their sites on creating and/or collaborating on DYK articles, GAs and FAs. I happen to be one of those editors. You apparently have chosen a different path. As a result, we have come to a crossroad where we disagree. It's nothing more - nothing less. Again, I consult you to spend some time watching the 2009 Wiki conference keynote by Newyorkbrad who focused on BLPs. [7]. FF to 9:00 minutes in. It's about an hour long, but quite enlightening, especially for those who find it difficult to see beyond their own perspectives and POV. Atsme☯^Consult 23:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite naturally think that my perspective here is policy compliant and neutral. I could hardly think otherwise, could I? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I rather doubt I've worked on even 50 BLPs — I usually do the biographies of dead people because they don't wiggle as much. Regardless, getting "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead seems extremely basic and obvious regardless what one thinks about the subject's ideas. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite you haven't provided a rationale. In my view, the description is very well sourced, and there are plenty of other BLPs described as such in the lead (per this search. Why do you say this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The search results provide leads, but how many of the articles have CT as the first descriptive in the lede? (BTW, using quotes on the search term culls the results to 426.) Also, the results are very much WP:OSE. That said, what say you all to my proposed compromise? Can we put in an edit request and/or removal of page protection? – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are the guy citing other articles. and while precedent is useful it is not a determiner (which is what OSE is about). The precedents make it clear that it is not out of bounds to use it in the lead. The question for us here, is whether there is sourcing for it. The sourcing is there to see, and i would appreciate it, if you would actually address the sources. As for your compromise, I have already said I am fine with "conspiracy theorist" coming out of the infobox. Nobody has objected to that, so an edit request to do that seems reasonable to me. Too bad that Carrite provided no reasoning; that just means his view will be discounted when consensus is reckoned. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2)

A few notes to indicate that none of you accurately understand the relevant policies.

1. The category requires more justification than an unadorned description.
2. If a single reliable source explicitly states that he is a "conspiracy theorist", we can say it. (I haven't checked.)
3. It is true that everything he is known for is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, or pseudohistory. However, we can't say that unless a reliable source explicitly says that, which I doubt.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have parsed the 5 sources: McLeod is duplicated, so that leaves 4; I commented on McLeod above, so he is not that strong; the other Salon.com source is partisan, as is Media Matters. That leaves London. Arthur, I don't object to calling him a CT in the lede paragraphs; rather, I am urging that we use the simple, unadorned London description in the first sentence. And I urge that CT be used as "known for" in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of biographies of notable people that I may personally think are nuts, kooks, cranks, charlatans, fanatics and even conspiracy theorists, based on what the reliable sources say about them. Of course, BLP policy does not require that we describe them in glowing terms, as if they are likely to win Nobel Prizes in 2015. On the other hand, banging them over the head with a sledgehammer in the opening sentences of their biography is unwise and may well be counterproductive. Editorial judgement calls for some subtlety and restraint. Conspiracy theorist is not a job title. An article written with the tact and restraint that BLP and NPOV asks of us is likely to be much more effective and persuasive than something that reads like a "hit piece" from sentence #1. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977 What exactly are you proposing on the lead? I am interested in hearing - sounds like we might have something there. (and btw, I am fine with your suggestion about the infobox - that's great) Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[From the section above]: The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: 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. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

sources for 'conspiracy theorist'

Those objecting to the "conspiracy theorist" label don't seem to be dealing with the sources in our article. Here they are.

• ref 1 Pranksters. see ref 4 below.
• Ref 2 [8]: Quote: "On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck presented author G. Edward Griffin as a credible authority on the Federal Reserve. But Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories, including the notions that HIV does not exist and that cancer is a dietary deficiency that can be cured with "an essential food compound."" followed by a long list of examples.
• ref 3 [9] Quote: "Watch his conversation with noted conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin."
• ref 4 [10] (note, this is an exerpt from Prankster and is redudant to ref 1) Quote: "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. " (NB: the book is all about conspiracy theorists. when the author says "standard issue". he clearly means standard issue conspiracy theories)
• ref 5: [11] Quote: "Conspiracy-theorist G. Edward Griffin also asserts that doctors aren’t taught about “natural cures” or nutrition in medical school."
• ref 8 is from Kenn Thomas's magazine Steamshovel Press, which is a magazine devoted to conspiracy theories and parapolitics. The sourced content is "He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism"

• Other sources 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.
  • [12]] 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, teh New World Order, and Many, Many More".
  • and griffin himself talks about the "conspiracy theory" he is advocating in his own book here

