Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 7

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

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

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

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

My two cents. Signing off. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks - the other case where you get piles of refs is where something is highly contested despite solid sourcing, and the only way to address the objections is to pile up references.  More of a product of difficult process and disagreements among editors than the content per se. No? Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend viewing the following presentation (approx 8 min in) regarding BLPs -  Happy New Year everyone!!  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlike Alex Jones, whose profession really is "conspiracy theorist", Griffin is merely known for conspiracy theories. I'm not sure how that should be stated in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I won't argue with you there, and I'll throw in Jesse Ventura on the same level. Griffin has been referred to as.... Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - Jesse Ventura, who actually hosts a TV Series titled Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura doesn't even mention that he is a conspiracy theorist in the lede - James George Janos (born July 15, 1951), better known by his stage name, Jesse Ventura, is an American politician, actor, author, naval veteran, and former professional wrestler who served as the 38th Governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003. Yet, G. Edward Griffin who is most often referred to as a distinguished film producer, author, editor and political lecturer. is contentiously labeled a conspiracy theorist.   Makes no sense.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesse is known for something other than his conspiracy theories, but I can see your point. On the other hand, neither Ventura nor Griffin should ever be refered to as "distinguished".  I'd like to see your reference for that. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton once referred to the "Vast right-wing conspiracy". Do we describe her as a conspiracy theorist? As the term is derogatory, it would be disruptive (and pure POV) to do so. Let's adhere to NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * we have five sources in the lead alone for "conspiracy theorist" and several more contextual ones (his view of the Fed as a "cartel" and "instrument of totalitarianism", and his views on the "suppression" of laetrile as follows: "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health"....are conspiracy theories themselves. We call a duck a duck in WP.  It does not violate NPOV.  The comparison to Clinton is a strawman and not helpful; Clinton has not built her career as a "crusader rabbit" against various conspiracies.  Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we have 5 sources that are stating their opinion about Griffin. WP should not be the vehicle for their opinions. But I'll give you another example – Jeremiah Wright. Quoting from the article: "Writing for The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates characterized Wright's remarks as "crude conspiratorial antisemitism."" And in Jeremiah Wright controversy we see him quoted with "The government lied about Pearl Harbor too. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie."  Should he be described as a "conspiracy theorist"? Good grief, using the term in the lede, much less in the infobox, is just wrong. It is a BLP violation that should be changed immediately, without further discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * S Rich, we are just rehashing stuff. Above, I suggested that we frame an RfC and you didn't respond.  Please let me know what kind of DR process you are interested in us pursuing.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Srich. It is defamatory and a violation of BLP policy. His points about Hilary Clinton and Jeremiah Wright (Which by the way, are not "re-hashing")  are spot on.  Unless a "conspiracy theorist" characterization is SELF-applied, then it does NOT belong in the lead paragraph or in the infobox. TheSwitzerdude (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The desires to put CT in the lede/info box or simply in the article text may be a rehash of the arguments, but the examples of Jones, Ventura, Clinton, and Wright are new and illustrative. (Let's see what discussion ensues.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the examples you bring are parallel to Griffith. None of them have made a career as a "crusader rabbit" against various conspiracies (with the exception of Ventura, who has certainly ventured there in his post-governor life). Conspiracy theorist is Griffith's main bid for notability. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverend White certainly made a career as a "crusader". Here is an opinion piece from The American Spectator: "The Gospel According to Wright". If we pick up 4 more sources that describe him as a duck (or rabbit), are we justified in describing him as a conspiracy theorist in the lede? If not, then why not? "Governments lie" sounds very duckish to me.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And considering that 2 of your 5 sources are from Slate.com, here is an interesting one about Wright: "The AIDS Conspiracy Handbook". – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC) And here is another one: . By Christopher Hitchens no less. So we now have 3 sources that describe Wright as a conspiracy theorist. Go ahead, I'll put Wright on my watchlist and await your edit to describe him as a duck in the lede and infobox.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) As I watch the Rose Parade, I'm Googling for more sources about Wright being a conspiracy theorist. Number 4 is from Townhall.com when it was owned by Heritage Foundation. Do I need to post the link? Do I need to come up with more? No, I think the point is well illustrated – when we have a contentious, POV-based opinion about someone we do not dress it up as a "fact" and put it in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jones and Griffin, at least, are not called anything else than conspiracy theorists in reliable sources. I'm not sure about White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite correct. Griffin is also known for his films (especially the Noah's Ark work), for promotion of laetrile, and (I believe) his promotion of gold & silver as investments. The opinion sources that "know him" as CT are grinding their axes. Also, we only have 4 sources because the McLeod citation in Salon.com is a reprint of his Pranksters book (and that description is problematic). In Koerner's blog we see a parenthetical mention of Griffin. I have little objection to most of the lede (we do need to cull the redundant info about laetrile/amygdalin). I suggest we use the brief description used by London: "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker". But using CT as the first term in the opening sentence and in the infobox as an "occupation" is improper. Again, to compare, there is much more RS available to describe White as an antisemitic-AIDS-denying-CT. But adding CT/AIDS denier to White's lede sentence or infobox would be undue as well.  – S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to . A few examples:  "With distinguished speakers including G. Edward Griffin...",, and "Mr. Griffin is a distinguished film producer, author, editor and political lecturer." , and "American scholar G. Edward Griffin wrote, 'To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.'" .  Hopefully that's enough to get the point across.  And Jytdog - his name is Griffin, not Griffith.  You must be thinking of Andy from the town of Mayberry.


