Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 5

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)

Cancer Cure Foundation
just FYI for when editing re-opens, Griffin was President of CCF as of 2012. See here which is linked from here. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another FYI - his publishing company is American Media which is noted in the front pages of his book as well as at the following website: The Reality Zone and American Media are the creations of G. Edward Griffin.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Griffin's American Media is not the American Media in Wikipedia. That company is a privately held corporation based in New York. See: . – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. I'll do a strike-through of my reference to it above, and make a notation to avoid confusion. I just felt it was important to validate what you originally stated about Griffin owning the publishing company by providing a link. and making note that it is also stated in the book.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:27, 16 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)

Breitbart as RS – for an opinion
Before the page got protection, we had (and lost) a citation to Breitbart.com that used the term "conspiracy theory" when commenting on Griffin's book. I submit that the citation is a proper source (for the opinion) and actually supports the contention that Griffin engages in conspiracy theory. Editors will please note that Breitbart.com is "notable" in Wikipedia, and that the source was not being used for factual contentions. (Also, they might note that Breitbart.com has been brought up on the WP:RSN at times.) Comments are welcome: 1. Is the particular citation RS? and 2. Is the particular citation WP:NOTEWORTHY? – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Breitbart editor holds WP:Fringe economic views. He favors the gold standard, for example. We don't want to devote Griffin's precious article space to fringe theorists (other than, of course, Griffin). Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGENOT may be helpful to you. Also, please consider that Breitbart has a current (global/US) Alexa rank of 1,481/498. Another source in the article is Media Matters for America. Their Alexa rank is currently 18,204/4,723. In terms of significance Breitbart is much more important and noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Publiceye.org/Political Research Associates (which is Flaherty's organization) has an Alexa ranking of 414,892/114,633. – S. Rich (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See my reverted edits for proper use of the term "conspiracy theory" without it being contentious labeling. It has already been established that he has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist, and that some of his writings have been referred to as conspiracy theories whereas other RS have suggested otherwise.   WP:DEADHORSE.  It's okay to summarize his most notable books and use reference to conspiracy theories properly sourced as long as BOTH SIDES of the prevailing views are being presented without ignoring WP:UNDUE.  Breitbart is a RS, and perhaps closer to being neutral, or at least as neutral as Media Matters for America which is considered to be a politically progressive media watchdog group that is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation.  Unfortunately, the days of Walter Cronkite's fair and balanced reporting are long gone, so we use what we have to use.  Regardless, a contentious label is a contentious label regardless of RS, and it's still an opinion, not a statement of fact.  FACT: The man writes books about controversial topics that are highly debated.  FACT: He has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist.   FACT: His profession is not "American conspiracy theorist".  He is an author, researcher, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer.  There is no such profession as "American conspiracy theorist", which sounds more like the title to a book than a career designation.  To what length should each book in his biography be reviewed, and labeled conspiracy theories while still maintaining NPOV?  In other words, each claim of conspiracy theory must be balanced with the facts that were presented in the book as well as RS references to opposing views.  Keep in mind, Wikipedia already has separate articles for most of the controversial topics Griffin has written about, including the History of the Federal Reserve System, Laetrile, etc. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "other RS have suggested otherwise" -- which sources dispute the view that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you've already surmised, Griffin disputes it, so that clarifies any confusion there may have been about him being an "American conspiracy theorist". The dispute is realized by the fact such contentious labeling is missing from the articles and interviews in nearly all of the other sources.  