Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 4

The Creature from Jekyll Island
Should a new article titled "The Creature from Jekyll Island" be created? Links between this article and the new article would also be created. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I'm willing to be persuaded, but my personal reaction right now is "no, not really." Unless new sources have come along since the last time I looked, all the reliable sources we have on the book are already in the article. Notability (books) should be our guide here. We would need to think in advance about a possible AfD.
 * Does The Creature from Jekyll Island meet the stated criteria as a stand alone article?
 * What other independent, reliable sources could we add to make it a really good article?
 * If we have plenty of new sources, I'm all for creating a new article. J Readings (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAN
I'm ready for it! Who else is? JJB 13:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to figure out the issue of reliable sources first. John J. Bulten has asserted this reference www.naturalnews.com/012923.html |title=World Without Cancer author G. Edward ], is appropriate for this information, as the article qualifies under  WP:SPS. But examining  the policy, the article cited is neither written by Griffin, nor is Alexis Black, "Citizen Journalist" on "Natural News" an expert published by third party sources, as far as I can see. Especially for a WP:BLP, we need to be very strict about this. So I frankly I believe this information is not appropriately cited.   I would be glad of others' opinions on this matter. If there are limited responses,  I will ask for opinions at the WP:RSN.  --Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Slp1! I hope you wouldn't think so little of me as that I would imply that Griffin wrote Black's article or Black was a verified expert. The policy also says "and similar sources". We've generally considered favorable PR interviews with long stretches of quotations to be similar to other self-publication. I know you're certainly not saying that Black is unable to repeat what Griffin said in the book or on the phone accurately. The exceptions permitting use of self-pub are listed in the next section after SPS, WP:SELFPUB (I got the two confused). Now this source was given (by another editor) to support the two sentences (trimmed back by me):
 * After San Francisco physician John Richardson described to Griffin his experience with Vitamin B17 (Laetrile), Griffin investigated the subject .... His book stated that John D. Rockefeller earned millions of dollars from drug technology interests by donating large sums of money to faltering medical schools, on the condition that the endowments be used for drug research, rather than nutrition research.

The checklist of WP:SELFPUB is met in terms of nonpromotional, direct, undoubted, and nonprimary. The quibble might arise about point 2, but I don't think "claims about third parties" are at issue here. There is no "claim" that Richardson did anything odd that might be contradicted by some other claim. There would be a (deletable) "claim" if we said on Griffin's authority that Richardson was wildly successful-- which is why I deleted basically that. There is no "claim" in the article that the book says anything that someone else might "claim" it doesn't say. Now you could say there is a claim in the book, about Rockefeller (who is dead), but that's hardly the scope of the self-pub exclusions. Those are given to exclude the form, "Rockefeller is evil (Griffin 1974)". But we use the alternative form all the time, "Griffin says Rockefeller is evil (Black 2005); Landau disagrees (Landau 1976)". In fact, the advisability of using Landau as an expert on Rockefeller is equally questionable, in that Griffin has effectively accused Landau of conflict of interest. Anyway, thanks for your observation, what edit did you have in mind? Perhaps the equivalent of "Griffin says Rockefeller is evil (Griffin 1974) ...."? I mean, when we first started we were trying to write a whole article about an author without once using his own books to find out what he wrote. That's quite a constraint. But I think we're beyond the point where that formerly recommended choke-chain is still useful; we even let him talk about Flaherty in his own words, so why not Rockefeller? JJB 05:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the article qualifies under WP:SELFPUB as the article was not written by Griffin. Black is making claims about what Griffin says in his book.  He is probably a reliable reporter of Griffin said, but we have absolutely no way of knowing this for sure.  The BLP instructions are even clearer. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material".  I think the policies are very clear on this matter that this is an unacceptable source. Why can't you use Griffin's books as a source though?  I don't know when or where it was decided that his own books couldn't be used as a source in this article, but it seems a bizarre decision.  His publications/websites were not a sign of his notability during the WP:AFD debate.  We are past that, however, and in my view his own publications would be welcome sources for his biography and his views, always following the WP:SELFPUB guidelines, of course.--Slp1 (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have waited a few days, and since this is a BLP, and there has been no response, I have removed the information cited to the "citizen journalist" pending a more reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Money Masters - The silencing and sensuring of a film that documents much of Alex jones work.
The silencing and censuring of a film that initiated and documents much of Alex jones work.

A bunch of what appeared as pretty juvenile admins (perhaps no more than one or two) here on wikipedia threw out the article on the 1995 historic-economic documentary film called "The Money Masters" less than 6 months ago pn the basis that ot was not noteable enough and had not been seen by many, and/or was not referenced in google(!!). People here should have known about it and joined in discussing it when the article came up for debate and "vote" on the "articles for deletion" discussion board, since the film provided much insight into the world historic analysis of people who agree with Alex Jones' and a more indepth analysis of world historic events in much the same way as noted scholarly works as well as literature _on_ conspiracy such as the book "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and a whole host of other books, exemplified by authors such as G.Edward Griffin and documented by the statements of insiders such as Norman Dodd and several like him.

