Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 1

Ed Griffin Is One of the Most Intelligent People I've Ever Read
I've been President of three companies in Corporate America and have overseen annual revenues in the millions of dollars. And one of the companies had annual sales of over 30 million dollars. I've found Ed's articles, audio CDs, and DVDs to contain outstanding information that many Americans would want to know about. At first glance the information may seem surprising, but upon deeper inspection I've found the information he provides to be extremely sound. His book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" should be read by every American as it tells us of the shocking ways that our entire banking and financial system operate, and if Americans really knew the truth about this they just wouldn't stand for it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim367 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissenters are treated as Whistleblowers
I have read most of the post concerning G. Edward Griffin. If someone wants to discount a credible source, all they have to do is denounce that source as a "conspiracy theorist." Most of these naysayers have gone to the web and look at other contrary sources to discredit Mr. Griffin. I have know him and his work for many years and he has demonstrated tremendous patriotism to alert the American people and the world-at-large to serious threat the Federal Reserve is to our monetary prosperity in his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. If you go to his website you will find that he references many sources when he illuminates the dark forces working against the U.S. Constitution and the American Way of Life. I would challenge all of the naysayers to get off your duffs and go beyond all of the contradictory information on the web and look at the original sources. If you do, you will be surprised at Mr. Griffin's accurate reporting. You may hate the message but don't have the messenger. My family and friends get valuable news and information from Mr. Griffin and his sources that we have not been able to find elsewhere. Mr. Griffin is not a conspiracy theorist...He is a patriot who reports what the mainstream media, the government, and the "powers that be" want you to know. Wake up America! Our freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution are being taken away from us by Presidential Executive Orders, International Trade Agreements, and Congressional legislation written by lobbyists and industry barons. User: Mbeing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbeing (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV? No
This page definitely reads as though Griffin himself wrote it. He is notable alright, but not for what he thinks. Of those 10 books he wrote, check how many were self-published (i.e. by the "foundation" he set up for the purpose). Self-publishing is for people who cannot persuade anyone else to print up their nonsense. Given the generally low quality of literature today, how bad must something be if NO ONE will publish it?

Griffin is notable as a fraud (e.g. laetrile/"vitamin" B-17 fake cancer "cure") and as a conspiracy theorist par excellence, closely tied to the founder of the John Birch Society. Yet there is nothing remotely hinting at his controversial reputation in this piece.

Ain't neutral. Marianc 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MarianContrarian

and p.s.
The "Telly" awards: you pay to enter and the "awards" make money by selling you silver-plated statuettes. From the lengthy list of "winners" it would appear that as long as you pay, you win. http://www.tellyawards.com/winners/

Marianc 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MarianC

Npov?
This page smells like it was written by someone related to G. Edward Griffin. My searches show that he is a conspiracy theorist, creationist and a quack as opposed to the stellar image that this page paints. I would like to mark it with NPOV but do not know how. I will update it when I find time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.170.231 (talk • contribs).


 * Your searches come up with that because he writes about topics thought to be conspiracy related, there is no conspiracy theory in reality, his book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" is EXTREMELY well sourced and IS very notable. He did actually choose to self-publish, he didn't want publishers screwing with his books.

Facts: Edward Griffin is Edward Griffin
A simple google search shows that Edward Griffin is in fact exactly who he is and the author of this information about Griffin appears to be correct. The author is merely stating that Edward Griffin has researched the world banks and other topics and formed his own opinion about it, which of course is who Edward Griffen really is. Writing the actual facts of who Edward Griffin is and what he has writing about is not an opinion, but calling him a conspiracy theorist, creationist and a quack is. If you had presented real facts that where obviously different from that of the author of Mr. Griffins biography maybe you would have a case for disagreeing and disputing the authenticity of this Wikipedia biography, but you have failed to do that and have resorted to name calling which is not a fact or the biography of Edward Griffin. In the conclusion of your argument you sum it up with "I will update it when I find time" when you are arguing a point which should be based on facts please post the facts not hear say and ill get back to this later, it really gives your discussion no credibility at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xzula (talk • contribs).

You are right. I should have simply included the link to Vitamin B17 rather than this rant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.170.231 (talk • contribs).


 * Ummm, for what it's worth, calling Mr. Griffin a "conspiracy theorist" may or may not be an opinion -- but in any case according to the material in the Wikipedia article on Griffin himself, that label could be accurate. According to the main Griffin article, he has even produced at least one book or video with "conspiracy" in the title. People who propound conspiracy theories are conspiracy theorists. Maybe the Griffin article is not accurate and maybe Mr. Griffin doesn't really push those conspiracy theories -- I don't know. But it would be illogical to say someone has published books on such and such a conspiracy theory and then say, "but he's not a conspiracy theorist."