• i cannot see how folks are saying that Griffin should not be called a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead. hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jytdog, I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand a policy that is stated unambiguously, and that provides examples for further clarification. Arthur Rubin, I agree with (1) and (3) regarding relevant policy, but (2) needs to be qualified. We can say so-and-so considers him a conspiracy theorist, or so-and-so referred to him as a conspiracy theorist, or he is considered by many to be a conspiracy theorist. We cannot/must not make it a statement of fact that he is a conspiracy theorist because it is still an opinion. Griffin does not consider himself a conspiracy theorist, nor did he choose it as his occupation. See WP:NPOV (my bold) which is one of the three core content policies in a BLP: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." A BLP must be handled with even more care, so if we say so-and-so referred to him as, we need to have several high quality reliable sources that states it, and not just as trivial mention. Atsme☯^Consult 04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see people arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned in some form in the lead. I see people arguing that it is a mistake to hammer it so aggressively in the opening sentences, in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[From the section above]: The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: 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. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

AGREE with S. Rich. BLPs are supposed to be NPOV, dispassionate in tone, verifiable, no OR, no undue weight, balanced, no synth. The 3 core content policies must be followed. The sources Jytdog referenced above are not even close to RS. Another problem is "trivial mention" which should not even be considered for inclusion in a BLP. #2 ref is so trivial it is in parentheses. Then there is the problem of WP:SYNTH. References #1, #3, #4, #5 are partisan, and totally unacceptable. #8 is a joke, and shameful to even include it. These sources are a slap in the face to BLP policy. Atsme☯^Consult 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, if you will agree I will edit the first line as per my suggestion. London will be the reference for it. The infobox "known for" will contain the remaining 3 refs (McLeod's being a duplicate). Then I'll redo the redundant laetrile description. Say yes and I will post the edit request for PP removal. (Or Arthur can remove the PP.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977 - please be a little more specific regarding what you are proposing. When rereading the above, I saw where you agreed to keeping CT in the infobox, and want to include an "unadorned" what in the lede?? Atsme (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• first sentence: "GEG (dob) is an American author, lecturer, and filmaker.^[London]"
• Infobox 'Occupation': "Author, lecturer, and filmaker"
• Infobox 'Known for': "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion^{[the other 3 refs now in the lede first sentence]}"
• Jeez, trust me on this. You can object to my edits after they are done. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to include the statement that he is a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can include that his critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, but it is not Wikipedia's position that he IS one. He is an author who writes about controversial subjects, and some have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist. I included the exact terminology from policy above. Atsme☯^Consult 06:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence will remain the same. "He is perhaps best known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System." And he will remain in the CT category. Double jeez, I'm stepping away from this till tomorrow, which is, after all another day. – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My computer's Internet connection is flakey, so I cannot access my guideline list, but, for a person's article to be in a category, the fact that he is in the category must be in the article and, if controversial, sourced. Hence the article must state that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a "trivial mention" is acceptable for a fact, such as that he is a conspiracy theorist. It's difficult for me to check references on such a small screen, so I have not confirmed that any references state that he is a conspiracy theorist. I suppose the reference stating that he supports conspiracy theories would be adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin i listed the sources at the top of this subsection and provided the relevant quotes there - no need to even click off this page. Jytdog (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please find a good computer connection Arthur because what you just stated will change the face of BLPs all over WP. Editors who are well-qualified in writing BLPs also need to be made aware, including Newyorkbrad who gave a keynote address on this subject, and Carrite who already posted here. The numbers of editors who have weighed in so far also dispute what you're saying. Such a bold statement needs verification because it does does not represent strict adherence to any of the policy I quoted above, including WP BLP policy, FRINGEBLP, NPOV, VERIFIABILITY, RS, and SYNTH. It will also make a huge difference in the conspiracy theorist "statement of fact" in WP's voice on hundreds of other BLPs, including the ones Srich32977 stated above and many, many more. Also, please quote the policy wherein it states "trivial mention" that uses pejorative terminology is acceptable as fact to repeat in WP's voice. Atsme☯^Consult 13:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Conspiracy theories category states: this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. For example, the article Area 51 appears under Category:Conspiracy theories (C:CT), so anyone who actively defends conspiracy theories mentioned in that article would be classified here as a Conspiracy theorist. Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. G. Edward Griffin does not fit this profile, therefore his BLP should not be listed in the Category. It doesn't appear that compromise is proving helpful. A rough consensus shows there are more against the statement of fact, he IS a conspiracy theorists, and more who agree that it should be stated as the opinion it is...he HAS BEEN REFERRED TO as a conspiracy theorist. Atsme☯^Consult 13:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, your perspective on this issue is not in line with policy. The sources above document the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist. There is no source for the notion that various people "believe" he is a conspiracy theorist, or that it is someone's "opinion" that he is a conspiracy theorist. If those words (believe, opinion) are in a reliable source of some sort, you are invited to produce those sources. If not, you would run afoul of core policies such as WP:V if you used that language. This would be highly inappropriate on a BLP. You might want to leave these issues to more neutral editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, I have asked you politely to please refrain from making spurious comments about me on my TP, and that includes everywhere else, too. Your innuendo that I am not a neutral editor are unfounded as are your requests for me to recuse myself for no other reason than my ability to cite policy that disputes your claims. If you disagree with the policy I've cited, then please cite the policy that disputes what I've said. Atsme☯^Consult 14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following are quotes from the relative policies that confirm why contentious material cannot be written as a statement of fact per BLP, including why Griffin should not be categorized as a Conspiracy theorist according to Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Perhaps we can find a compromise that more closely adheres to BLP policy.