Even Separate Simpsons episodes have their own pages these days, but anything that does not conform with the conservative view of history seems to somehow have a legitimate right to be dismissed in the eyes of some admins here. To be fair to wikipedia, it seemed like these two admins were fairly young, and only had two or three other unknown individuals interested in the whole thing.

The film's producer William Still was even interviewed by Alex Jones several times.

It's pretty sad, since the film is thoroughly researched and documented and cites only masses of publicly available and well known materials and quotes as well as historic fact, just viewed from the opposite side of the winners of historic conflict. The film has been viewed by now hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, through clips on youtube, entire film on several google video sites and several other sites such as non profit sites as www.freedocumentaries.org.

The film is even endorsed an praised by Nobel price winning economist Milton Friedman and several other prominent figures of different societies. Now if this was not enough to support the inclusion of any wiki contribution on economics I do not know what is. How could you get stronger endorsement on and in the field of economics than from a man who has got the highest price on the planet awarded by the most prestigious institute and acclaimed by his peers?

The notability therefore must be seen as uncontesteable and could not be viewed as debatable in any way shape or form. I have to repeat: I do not fathom how one or two wiki admins should be able to censure the rest of us on such a fraudulent basis.

Do wiki admins accept articles based on the civility of the contributor as if a personal favour system or do they accept articles based on the meeting of honest requirements such as logic and notability? What is going on here? Are some allowed to pretend that they can somehow censure the internet without the rest of us understanding, knowing and seeing what is going on?

I suggest everyone who watches Alex Jones article here do a little research and join in demanding that wikipedia adheres to honesty in their evaluation as we do in the rest of society and the rest of the world. It's about time to quit crony-ism and camaraderie for honesty. Even here. Nunamiut (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

^Excellent post/questions, Nunamiut. We are up against powerful forces indeed. Need proof? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#.22Conspiracy_Theories.22_and_government_infiltration The only way out is for us to keep searching for the truth- and enlightening those around us. Good luck, my friend. ResearchALLwars (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the remarks by Nunamiut above are more than a year old. Since the comments were made, another article for The Money Masters has been created, which has stood for nearly a year now without so much as an Afd.--JayJasper (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

G
Whats the G. stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.111.61 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ungrammatical passage in the article
Take a look at this sentence in the article:


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

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


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

???? Ideas, anyone? Famspear (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like your idea is probably the correct interpretation, but I cannot find the cited source, so cannot say for sure. Not exactly sure Bernard von NotHaus is exactly an "economist", though. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Creature from Jekyll Island
The Federal Reserve System and similar systems abroad were created not as a result of conspiracy, but as a result of wealth produced by the industrial revolution. The capitalists were wealthy, but they could not get much money because the supply of new gold and silver coins was much smaller than the new wealth of the capitalists. The fiat (paper) money was the solution of the problem. The solution has a flaw: an irresponsible FED can print too much money and thereby create hyperinflation.Quinacrine (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem. This presumes something like Griffin's "reasoning", but it has a grain of truth.  For the first "capitalists", read "people" in general, as the total wealth of the working class also exceeds the supply of gold and silver coins.  The rest is opinion, probably Griffin's, although possibly some other "economist".  Finally, this is probably more helpful toward the article gold standard or fiat money than here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Inclusion of SPS material and SYNTH regarding laetrile
There are problems with the text which involves Griffin's promotion of laetrile: I raise these simply as a RS/DUE issue. I am not interested in white-washing Griffin's claims. But he is not an expert in the relevant field of either oncology or alternative medicine. So, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts us from presenting exceptional claims (I posit this means either directly or indirectly). WP:PRIMARY is another restriction, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is even more restrictive. WP:SOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.[emphasis added]" If the article says "Griffin says he thinks laetrile cures cancer ,,,," then WP is being used as a vehicle to present his views. Because this is a BLP, the WP:BURDEN is on those editors who want to present (or retain) the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) This sentence in the lede: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[3] a view considered quackery by the medical community.[4][5]" has problems. First, it uses Griffin's SPS video as the reference. As the video is about an extraordinary claim, and not about himself, we cannot say "laetrile as a cancer treatment". Doing so goes beyond Griffin.  Footnote 4 mentions Griffin in passing, but is not actually about Griffin or his promotion of laetrile. Footnote 5 does not mention Griffin at all.  Thus we have SYNTH in play because the scientists do not directly and explicitly refer to Griffin or his claims.