You can start here....,   ,   www.naturalnews.com/023345.html , , , , ,  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So the term is absent from some sources. Okay, but do any of those sources dispute it?  I gather not -- otherwise you'd have said...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some actually do condemn the labeling. You obviously haven't read any of the references, or you would not have asked that question, and that appears to be part of the problem rather than a solution.  Regardless, disputes are not required to justify or dispel contentious labels and/or pejorative terminology.  Responsible writers avoid qualifying their use by simply not mentioning them.  GF editors adhere strictly to BLP policy, and avoid them all together.  I consult you to read what the Encyclopedia Britannica has written on a few of these highly debated topics.  It appears some editors have lost their way with regards to neutrality, fact, and opinion.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will caution you again to limit your comments to content and sources, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop the unnecessary posts of caution because you are actually doing what you are cautioning me to not do. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * please just follow WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Atsme, let's try again. Which sources dispute the characterisation of conspiracy theory?  I asked that question above and you provided 10 references -- and it's apparent that not all of them dispute the characterization.  I'm not going to consult all of them to determine which ones do dispute it; if you're interested in answering my question, then you can indicate the ones that do dispute it -- which after all is the question I actually asked.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They all do, which is the answer I actually provided. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I clicked on this one.  It doesn't include the term "conspiracy theorist" (or theory) -- so in what respect does it dispute the view that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist?  Next I tried www.naturalnews.com/023345.html  this one] -- same story.  I'm not sure what impact you're trying to have here, but whatever it is the impact you're actually achieving is not in keeping with your stated goal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:DONTGETIT, and I mean that in GF. The absence of contentious labeling is testament to the fact that Griffin is actually highly respected, and not considered a CT by all.  Contentious labels and pejorative statements are symbolic of the kind of sensationalism that is prevalent in tabloids.  I will further surmise that the majority of GF editors, highly qualified journalists, historians, researchers, and reputable documentarians who understand and respect neutrality will confirm same.  If you are still dissatisfied with my response, and need to read something in black and white, then read: .  I apologize for not providing more detail, but the tips of my fingers are hoarse from typing.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked which sources dispute the characterization. Failing to say anything about the characterization is not disputing the characterisation.  You said that all the sources you provided dispute the characterisation.  It's now quite evident that this statement was untrue.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a divergence from what I asked at the top of the section. (Is the source RS for an opinion and is it noteworthy.) Asking for sources which explicitly deny that Griffin is a "conspiracy theorist" doesn't help build consensus. We can assume that those sources which praise or cite Griffin endorse him to a greater or lesser extent do not endorse a conspiracy theory characterization. What is proper for us is to provide sources which balance the article. Some may present their explicit opinion that he is a conspiracy theorist (Easter), some may be less explicit (Breitbart.com), some may be neutral or simply descriptive in describing him (Who's Who), some may praise him. A variety of sources can be used so long as they are presented in accordance with guidelines and policy. I submit that Breitbart is one of those sources that can be and should be used. And what is BLP-improper is the description in the lead that says he is a conspiracy theorist (because of the very negative nature of the term).  – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's untrue that negative terms are "BLP-improper". David Irving is a Holocaust denier; he isn't "considered by some to be a Holocaust denier" -- he just is one.  David Duke is -- wait for it -- a conspiracy theorist.  Care to try to argue otherwise?  Why?  As for Breitbart: my view is that it doesn't meet WP:RS.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