 * For example, I have a "theory" that certain people involved in the Watergate scandal were engaged in a "conspiracy." By definition, that makes me a "conspiracy theorist" on that particular point. (I can't put my finger on the data right now, but I seem to recall that some people were actually convicted of criminal conspiracy in the Watergate case, by the way, and served jail time for it.)


 * Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" may or may not have negative connotations -- and the person using that term may or may not intend something pejorative or derogatory. However, it just won't do for Wikipedia to state in one place that someone is pushing a conspiracy theory, and at the same time to deny the label of "conspiracy theorist" to that person in another place merely because the term happens to carry negative connotations. By the way, if we're thinking about neutral point of view, NPOV would not require that we not label someone a conspiracy theorist if that person actually is one. It's like saying you can't call a convicted felon a "convicted felon" because that term has negative connotations.


 * Again, I don't know anything about Mr. Griffin or his writings, other than what I've seen here in Wikipedia. So I don't know for a fact whether the label is or is not accurate if applied to him. Yours, Famspear 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get why he is called a, "conspiracy theorist." I mean, pointing out that bankers are greedy and power hungry isn't exactly, "grassy knoll" material.  I posted more accurate descriptions of things here in wikipedia only to have them removed because they were supposedly bogus or biased, when I had thought I was just adding in an objective angle to the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arische (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

In Edward Griffin's own words about being called a conspiracy theorist by those who do not have facts and simply resort to emotional loaded words to hide their own insecurity about truth:
 * 'There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us.' The joyous one (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elboertjie (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material?
A large amount of this introduction appears to be lifted directly from the biography of Griffin given in his book The Creature From Jekyll Island. -FurciferRNB

If this is so then I would just as well say excise any violative content. Thane Eichenauer 22:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting is not a copyright violation. The article may be improperly citing its source, but that's not a copyright violation. Wjhonson 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction
I'm undertaking a reconstruction of the article -Theblackbay 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the photo, created the headings for the publications and such, still working on refs for the many books, and expanded the personal info.-Theblackbay 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To FurciferRNB It was before I have changed it, so i does not even resemble that anylonger anyhow also i have added the following redirects:

Ed G. Griffin

Edward Griffin

Ed Griffin

Thank you to Wjhonson for the vast expansion of works. -Theblackbay 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr Griffin?
Is there a reason why he is called MR Griffin. Is this a qualification or are we just being polite? 0L1 09:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a sign of respect nothing more if you would like me to call you Mr 0L1 I would do so also, this is in construction so you can change anything you feel is not correct, i have no prob with Edward Griffin also.-Theblackbay 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources?
This article seems to cry out for secondary, i.e. independant sources. Some news articles on this guy, even book reviews would be something. I tried googling without success. Please add these; it's not possible to write a balanced article otherwise. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. In addition, I feel that this article could use more on his relationship with creationism and academic responses to his work. Here's an article about somebody that believes cancer is caused by a lack of vitamin B17, certainly there must be somebody that contradicts this. I'm tempted to add the following tag (or something similar) to it:  


 * --D e lta Tango | Talk 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not a section of specific criticism of Griffin's works?
It is hard to immagine that someone as controversial as Edward Griffin, who takes on every form of established authority, every establishment, period, would go unchallenged for so many years. Obviously someone like him will have a rather noticeable tale of detractors. Yet, Wikipedia refuses to allow anyone to help show the controversial nature of Griffin's work. Why? Is Wikipedia part of Mr. Griffin's conspiracy?rafvrab 12:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, in this case most critics resort to saying he's a conspiracy theorist and provide little evidence, which can be explained by the fact that he is extremely well sourced. Oh, and most people avoid talking about him.

Griffin is correct in his presentation of the Federal Reserve.
Why is this being marked for removal?

G Edward Griffin
I have known Ed Griffin for 16 years and a more ethical honest, dedicated meticulous researcher would be hard to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan glover (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic." --Dresden James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerteams (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Griffin deserves to be kept
Although I disagree with Griffin's politics and stances on most issues, I have found him to be an unusally rich source of verifiable information which is not covered in the mainstream media. He offers a unique service to the online community and is not afraid to take positions that run counter to conventional wisdom. It is from such folks that real change comes and I think he deserves his Wikipedia listing. Wikipedia offers plenty of room for people to disagree with a posting. Have at it. Posted by Mergerfish b butler

G. Edward Griffin is not a Fraud or a Conspiracy Theorist!
I know everyone has a right to their opinions, but please folks, back it up with facts if you're going to slander someone publicly. And if your getting your information from "searches" on the internet, find the facts and then speak up. I'm sure you'll join the rest of us, if you open your ears, eyes and minds. You can start with his book (or audio file if reading is too difficult) "The Creature from Jekyll Island" And then start looking up the facts.