 * 2) In the 'Advocacy of fringe science and conspiracy theories' section, we see: "Griffin also advocates the use of Laetrile, a semi-synthetic derivative of amygdalin as a treatment for cancer, often referencing the work of Dean Burk to support the use of Laetrile.[21] Since the 1970s, the use of Laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[4][5][22]" Footnote 21 is Griffin's material. Footnote 22 does not mention him.
 * 3) Same section: "Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments,[25] ...." Footnote 25 is his curecancer website. As SPS, it is improper because it refers to third parties.
 * E. James Lieberman RS; Lieberman (then a professor at George Washington University) published the allegations about Griffin's advocacy of Laetrile as a 'cure' for cancer, and noted that this view is unsupported by science. Lieberman made both of these claims in an article written for the American Journal of Public Health. Are you disputing that is an RS? Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lieberman is not in the footnotes listed above. And I certainly am not suggesting that he's anything other than RS! The difficulty is where we have Griffin's extraordinary claims about laetrile, supported by his SPS. The problem is compounded when the authors listed in the segments I posted do not specifically address what Griffin has said. E.g., "Scientist X says Griffin's ideas are ...." Instead, we only have them refuting laetrile in general. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have an RS that has specifically made the connection between Griffin and laetrile and refuted laetrile as a 'cancer treatment.' So synthesis is not a problem at all, since (via that RS) the connection has already been made. The other RS complement the Lieberman one. Steeletrap (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent editing regarding Edward Griffin
User Steeletrap is repeatedly making slanderous edits regarding Edward Griffin. User Steeletrap has previously been banned from articles and pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, a school to which Edward Griffin adheres. Therefore, user Steeletrap edits regarding Edward Griffin should be best reverted, or at a minimum be viewed with great caution. User Steeletrap edits are not NPOV. Truthseeker1001 (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find how Griffin is involved with the Austrian School of Economics. If he is, it seems to be in a very minor way. Your edit didn't even mention it. He isn't an economist even if he wrote a book on the Federal Reserve which sees it as a giant conspiracy. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed unacceptably pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have had some discussion at User talk:Steeletrap on the issue of Austrian Economics. I haven't added the reference to the article because the bigger problem of SPS and RS is yet unresolved.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Clarified as to AE. 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * You have not identified anything in the article that constitutes any kind of defamation (libel or slander). Famspear (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And while we're on the subject, WP:NLT would seem to be an appropriate link for Truthseeker1001 to read. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Famspear and Yobol, I have read WP:NLT and I understand. I have corrected myself and have striken out the word slanderous. I still think user Steeletrap's editing regarding Edward Griffin is is POV though, to say the least.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Amygdalin/Laetrile/vitamin B17
There a 4 problems with the sentence: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[2] a view considered quackery by the medical community.[3][4]" First, in Edward Griffin's own words: "A controle for cancer is known, and it comes from nature. But it is not widely available to the public, because it cannot be patented. And therefore is not commercially attactive to the pharmaceutical industry." Therefore, critique from the corner from the pharmaceutical industry, also in the form of written papers, must be viewed with care. Second, these footnotes from Herbert (1979) and Lerner (1984) are ancient. Seriously, 1979 and 1984? That just won't do. You cannot refer to articles that are 30 years old or more, and then say that this is a view that represents the medical community. Third, the use of the word quackery is inflammatory. To use one word, and especially such an inflammatory word which is mentioned in just one article, and then saying that this represents the view of the medical community is not NPOV. Forth, Edward Griffin lays out the case for amygdalin/laetrile explicitly and specifically. Nothing in the critique of this views address his points. Fifth, there are articles that do support the view that amygdalin/laetrile could be beneficial, so there there is no conclusion that it does not work in cancer-treatment.