note on intersection of FRINGE and BLP
I knew this was somewhere. There is a paragraph in WP:FRINGE specifically dealing with WP:BLP. For those who are not aware, the policy NPOV has a section on pseudoscience - the shortcut is WP:PSCI. Over the years, there have been lots of discussions about what that short section means and how to use it, a guideline called WP:FRINGE has grown up to provide guidance.

Here is the relevant section in FRINGE discussing the intersection of PSCI and BLP: WP:FRINGEBLP.

That language was hashed out here WT:Fringe_theories/Archive_19.

Notice was given earlier by Atsme at BLPN about disputes on this article with regard to BLP. I just also posted a notice to the Fringe notice board, here: WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we are making some progress. Per FRINGEBLP we don't give undue prominence to those views beyond what he is better known for. In this case Creature (a political opinion-based book, tinged with conspiracy theory), World w/o Cancer (fringe science), and Noah's Ark (fringe science) are the main "achievements or incidents". AIDS denial is certainly not prominent. The other topics are in between. For each topic we must take "care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." I submit that debunking laetrile or the criticism of the Fed or the existence/non-existence of the Ark are the main pitfalls and should not have much discussion in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PSCI is policy though basically as a summary of WP:FRINGE, and it cites the guideline as further explanation. Just making sure to point out that the BLP and PSCI neither are are competing nor superseding the other. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with for the most part, but I also believe we must avoid POV and UNDUE.  If claims based on research dating back 20 to 35 years are included, then updated research must also be included in order to maintain NPOV.  Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, is widely known for its promotion of alternative medicine.  There are plenty of book reviews by reliable secondary sources we can draw from and properly include in the article.  Griffin is not the place to advocate a cause for or against mainstream medicine or alternative medicine.  It is not our job to establish opinion as Wikipedia's factual position about Griffin.  The CT labels are still contentious, and the quackery claims are still pejorative for all of the reasons previously mentioned on this TP.   I'm not saying we cannot quote a reliable source that considers him a conspiracy theorist rather I am saying we must strictly adhere to BLP and not label him a conspiracy theorist as was done in the lead. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Srrich, would you help me explain your stance? You say that World w/o Cancer (which if focused on laetrile) is one of the main "achievements or incidents" but then you say we should not debunk it.  But BLPFRINGE says that is exactly when we should debunk.  Would you please explain?  Maybe you meant to say "should have discussion" instead of "should not have much discussion"?  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote this carefully: "...debunking laetrile ... should not have much discussion...." (I did not say "no discussion".) We can debunk Griffin's ideas about cancer, etc. when we use sources which criticize Griffin and/or the specific views he expounds. Per SYN we do not say "A: Griffin expounds on laetrile. B: Scientist X says laetrile is bunk. Therefore C (implicit or explicit): What Griffin expounds upon is bunk." We can only use the material from scientist X that says "The stuff that Griffin expounds upon is bunk." – S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I have an issue with "debunking" all together based on the following:, and also Debunk.  It is not our job as editors to debunk anything in an article - it's POV - and therein the problem lies.  WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NPOV Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I think laetrile is thoroughly debunked. And those who promote it are not the most admirable people in the world. I do not want the article to be a vehicle for those who like Griffin, nor a vehicle for those who condemn him. And WP policy says the article should summarize who he is and what he's known for. We say "Griffin is an author, lecturer, and film producer known for his description of early Fed history, promotion of laetrile as a cancer therapy, and for films depicting modern searches for Noah's Ark. He has been cited by .... who endorse is ideas about.... And he's been criticized by .... who condemn his ideas about ...." Those sources which criticize him will be the "debunking" element of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich I don't agree that in debunking laetrile, the sources we use need to explicitly refer to Griffin and I don't find basis for that anywhere in FRINGE nor in PSCI. We are debunking the claim about science tells us about laetrile, not Griffin per se. In my view,  the current section on "Cancer and AIDS denial" is fine as is.  (we can probably kill the brief 2nd paragraph).   If you don't agree, I suggest that we post the current section to the Fringe notice board and get comments, to resolve that.  We could point up the question, "does debunking of a fringe scientific claim of person X require that the source explicitly reference person X"? Jytdog (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Laetrile has been properly and explicitly debunked -- in the laetrile article. That is where PSCI & FRINGE apply. Here we must follow SYN and BLP. As for the cancer paragraph, the Nightingale citation violates SYN (and BLP) because Griffin is not explicitly mentioned. (The citation serves to imply a conclusion that Griffin is wrong about laetrile.) But it is not needed because Landau criticized the book and says the "scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it". (Perhaps a clearer quote from Landau can be had.) I am not going to post on the FNB as this is a BLP concern. When the page comes off PP someone will remove the Nightingale cite. Anyone who reinserts it does so with considerable risk because of the BLP sanctions. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

there is no need to repeat yourself, i understand where you are coming from and we disagree. There is "considerable risk" all around, with two policies at play and the AE sanctions about the economics issues, and the article already being protected once due to edit warring. So I suggest folks get consesnsus before making changes. I proposed a DR step to resolve our dispute and will go ahead and post there. Folks at FRINGE are very accustomed to dealing with the intersection issues, folks at BLP, not so much. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 17 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. <font 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  14:35, 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. <font 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  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)