• WP:Trivial mentions The guideline states that these sources need to provide "significant coverage" of the topic, and this coverage must consist of more than a "trivial mention". The guideline has long stated that a one sentence mention is plainly trivial. I confer that a parenthetical comment in an article that is not in anyway related to the BLP is trivial mention, does not even meet the least of the notability requirements, and does not belong in a BLP. Several of the named references are not RS according to BLP policy and its requirements to follow the 3 core content policies.
• Wikipedia:Categorization of people Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes:
• standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality
• the reason(s) for the person's notability, a.k.a. the characteristics the person is best known for.
• For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right and/or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly, none of the celebrities commercializing a fragrance are listed in the perfumers category: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.

Categorize by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article: The most common mistake of this type is adding an article to Category:Biography. That category may legitimately contain articles about biographical films or biographical books, but should not contain articles about individual people. The article is a biography; the person is not.

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable_sources also in WP:Verifiability (shortcut WP:QS) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Atsme☯^Consult 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular opinion on this question, but note the above wall of text refers to "BLP policy", and then starts with a user essay which is in fact about establishing notability in relation to WP:GNG, so is not in truth relevant to the question at hand. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards "trivial mention": A trivial mention may notice support notability, but can support a fact; in this case, that he supports conspiracy theories. The sources need not explicitly state that he is a "conspiracy theorist", but that he supports (and, in fact, invented one) conspiracy theories.

In regard being an experienced editor, I recently got my 100,000 edit badge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Arthur! What a wonderful accomplishment and an excellent way to start off the New Year.

I do hope the editors here know that it is not my intention or desire to be argumentative but because this issue involves a BLP, and the high sensitivity of the imposed sanctions, I feel obligated to adhere strictly to policy, and believe doing so should be the basis on which we proceed. Arthur, per your statement above, "It is true that everything he is known for is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, or pseudohistory. However, we can't say that unless a reliable source explicitly says that, which I doubt." While I don't agree 100% with the pejorative terminology, I do agree that critics have used it to express their opinions about Griffin which is unequivocally POV and unreliably sourced. Opinions are not "fact", regardless of whether or not such opinions made Griffin notable. A fact is not disputed, but here we are now in a dispute over what some are trying to portray as facts. Griffin himself has also disputed the contentious labels and pejorative terms as have many others. I provided the RS necessary to validate my position. If I may please remind editors of the following:

• Wikipedia:Describing points of view which is to be used as a supplement to the WP:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTOPINION pages, and to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between the pages. At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.

In Thought du Jour Harold Geneen has stated: The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions.

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

I believe my position is mirrored above as well as in the comments of other editors, some of whom have substantial experience writing biographies - myself included, only in the real world during a 35+ year career as a publisher, writer, producer. I have provided more than enough validation to confirm such a position while the validation that opposes it has been weak at best. Griffin should not remain a WP:COATRACK, and the BLP violations which have been pointed out repeatedly by several editors must be corrected. Atsme☯^Consult 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 00:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedents

not citing these as binding us (not doing WP:OSE - we have to make our own decision based on sources relevant to our subject), only to show that other articles about conspiracy theorists actually call them that in the first line of the lead (these are just from the 1st 20 results in an advanced search for "conspiracy theorist" (without quotes even) (here):

• John Todd (conspiracy theorist)
• Alex Jones (radio host)
• Bart Sibrel
• Mark Dice
• James H. Fetzer
• Michael Collins Piper (found by Srich going through the category of conspiracy theorists)