In conclusion, it is true that there is a controversy regarding if the effects of amygdalin/laetrile in cancer-treatment. It is disputed that if these effects are positive, negative or neutral, but there is no conclusion in this controversy. It depends on who you ask. Anyway, there are too many problems with this sentence and the footnotes to leave it unaltered. I will keep the sentence, but I will moderate it to "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[2] a view that is unsupported by a large segment of the medical community." Truthseeker1001 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can find a politically correct euphemism for "quackery." But your version won't do, because it implies Griffin's view isn't fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So, if you so clearly state that you think that Griffin's view is fringe, how can you then state that your own personal view is NPOV? I think you cannot.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We clearly state what the reliable sources state. While those sources are old, the medical consensus on laetrile has not changed at all (see this high quality review for example).  It was quackery then, still quackery now. Yobol (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

John A. Richardson as RS?
The book cited in the lede is problematic, especially as has been presented ("independent research"). The co-author is Griffin's spouse and the publisher is Griffin's own company (American Media of Los Angeles). – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't rely on selfpublished, self-serving sources for controversial claims like that - especially medical claims. bobrayner (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep; better get rid of it. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

✅ – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why collaboration is a good thing. Thanks,   If used, it would probably be best to cite the first edition which was published by Bantom Books (June 1977): .  The following newspaper article will provide a secondary source - .  With regards to WP:BLP issues, there are none.  The book isn't about Griffin, therefore it isn't self-published, and I don't see any COI.  Question for you - you stated above that Griffin owns American Media of Los Angeles.  The book publisher of the July 2005 edition is American Media.  Where is the information that points to Griffin's ownership of that company?  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the book is not about Griffin the point is moot. But his wife is a co-author. As for American Media, I did not say he owns it. Per the PRWeb he is "President of American Media". Even so, this is not the American Media which you linked. I looked at their website and Griffin was not listed by them. He is president of some other American Media. In looking at the California Secretary of State  business entity filings I saw numerous "American Media xyz/abc" corporations listed, but no "American Media" or "American Media of Los Angeles" listed. The LA County FBN   search produced 3 similar names: American Media Artists, American Media Enterprises LLC, and American Media LLC.  In comparing the results I see "American Media Artists" listed both with LA County and the Secretary. (The company is in Encino.) So the results are inconclusive. We do not have Verification/RS that says Griffin is the President of a California-based company called American Media.  – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: the American Media referred to in the above strike through is not the same publishing company owned by Griffin. See the reference to Griffin's American Media here: . Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin as a CFP
Griffin has been described as a Certified Financial Planner at times. This description is problematic. The latest source posted was radio.goldseek.com, which is not RS. (I'm guessing that the source simply accepted Griffin's self-description without independent checking.) Griffin's own listing with Who's Who does not list him as a CFP and the CFP organizational website does not list him. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I just ran my own search on the last name "Griffin." The official web site of the CFP Board (www.cfp.net) shows seventeen persons with that last name who currently hold the CFP designation. G. Edward Griffin is not one of them. I then ran another search on the same web site for "disciplinary" proceedings for anyone named "G Griffin." I found that while he had no disciplinary proceedings against him, "G. Edward Griffin" at "American Media" in Thousand Oaks, California is now listed as "not certified." The explanatory material indicates that this part of the official web site lists those persons who used to be certified but who are not certified at this time. My guess is that he is retired and, like many people with professional designations, stopped renewing at some point. Famspear (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the additional step of the discipline search. If Griffin is not certified, then we cannot say he is. If he was certified, I think we need reliable independent sourcing that says so clearly. – S. Rich (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to get anything more reliable or independent than the CFP Board itself. According to their web site, he is a former CFP. Famspear (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, since the article at present does not mention his former CFP certification (unless I missed it), one thing to consider is: is that topic material to the article, anyway? I would just as soon leave the article "as is," but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Famspear (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't know why he is a former CFP. It could be that he let his membership lapse, or he didn't keep up with (possible) continuing education requirements, or he resigned (with or without some sort of discipline pending), or something else. As his financial expertise is pertinent only to the extent that he knows something about macroeconomics (the Fed), I don't think the CFP designation rises to a level of WP:NOTEWORTHY. Thus I would keep it out. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , I have to differ with your position on this one for the following reasons:
 * It is not our responsibility to research the status or full extent of his credentials because that would be considered OR.
 * The information is perfectly acceptable, and in accordance with WP:BLP. Griffin publicly stated his academic credentials, and it is verifiable in published material, which in Griffin's case includes not only published book reviews, but it was also stated in several radio interviews, as well as printed in various press releases such as PR Web,, and on numerous websites which are probably considered minority views, but they qualify nonetheless.
 * It is not only included in numerous secondary and third party sources, it is also verifiable based on what pointed out.
 * We cannot single out Griffin by requiring higher standards for him than what BLP allows regarding academic accreditation. His CFP designation is quite relevant because he obtained it specifically for the purpose of writing The Creature...., and that is what makes it noteworthy.  This is a biography, and educational background is biographical material.  Review the following GA, which demonstrates how a controversial issue was handled in the biography, and also FA  as a model for layout, section titles, and content. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I was more concerned about RS to support the info. Given that we have evidence from the CFP board and the source you've provided I think we can add that he received his CFP in 1989. The source you provided (and Griffin's own webpages) also mentions a Telly Award. Is this [www.tellyawards.com]? The Telly Award website does not provide search capacity, so I wonder how else we might confirm the award. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In taking a closer look at PRWeb, I see that people can create accounts for themselves. I presume they can then publish press releases. If this is the case, then the PRWeb material we see likely came from Griffin or an associate. Accordingly, PRWeb would not be stand-alone RS. – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think perhaps you misunderstood Avoid self-published sources in WP:BLP which states: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The policy further states: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites.  Hypothetical example: Sen Harry Reid publishes his own book - 113th Congress - and includes a chapter on Sen Mitch McConnell.  You're writing a Wiki article about McConnell, and want to use something Reid said in his book about things McConnell had done.  Nope, you can't use it in the WP BLP on McConnell because Reid's book is a self-published source.  However, if the book had been published by Time Life, different story.  Therefore you can cite Griffin's books, press releases, and information from his website about himself in Griffin's WP bio. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The on-point policy is at WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSELFPUB. (Interestingly these two policies vary a bit from one another.) Also, we have WP:PRIMARY source concerns. I am not saying we should keep the CFP info out, only that we use it with care. I do not think saying "I was a CFP." is an extraordinary claim or unduly self-serving. But if said "I was a CFP and therefore I know everything there is to know about the Fed," we could not use this tid-bit.  – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here goes one of those Famspear essays. Merely using the CFP Board as a source for the fact that Griffin is a former CFP would not be "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Using the CFP Board would be using a primary source -- which is a separate concept.

Primary sources should be used with care. However, on something like this, there is virtually no risk of "getting it wrong" by using a primary source in this way.

Griffin's former credential as a CFP is perhaps logically relevant to his status as a pontificator about the Federal Reserve System, but I would argue that it is not very material to that status. What do I mean by that? Well (and I am not a Certified Financial Planner by the way) the study that it takes to become a CFP requires a certain level of rigor and implies the attainment of a certain level of understanding of economics and finance. People who attain that level knowledge are at least more likely to know about topics (such as the Federal Reserve System) that are not necessarily germane to what a CFP needs to know.