Popular Paranoia as RS
I have a copy of Popular Paranoia: Pop Culture Conspiracies on my Kindle (a title a bit different than that cited as reference 5). My copy does not mention Griffin or Creature. With this in mind, a page number or/and quote would be nice. Also, my copy does not have references or footnotes. Is Kenn RS? – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RS? Maybe after the notability tag on his Wiki page is removed. If you get a chance, listen to the opening segment at the following link, at least up to the point the interviewer talks about how he dislikes Wikipedia just before he reads Kenn's bio.  Interesting take on how he handles the contentious label of "conspiracy theorist".  Keep listening if you're into UFOs.  Perhaps Kenn's encounter with Timothy Leary in 1992 is what gave him a leg-up on the notability bandwagon, yes?  I did appreciate the way Leary's Wiki page was written.  Perhaps Griffin lacks the respect of neutrality because he's been writing about the wrong drug.  <font 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  22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2014
The lead contains the following BLP violations:
 * G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist - contentious label represented as a statement of fact seemingly held by Wikipedia. Also, one of the cited sources, Pranksters... does not make such a claim, and the 2nd source, Media Matters for America, is clearly a partisan source that professes to be a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation".
 * He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer is a metabolic disease that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin, and for his promotion of the conspiracy theory that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure. - poorly written, not NPOV.
 * Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community. Pejorative, supposition, and accusatory; presented as a statement of fact, and seemingly a view held by Wikipedia; poorly written, not NPOV.
 * He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism. - the cited source, Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology, is not a RS.
 * The entire lead violates WP:BLP and has major issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV.
 * Section titles in the body of the article also violate WP:BLP. There are multiple BLP violations throughout the body that should also be addressed, but since the lead sets the tone for the entire article, I felt it should be addressed first.

Proposed change for the lead

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, researcher, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. In the 1960s, he authored several books about a diverse range of controversial topics, such as international banking, subversion, the history of taxation, the science and politics of cancer therapy, and the Supreme Court. His first published book was, The Fearful Master (1964), which describes the evolution of the United Nations, and what Griffin theorizes as a socialistic push for the creation of a new world government. He has since authored many successful book titles and documentary films. Critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist while proponents consider him a distinguished author.

Perhaps Griffin's most notable work is, The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), a business best-seller which describes the evolution of the Federal Reserve System, a monetary system which has long been embroiled in controversy because of its influence on the American economy. Prior to writing The Creature From Jekyll Island (1994), Griffin attended the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and received designation as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) in 1989, an education he sought in order to acquire a better understanding of investments and money markets.

Griffin's career in broadcast communication began with his role as a child actor on local radio from 1942 to 1947. He graduated with a bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1953, and served two years of military duty in the United States Army (1954 to 1956), attaining the rank of sergeant.

<font 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  14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Atsme has made these claims many times, including above, where some discussion is occurring. We are still working on the body and it is premature to address the LEAD, as it will just summarize the body. Trying to do this via edit request while the article is protected is classic WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - please, such accusations are unfounded, unnecessary, and demonstrate WP:SQS, which your actions here closely resemble. Let's stay focused on the BLP violations.   <font 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  20:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Prior to full protection, Atsme was edit-warring to make these changes. To implement them now would be to reward the edit-warring.  The current version is in no respect a BLP violation; Atsme says it is, but one would want to review the discussions above addressing this claim, and there one will find entirely reasonable discussion including posts by multiple editors who disagree with Atsme in this respect.  The page should be left as it is and then edited per consensus in the usual way when protection ends.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - See WP:NOT3RR 3RR exemptions The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). The BLP violations are blatant as I pointed out above.  <font 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  16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Atsme did not edit war on December 15. I was making various changes when Jytdog and Steeletrap reverted. Then the page was protected. Even so, Atsme's proposed lede needs discussion. For example, the Barisheff citation is problematic. The total page count is provided in the cite, not the specific page where Griffin is mentioned. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not having the page number for Barisheff is a minor issue that can easily be corrected. It's use does not create a BLP violation, or try to justify one.  Please, let's not lose sight of the violations.  The arguments being provided are the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again.  The BLP violations still exist.  <font 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  16:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - there are no page numbers. It's Chapter 2 under the heading Central Banks In The United States.  Quoting from the book, Perhaps no author in modern times has made such a valiant and thorough effort to understand the Federal Reserve as G. Edward Griffin.  The author then explains the accreditation of Griffin and his designation as a CFP.    <font 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  16:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then say it is in chapter 2 and provide a quote about why he sought CFP. For the "page= " put down "np". Same problem with a specific page number applies with reference 5 ( D'Arista). Also, she's the editor. Who wrote the specific chapter? (IOW, please cross the i's and dot the t's.) Next, simply saying Steamshovel is non-RS does not give justification for an edit request. Instead of a shot-gum edit request I recommend that you be more specific, concise, correct and limited. If there is discussion (above) that shows consensus for a change, then refer to that discussion and make the request. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the two minor citation errors and omissions. FYI - D'Arista is credited as the author, so I changed the link for clarity.  Details belong in the body of the article, not in the lead.  I appreciate you wanting to hone the citations. <font 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  20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have that much interest in the economic issues relating to Griffin, but I would hesitate to treat Barisheff as a reliable, maindtream source. I know that advocating for gold is part of the whole austrian school thing (per Gold_standard) and that subject matter is directly subject to the AE sanctions.  But again, I would stand back from relying on Barisheff too much for making claims about Griffin. It is the choir singing to itself and per WP:Controversial articles everybody should be reaching for the best, most neutral sources they can.   Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Barisheff's book serves as a reliable third-party source that further validates Griffin's accreditation in compliment to the self-published source(s) which will be cited in the body of the article. Standard protocol for verifiability without OR.  <font 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  20:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do understand that you think that. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Following is why I think that: WP:Verifiability Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, and then go to WP:3PARTY must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, and further Secondary does not mean third-party, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but they are not always third-party sources.  Nick Barisheff - President and CEO of Bullion Management Group Inc. Widely recognized as an international bullion expert, Nick has written numerous articles on bullion and current market trends that are published on various news and business websites.  Compared to the sources currently in use and the many BLP violations in this article, well....let's just say we probably aren't going to agree on what Wiki considers RS.