G. Edward Griffin is one of very few people in America who has the guts to tell it like it is. He is not a Fraud or a Conspiracy Theorist, he exposes conspiracies, even if they're in our own back yard. I want to KNOW THE TRUTH, even if it is not to my liking. I am thankful for G Edward Griffin and his honest approach to media and news reporting. He is working hard to preserve our rights - Freedom of Speech, Freedom in general, our Constitutional Rights... We should all be thanking him instead of slandering him in ignorance.Happytext (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

==== Mr. G. Edward Giffin ====  a rare man of integrity.

G. Edward Griffin. I know the man. I know two of his books, and have viewed only two of the videos, done by others of him. Mr. Griffin speaks truth. It is dangerous to speak truth, when the Government is wrong. Our American Government today has been very wrong in its actions through,the last 4 administrations, and hardly been held accountable. In the administration of President William Clinton term, the President was so very wrong, that he was indeed IMPEACHED, for only a fraction of his errors and abuses; and his successor was worse, in violating his oath of office. Some complain that his books are self-published, and so they are. So are most family Genealogies. Why because their subject matter concern only a few. That does not make the factual statements in Genealogies less valid. The same and better can be said of G. Edward Griffin's "factual statements", which some who have not heard Willie Rodriquez, or other eye witnesses testify, may disagree with.

In many ways, G. Edward Griffin stands like a pillar in a flood of Central Intelligence Agency and "embedded media" mis-information. Clearly, on the controversial issue of the WTC bldgs 7, towers 1, and 2. Clearly no plane crashed into #7 World Trade Center, yet about 6 hours after the other buildings collapsed, and with only small fires in a steel and Concrete building, # 7 came crashing to the ground. Removing Mr. Griffin, is not much different than the Nazi book burnings of the 1930's. Simply destroy history, and rewrite it to match the totalitarian wishes of abusive government.

Our American Government has become so abusive and repugnant, and the Media has become so unrestrained in its effort to be "in tune" with our abusive government mis-representatives, who have carved themselves gerrymandered districts that rarely change hands, only those most deliberately malicious would attack G. Edward Griffins tenancity for stating the truth as he sees it. Such attackers are indeed much like the criminally convicted Scooter Libby, who have clear Machavelian tendencys.

There are many others in Wikipedia, who are roundly promoted by those who have been impeached, but not removed, and others who should be impeached and removed... who are far less credibility.

It is because people like Mr. Griffin, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa appear so out-of-mainstream at the time they do their respective deeds, that we can even gage our own position in the grand humankind scale. Would anyone think of removing Ghandi, because he caused a revolt against British rule in a land the British did not belong in.

Or would anyone dare to remove Mother Teresa, because she embarassed rich Catholic Bishops living in opulence, while others starved and went homeless until death. I think not. But if they would, or if anyone would delete Mr. Griffin, because they disagree with him, then those who do so, prove that THEIR ideas can not stand scrutiny, and are inherrently false, even as Adolph Hitlers ideas of a "supreme race" were filled with voodoo "science", based on hatred. I hope I have given the would be censors of G. Edward Griffin, second thoughts.

In doing my work, I often have to cross check facts. Scientific evidence done by Prof. Steve Jones and others backs up statements unpopular with our so called "embedded media" types and their jack booted government cronies.

The day is soon approaching, when to even speak out against Government abuse, will get one labeled a "domestic terrorist".

William J. Wagener, Host of On Second Thought.TV —Preceding unsigned comment added by William J. Wagener (talk • contribs) 09:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If any living man belongs on Wikipedia, G. Edward Griffin does
I have read Mr. Griffin's Americanist research works since 1968, and I have known him personally for 10 years as an ardent supporter of alternative cancer cures. His book World Without Cancer constituted a seminal exposure of the virtually criminal conspiracy between the FDA, AMA, and pharmaceutical industry, particularly their successful effort at suppressing Laetrile so as to make people run to Mexico to purchase the product or receive clinical treatment with it for their cancer. I do not know a man of higher integrity or graciousness in patriotism than Mr. Griffin. His Cancure.org web site has enlightened thousands of people with rock-solid information regarding alternative approaches to preventing and curing cancer. Please do not remove him or his work from Wikipedia.

Bob Hurt (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)