However, the mere fact that a person has or used to have the CFP designation does not necessarily mean that the individual possesses expertise about the Federal Reserve System. That's what I mean when I say that possession of the CFP credential (or having held the credential in the past) is not particularly "material" to knowledge of the Federal Reserve System.

So, on balance, in terms of mentioning his former CFP credential in the article: In my view it might be "OK", but I can take it or leave it.

Nothing like straddling the fence, eh?? Famspear (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And excellent job of mugwumping! When we get out of PP let's put CFP in the infobox under education. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and when you combine someone with my personality ("INTP" in Myers-Briggs world) with my training (lawyer), you get heavy duty, major mugwump-ossity-tivity-ness. Famspear (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

-- From the edit request below, does Barisheff say "an education he [Griffin] sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets." If so, what page? (The page=320 in the citation gives the total number of pages in the book, not where we can find the info." – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

UNDUE tag by Srich32977
please explain, precisely and calmly (as I know you will :) ) the reason for the UNDUE tag you placed here and which I reverted, as I don't understand what the issue is. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk)
 * As you predicted correctly, I have explained the tag below. And I have restored the tag. And I requested PP some time ago, but some else [Atsme] had already beaten me to the punch [four hours ago]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, we will discuss below. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

page protection request by Atsme
just a heads up, requested page protection here. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A "heads up"? Are you calling the "troops", or what?  PP is just a first step.  I actually believe sanctions should be placed on this article, as well as on those editors who have a COI, and/or have been warned about BLP violations, NPOV, and the like in pseudoscience articles.  I am acting in GF by giving this discussion an opportunity to correct the BLP violations, but the fact that my edits are being reverted when the burden of proof should be on those who restore/revert them is not setting too well with me right now.  Such actions are clearly not being done in GF. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * it is just a courtesy to notify folks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McLeod source
McLeod mentions Griffin once in the text. He says "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists." It is clear that McLeod is referring to Ron Paul. That said, McLeod is not a proper source for this article. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had already commented on this above, in the "conspiracy theory in lead" section, please do reply here or there. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich, we are not limited to such literalistic use of secondary sources. When a passage admits of only one reasonable interpretation--that is the case here, as it is implausible to infer from the context that McLeod does not think Griffin promotes conspiracy theories--we are free to use this interpretation, even if it is not drawn literally from the text. For example, if a secondary source says that "Tom's scientific ideas were on the fringe of academia and contradicted by overwhelming evidence," it is acceptable to label those ideas as "fringe science," even though that was not literally stated by the secondary source, because it is not reasonable to interpret the primary source in any other way. Steeletrap (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC) If you think that one could come away from the passage and reasonably believe that the author does not think Griffin is promoting conspiracy theories, let's hear your argument for that. If not we need to revert your changes. Steeletrap (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When it comes to BLPs we must remember that SYN policy uses the term "explicit". And since conspiracy theory is a term of ridicule we must "adhere strictly" to BLP policy. These mandates compel us to avoid "beliefs" and "interpretations" [paraphrasing]. In other words, we are limited to what the sources say, not what we read into them or what we think or hope they say. The sources do not say "Griffin's ... ideas were on the fringe ... and contradicted by overwhelming evidence...." If they did, we could use them with proper citations. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin: Council on Foreign Relations trying exterminate the elderly
On page 528 of The Creature From Jekyll Island, Griffin claims that the Council of Foreign Relations advocates "the deliberate killing of the old, the weak, and . . . the uncooperative." He provides no source for this remarkable claim, other than a paper by Bertrand Russell advocating reductions in population by *voluntary* use of contraception. I think it should be added to the article since so much of the book is devoted to rantings about the CFR, and because it illustrates the sort of CTs the book propounds. Is there any doubt that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist? Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article needs secondary sources which comment on the book, not WP:CHERRYPICKING by editors who do not like Griffin. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. I have no personal problem with Griffin. I just want his views to be portrayed neutrally and accurately. Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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....but only if it does not involve claims about third parties, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Your comment that "it illustrates the sort of CTs the book propounds" clearly indicates that you are not neutral. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ungrammatical passage in the article
Take a look at this sentence in the article:


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

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


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

???? Ideas, anyone? Famspear (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like your idea is probably the correct interpretation, but I cannot find the cited source, so cannot say for sure. Not exactly sure Bernard von NotHaus is exactly an "economist", though. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Creature from Jekyll Island
The Federal Reserve System and similar systems abroad were created not as a result of conspiracy, but as a result of wealth produced by the industrial revolution. The capitalists were wealthy, but they could not get much money because the supply of new gold and silver coins was much smaller than the new wealth of the capitalists. The fiat (paper) money was the solution of the problem. The solution has a flaw: an irresponsible FED can print too much money and thereby create hyperinflation.Quinacrine (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem. This presumes something like Griffin's "reasoning", but it has a grain of truth.  For the first "capitalists", read "people" in general, as the total wealth of the working class also exceeds the supply of gold and silver coins.  The rest is opinion, probably Griffin's, although possibly some other "economist".  Finally, this is probably more helpful toward the article gold standard or fiat money than here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Inclusion of SPS material and SYNTH regarding laetrile
There are problems with the text which involves Griffin's promotion of laetrile: I raise these simply as a RS/DUE issue. I am not interested in white-washing Griffin's claims. But he is not an expert in the relevant field of either oncology or alternative medicine. So, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts us from presenting exceptional claims (I posit this means either directly or indirectly). WP:PRIMARY is another restriction, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is even more restrictive. WP:SOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.[emphasis added]" If the article says "Griffin says he thinks laetrile cures cancer ,,,," then WP is being used as a vehicle to present his views. Because this is a BLP, the WP:BURDEN is on those editors who want to present (or retain) the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) This sentence in the lede: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[3] a view considered quackery by the medical community.[4][5]" has problems. First, it uses Griffin's SPS video as the reference. As the video is about an extraordinary claim, and not about himself, we cannot say "laetrile as a cancer treatment". Doing so goes beyond Griffin.  Footnote 4 mentions Griffin in passing, but is not actually about Griffin or his promotion of laetrile. Footnote 5 does not mention Griffin at all.  Thus we have SYNTH in play because the scientists do not directly and explicitly refer to Griffin or his claims.
 * 2) In the 'Advocacy of fringe science and conspiracy theories' section, we see: "Griffin also advocates the use of Laetrile, a semi-synthetic derivative of amygdalin as a treatment for cancer, often referencing the work of Dean Burk to support the use of Laetrile.[21] Since the 1970s, the use of Laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[4][5][22]" Footnote 21 is Griffin's material. Footnote 22 does not mention him.
 * 3) Same section: "Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments,[25] ...." Footnote 25 is his curecancer website. As SPS, it is improper because it refers to third parties.
 * E. James Lieberman RS; Lieberman (then a professor at George Washington University) published the allegations about Griffin's advocacy of Laetrile as a 'cure' for cancer, and noted that this view is unsupported by science. Lieberman made both of these claims in an article written for the American Journal of Public Health. Are you disputing that is an RS? Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lieberman is not in the footnotes listed above. And I certainly am not suggesting that he's anything other than RS! The difficulty is where we have Griffin's extraordinary claims about laetrile, supported by his SPS. The problem is compounded when the authors listed in the segments I posted do not specifically address what Griffin has said. E.g., "Scientist X says Griffin's ideas are ...." Instead, we only have them refuting laetrile in general. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have an RS that has specifically made the connection between Griffin and laetrile and refuted laetrile as a 'cancer treatment.' So synthesis is not a problem at all, since (via that RS) the connection has already been made. The other RS complement the Lieberman one. Steeletrap (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Amygdalin/Laetrile/vitamin B17
There a 4 problems with the sentence: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[2] a view considered quackery by the medical community.[3][4]" First, in Edward Griffin's own words: "A controle for cancer is known, and it comes from nature. But it is not widely available to the public, because it cannot be patented. And therefore is not commercially attactive to the pharmaceutical industry." Therefore, critique from the corner from the pharmaceutical industry, also in the form of written papers, must be viewed with care. Second, these footnotes from Herbert (1979) and Lerner (1984) are ancient. Seriously, 1979 and 1984? That just won't do. You cannot refer to articles that are 30 years old or more, and then say that this is a view that represents the medical community. Third, the use of the word quackery is inflammatory. To use one word, and especially such an inflammatory word which is mentioned in just one article, and then saying that this represents the view of the medical community is not NPOV. Forth, Edward Griffin lays out the case for amygdalin/laetrile explicitly and specifically. Nothing in the critique of this views address his points. Fifth, there are articles that do support the view that amygdalin/laetrile could be beneficial, so there there is no conclusion that it does not work in cancer-treatment.

In conclusion, it is true that there is a controversy regarding if the effects of amygdalin/laetrile in cancer-treatment. It is disputed that if these effects are positive, negative or neutral, but there is no conclusion in this controversy. It depends on who you ask. Anyway, there are too many problems with this sentence and the footnotes to leave it unaltered. I will keep the sentence, but I will moderate it to "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[2] a view that is unsupported by a large segment of the medical community." Truthseeker1001 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can find a politically correct euphemism for "quackery." But your version won't do, because it implies Griffin's view isn't fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So, if you so clearly state that you think that Griffin's view is fringe, how can you then state that your own personal view is NPOV? I think you cannot.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We clearly state what the reliable sources state. While those sources are old, the medical consensus on laetrile has not changed at all (see this high quality review for example).  It was quackery then, still quackery now. Yobol (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent editing regarding Edward Griffin
User Steeletrap is repeatedly making slanderous edits regarding Edward Griffin. User Steeletrap has previously been banned from articles and pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, a school to which Edward Griffin adheres. Therefore, user Steeletrap edits regarding Edward Griffin should be best reverted, or at a minimum be viewed with great caution. User Steeletrap edits are not NPOV. Truthseeker1001 (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find how Griffin is involved with the Austrian School of Economics. If he is, it seems to be in a very minor way. Your edit didn't even mention it. He isn't an economist even if he wrote a book on the Federal Reserve which sees it as a giant conspiracy. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed unacceptably pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have had some discussion at User talk:Steeletrap on the issue of Austrian Economics. I haven't added the reference to the article because the bigger problem of SPS and RS is yet unresolved.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Clarified as to AE. 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * You have not identified anything in the article that constitutes any kind of defamation (libel or slander). Famspear (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And while we're on the subject, WP:NLT would seem to be an appropriate link for Truthseeker1001 to read. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Famspear and Yobol, I have read WP:NLT and I understand. I have corrected myself and have striken out the word slanderous. I still think user Steeletrap's editing regarding Edward Griffin is is POV though, to say the least.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