 * If you're trying to argue that he's not a conspiracy theorist, then I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Quibbling about the strength of sourcing does not really help because the fact is that he is a prominent advocate of conspiracy theories. The existence of the article relies, to no small extent, on the profile he gets form people like Beck, and that means the controversies go right along with it.
 * Griffin advocates laetrile as a cancer cure. That marks him out as a dangerous crank. So does his entry in the Encylopaedia of American Loons. And the existence of a page on whale.to., And his promotion by Natural News. These are not good things. They are very bad things. They indicate that Mr. Objectivity left the building some time ago. It's hard to refer to The Capitalist Conspiracy without being, you know, a conspiracy theorist. Guy (Help!) 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * what part of the proposed lead made you draw such conclusions? On what premise are you calling opinions "facts"?  I never disputed the fact that Griffin has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by his critics, but to flat-out call him an American conspiracy theorist as a statement of fact is pejorative in every sense of the word.  I disagree that the strength of sources in a BLP do not help because your position conflicts with policy which calls for high quality reliable sources, and strict adherence to all applicable laws in the United States, to BLP policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies.  That is not the position you just supported.  Even if the sources refer to Griffin as a conspiracy theorist, it is still just an opinion, not a fact.  Experienced editors should know full well that citing sources which make only trivial mention of the subject is unacceptable, which is what you just did with the following:, , and .  Two of the sources are POV, and one of them is clearly partisan - all have trivial mention and are unacceptable.  There are just as many if not more RS that support completely opposite views and opinions from the POV you are advocating.  You didn't even consider them.  In fact, you did not come here with a NPOV as demonstrated here  The article needs balance and neutrality, not more of the same POV advocacy.  Facts are indisputable, and opinions are not facts.  Your conclusion was not based on NPOV.  Just curious - did you consult with  before making your edits here?   <font 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  04:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in the opinions of apologists, I am not American and have no dog in this fight but it is pretty clear that if he weren't a featured conspiracy theorist in popular media, we would not even have an article at all. More robust sourcing is always good, though. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." - Lewis Carroll. <font 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  12:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your argument is invalid. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not agree with my argument, but it is certainly not invalid. Unlike you, I have maintained NPOV, and have based my argument on strict adherence to WP:BLP policy.  I admittedly am not well-versed in BLP sanctions, or how the process actually applies, but based on what I've gleaned so far, the BLP violations in the article as well as the reverts after the violations were removed appear to be highly inappropriate, much like the childish template you just added.  I certainly hope you will act responsibly and remove it.  Your ridicule is disruptive.  <font 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  01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)