I can find more if anybody likes.... not hard to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a defamatory categorization of this BLP. Did you even bother to check the sources in the articles you listed above? I consult you to spend less time hunting spurious references and more time reading the policy quotes above which some have contentiously referred to as a "wall of text". They explain why you cannot label Griffin a conspiracy theorist as a statement of fact. Spend your time finding RS to validate your position as was previously suggested to you. RS should state matter-of-factly that he is a conspiracy theorist, and such sources should not include the very unreliable sources you already provided, including opinion pieces, trivial mention, and/or partisan sources. The fact that you lumped Griffin into the same category with the names you mentioned above is all the more reason to exclude the Conspiracy theorist category on this BLP and speedily delete it as a statement of fact per Srich's proposal, particularly because of its defamatory nature. Atsme☯^Consult 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources amply substantiate it as a fact. What they do not do is to verify that he is "considered" or "referred to" as a conspiracy theorist. I made this latter point to you above; it's unfortunate and tendentious that you have ignored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more I can say to convince those of you who support a very contentious POV that what you are attempting to do to this BLP is in direct conflict with policy. Editors who are far more experinced than I have also tried to show you the correct way. The rough consensus is that the "statement of fact" you support is a BLP violation, but it appears you simply WP:DONTGETIT. I have asked Callanecc for advice regarding the next plausible step of DR to expedite review and hopefully removal of the violations, and put an end to this very frustrating debate. The sensitivity of a BLP and the sanctions in place seem to require a review by neutral eyes that are also notably experienced with BLP matters. Atsme☯^Consult 18:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources make it clear that he supports, and probably invented, his Federal Reserve conspiracy theory. That should be adequate for the category, and for it to be explicitly mentioned in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, please refer to Category: Conspiracy theorists which I previously stated above: Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. The Federal Reserve is not in the list of Conspiracy theories which is required in order to list the BLP. Further, several sections in the BLP are being disputed because of poor sourcing, pejorative terminology and the like. Don't you think it would be best to wait until those issues are resolved first? Thank you for your collaboration. Atsme☯^Consult 01:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy concerns

I have noticed that commentaries regarding WP:BLP policy, have not been properly addressed. Why? In my read of the policies, it's a violation to describe Griffin as a conspiracy theorist in WP voice. The contentious label "conspiracy theorist" in this BLP can not be used as a statement of fact when such terminology is always a matter of opinion. I agree with Carrite, Atsme, S. Rich, TheSwitzerdude, and Cullen that the correct use of the term would be "Griffin has been referred to as..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that our existing sources are adequate to establish 7

unequivocally that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist; however it is absolutely false that no such source could exist, even if Griffin doesn't agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close requested

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, [17] [18]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• [19] 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.
• [20] 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.
• [21] 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.
• [22] Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
• [23] 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.
• [24], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
• [25], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
• [26] 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.
• [27] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [28] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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: [29], 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. [30] [31] [32] Atsme☯^Consult 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1] 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.^[2] 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."^[3] 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."^[4]

• 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.^[5] 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.^[6] 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.

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

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

• Needed changes:

1. Sentence about CT should go to the end of the first paragraph. (Avoids UNDUE.)
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. No commas before & after Creature & World Without Cancer book mentions
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. Omit the "why" he obtained the CFP ("an education he sought...")
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. He was an assistant station director, not managing a radio station.
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. 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.)
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. Say "After college he served in the US Army from 1954 to 1956, and was discharged as a sergeant." (Less flowery.)
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. Convert "pursued a career writing" to "began writing and producing..." (Less flowery.)
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. Remove "inspired by friend" stuff. (Less flowery.)
2. 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.
3. 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.
   ‹ The template below (Deleted template) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

✅

1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

((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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [64] [65] [66] [67], [68] [69] [70] 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)[reply]

• 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. [71],

(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 [72],

(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. [73],

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

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)[reply]

Yes, Arthur - more research, more comparative studies and evaluations - you can actually turn the pages and read his book at this link: [74] Atsme☯^Consult 06:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(I just want to note here that I agree with [75]. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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. [76] ...the laetrile controversy as a scientific dispute,; [77] ...of the laetrile controversy avoided espousing the orthodox cause. [78] Chapter 14 - Quasi Libertarianism and the Laetrile Controversy (page 343). [79] Vitamin B17 / Laetrile is probably one of the most controversial medical topics in the last 30 years. [80] newspaper headline [81] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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.[82] 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. [83] 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”. [84] Atsme☯^Consult 01:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Arthur, why the concern now and not when you and other editors were editing this BLP in 2011? [85], [86], [87] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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. [88]. Here's another RS--"Emerging evidence indicates that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease involving disturbances in energy production through respiration and fermentation." [89], and yet another- Cancer as A Metabolic Disease: [90]. 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)[reply]

• Support - Cancer clearly involves some degree of metabolic dysfunction [91] -A1candidate 11:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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.[92] 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [93] And there's more you might find enlightening...

• [94] Yikes!
• [95] The Wikipedia editor lawsuit includes 31 different entries made on Barry’s Wikipedia page that he considers erroneous and “defamatory.”
• [96] Hopefully Wales has learned by now.
• [97] This editor was lucky the Foundation stepped in.
• [98]The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact.
• [99] More on British defamation law
• [100] 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. [101] Even with the FDA [102]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]