UNDUE tag by Srich32977
please explain, precisely and calmly (as I know you will :) ) the reason for the UNDUE tag you placed here and which I reverted, as I don't understand what the issue is. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk)
 * As you predicted correctly, I have explained the tag below. And I have restored the tag. And I requested PP some time ago, but some else [Atsme] had already beaten me to the punch [four hours ago]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, we will discuss below. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPN
<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  ☯ Consult  10:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

BLPN
<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  ☯ Consult  10:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

archiving
this selection of hand-picked Talk sections to archive confused me, so I reverted. I don't understand why some were left and some not. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent research re: amygdalin
you need to read the sources cited the updates I made to the article regarding the positive results of amygdalin. Quote: "Amygdalin, a naturally occurring substance, has been suggested to be efficacious as an anticancer substance. The effect of amygdalin on cervical cancer cells has never been studied. In this study, we found that the viability of human cervical cancer HeLa cell line was significantly inhibited by amygdalin." <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  ☯ Consult  20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Issues: 1) The material added do not conform to WP:MEDRS, specifically using primary in vitro experiments to contradict secondary sources.
 * 2) The material is phrased in such a way to give much more credence to the notion that laetrile/amygdalin works and is gross violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It is considered the canonical example of cancer quackery.
 * 3) The material uses wording that is prejudicial, such as calling it "vitamin B17" even though it is not and has never been a vitamin. This is what I would expect from a promoter of laetrile, not a neutral explanation of what it is. (Note that calling it "vitamin B17" was a marketing ploy and has absolutely nothing to do with it as a chemical; that you would parrot this nonsense is concerning to me, and suggests you either are here to push a POV about laetrile/amygdalin or have not done the requisite basic research on the subject to write about it neutrally).
 * 4) This material creates a WP:POVFORK for the laetrile material; the amygdalin page is clear about the lack of human clinical research supporting it the general lack of support in the medical community regarding this. Yobol (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have specific BLP issues you wish to address, I suggest you separate them out from the laetrile material; you appear to be using BLP as a bludgeon to push a specific POV about laetrile here, which is completely unacceptable. Yobol (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * very unhappy to see the edit warring going on here. Atsme, as far as I can see you made a huge bunch of changes, many of which violate WP:MEDRS, and have been edit warring to keep them in.  One more revert and you are blockable per 3RR so please just stop.  Drama boards are a big waste of time.   In general it is better to make small edits rather than one big one, and you should never edit war to keep big changes you have made to existing content.  If you are not familiar with WP:MEDRS, please do read it, and carefully, if you feel strongly about including content about health in WP.  Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is full of BLP violations, as well as NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues. Based on the comments I've read above, along with the edit history associated with this article, the POV pushing is quite obvious as is your refusal to acknowledge the advancements in scientific research. My only purpose here is to make an outdated article current, and eliminate BLP violations. See you at the BLPN. 186.159.98.72 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Was using a public computer and forgot to sign-in.  My actual signed-in sig <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPN
<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  ☯ Consult  10:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

UNDUE tag by Srich32977
please explain, precisely and calmly (as I know you will :) ) the reason for the UNDUE tag you placed here and which I reverted, as I don't understand what the issue is. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk)
 * As you predicted correctly, I have explained the tag below. And I have restored the tag. And I requested PP some time ago, but some else [Atsme] had already beaten me to the punch [four hours ago]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, we will discuss below. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI
made this edit, with edit note, "remove sources which discuss laetrile in general and not Griffin or specific claims by Griffin – WP:SYN prohibits their use unless they explicitly discuss Griffin; AIDS denial is not a proper noun". I reverted, per WP:PSCI - this is policy. We do not discuss pseudoscience in WP without calling it such; we cannot WP:COATRACK it in under BLP or any other policy - they do not contradict each other. Srich I don't know how much work you have done on WP:FRINGE-y topics but this is how we handle it, across the board. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ideally the ineffective nature of this treatment should be clearer in the body, then we can just summarize in the lede. Alexbrn talk 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yes that should absolutely be the case. the lead should just summarize the body, oy. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The ineffectiveness of laetrile is properly discussed. 1. It is described as unscientific in the lede ("scientifically-unsupported view"). 2. The ineffectiveness of laetrile is discussed in the laetrile article. Griffin also has comments about AIDS, Noahs Ark, and the Federal Reserve – we do not and cannot debunk those ideas in the BLP. PSCI says "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." This has to be followed in conjunction with WP:SYN which requires explicit mention of Griffin's own material, not the ideas he holds. The topic of the article is Griffin and not the various ideas he expounds upon. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Srich, thanks for talking! Again I don't know how much you have worked on pseudoscience-type stuff. This kind of thing has been to Arbcom, so please be careful and consider.  Would you please let me know if you are familiar with PSCI-related matters here in WP? (if not, please see Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases as a good starting place.)  Sorry for asking but I just want to be sure we are working from the same foundation.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and i do agree that we have to cautious in applying labels to Griffin per se; but to the extent that his notability depends on his advocacy for his ideas, and to the extent that we discuss his ideas, and to the extent that those are pseudoscience or FRINGE, the actual science does need to be brought to bear, there, via reliable sources of course. If we do not do that, we have WP:COATRACKed fringe material into WP, which we cannot do. Agreed? Or maybe not.. please do tell. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that his ideas are nonsense. But the place for debunking them is in the particular topic-articles, not this BLP. We cannot say "Griffin says the moon is made of green cheese.[A] Armstrong walked on the moon and determined it was made of rock.[B] Therefore Griffin is wrong about the moon. [Which is the conclusion that is synthesized.]" Now if Armstrong had said "Tell Griffin the moon is made of rock!" then the Armstrong quote could be used in the article. BTW, I'm pretty good at spotting the issues in these policy discussions. In this case the overriding policy is SYN. (I removed the material because it does not talk about Griffin, and I'd like to continue to tone down Griffin's own material to avoid UNDUE.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for talking, and in this nice way. I do hear what you are saying about SYN. I've not had pushback on this kind of thing before. I went looking in BLPN and WP:BLP for consensus of the community on this and there is a lot to go through.  I will need some time which I will have tomorrow.... (but maybe Yobol or Alexbrn is aware of some place where the intersection between SYN/PSCI and maybe also with those two and BLP are discussed, that we can all stand on)  I wonder if you would be OK, if we found sources that specifically address the pseudoscience nature of the relevant ideas he advocates - specifically addressing his advocacy of them.  Would that resolve your concerns with SYN?  I would be interested to see what the article would like if you had a free hand with it (and am very curious about what you would take out under UNDUE).  How about making all your edits, and self reverting, so we can all see?  Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * His advocacy of the different topics is the issue of concern. As for UNDUE, the lede has two paragraphs that contain the same info. It can be pared down.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * interested to see what you will do. thx. not sure i will agree, but interested to see! also please let me know if you hear my concern about PSCI (although the proof will be in the pudding) Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you done? Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. – S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is synthesis to use one source that says Griffin "promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment" and another that says the laetrile treatment is quackery and say that Griffin's view is quackery. Are they talking about the same thing?  Was it considered quackery at the time?  Don't ask editors to spend considerable time researching and discussing these issues, just stick with what relevant sources about Griffin say.
 * Then there is neutrality. Do we say in the leads of every person who believes in the Bible that the claims made about creation, the flood, the resurrection, etc., are not accepted by the scientific community?
 * This is an article about a main who promotes views outside the mainstream. We don't need to hammer away that they are not generally accepted.  Ironically, that strident tone elicits sympathy for these views.
 * TFD (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say WP:PSCI is pretty straightforward here, "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." This either means calling the the view out as fringe directly, or at the very least immediately mentioning that it is a view not accepted by the scientific community. If someone is notable for something that's factually incorrect, etc. then it's undue weight to not include that additional qualifier on what is considered the mainstream view. That follows no matter what article you go to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * so far the edits are OK with PSCI as far as I am concerned. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , looks good to me, nice work. others? Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. We need to remove "a view considered quackery by the medical community.[3][4]" from the lede because it is SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not giving undue weight to pseudoscience to say Griffin "has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment...." If we elaborated on his views by saying why he thinks that would be effective, then of course we would present the mainstream explanation why it is not.  But then a reliable source that explained his theory would do that anyway so we would not need to be medical experts.  TFD (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Also read WP:NPOV and WP:Coatrack. Griffin is an author, not a promoter, or a conspiracy theorist. Don King is a promoter.  The label of "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term, and considered contentious labeling in a BLP.  Stop treating it like it is Griffin's profession, or career.  Griffin has written books on the highly debated topic of laetrile.  He has written factual information, much of which has been the topic of controversy.  If you want to include the opinions of critics, the sources have to be high quality, reliable sources, and the prose has to be written NEUTRALLY which includes correctly stating opinion as it applies; i.e., it is the opinion of, or that he has been referred to as, or that he has been described as...etc.  Do not make factual statements which appear to be the views of Wikipedia. I consult editors to please read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and also pay close attention to the sanctions on this article - see the notice above - and stop reverting the BLP corrections. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that User:Atsme has not gained consensus at the BLP noticeboard, and that the editor has now breached 3RR- under the faux guise of reverting vandalism. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that Atsme not go further down this road. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that Roxy not go further down this road because this BLP involves pseudoscience, and Roxy was recently warned about editing such topics. As for consensus, what some of you don't seem to understand is WP:BLP policy - Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.  I have exercised GF by allowing my edits to be reverted in order to discuss these issues. Comments like you made above were not made in GF.  If you are familiar with BLP policy, then you know The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.  I have not seen anything in response to the removal of the BLP violations that satisfies the burden of evidence.  I closed the BLPN because I thought we were making progress, but I may have been premature in that decision. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)