 * It was quite refreshing to read the comments by,  (talk), and . Now if we can just get past the recurring obstacles of WP:SQS and WP:OWN demonstrated by some who haven't even contributed one sentence of prose to improve/expand the article.  Why expend so much energy in a starter article?  Perhaps because it is much easier to maintain a WP:Coatrack whereas improving/expanding threatens POV.  Isn't that similar behavior to what we'd see if there was an underlying motive, or WP:COI?  The WP:UNDUE aspects along with Griffin's book World Without Cancer have taken on a life of their own.  The focus is continuously diverted away from what is best for the BLP to what is best for....what, exactly?  There has been far too much disruption over the minor policy compliant changes that have been proposed.  If we can't move forward with improvements/expansion, we should skip the RfC because of the sensitivity of the BLP and Pseudoscience sanctions on this article, and go straight to a higher level of DR where we have a better shot at neutral eyes seeing it that are also trained in BLP matters.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to have meaningful discussions with you when you take the view that only you and others who agree with you are "policy compliant" and "neutral". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept their view as being policy compliant and neutral because I respect their judgement as Master editors.  has collaborated on countless articles (including over 500 BLPs  political biographies), and  is also a Master editor (with over 78,000 edits). Together they dwarf the experience and edit counts of all of us combined.  I have chosen to learn from editors like them, and I feel fortunate to be able to collaborate with them.  Doing so has improved my work as an editor on WP, even though I have enjoyed a very successful career as an accomplished publisher/writer/producer in the real world.  We are never beyond learning, especially when we venture into disciplines with learning curves like the ones WP presents.  Not every editor sets their sites on creating and/or collaborating on DYK articles, GAs and FAs.  I happen to be one of those editors.  You apparently have chosen a different path.  As a result, we have come to a crossroad where we disagree.  It's nothing more - nothing less.  Again, I consult you to spend some time watching the 2009 Wiki conference keynote by  who focused on BLPs. . FF to 9:00 minutes in.  It's about an hour long, but quite enlightening, especially for those who find it difficult to see beyond their own perspectives and POV.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I quite naturally think that my perspective here is policy compliant and neutral. I could hardly think otherwise, could I?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I rather doubt I've worked on even 50 BLPs — I usually do the biographies of dead people because they don't wiggle as much. Regardless, getting "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead seems extremely basic and obvious regardless what one thinks about the subject's ideas. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you haven't provided a rationale. In my view, the description is very well sourced, and there are plenty of other BLPs described as such in the lead (per  this search.  Why do you say this?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The search results provide leads, but how many of the articles have CT as the first descriptive in the lede? (BTW, using quotes on the search term culls the results to 426.) Also, the results are very much WP:OSE. That said, what say you all to my proposed compromise? Can we put in an edit request and/or removal of page protection? – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you are the guy citing other articles. and while precedent is useful it is not a determiner (which is what OSE is about).  The precedents make it clear that it is not out of bounds to use it in the lead.  The question for us here, is whether there is sourcing for it.  The sourcing is there to see, and i would appreciate it, if you would actually address the sources.   As for your compromise, I have already said I am fine with "conspiracy theorist" coming out of the infobox.  Nobody has objected to that, so an edit request to do that seems reasonable to me.  Too bad that Carrite provided no reasoning; that just means his view will be discounted when consensus is reckoned. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec x 2)
 * A few notes to indicate that none of you accurately understand the relevant policies.
 * The category requires more justification than an unadorned description.
 * If a single reliable source explicitly states that he is a "conspiracy theorist", we can say it. (I haven't checked.)
 * It is true that everything he is known for is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, or pseudohistory. However, we can't say that unless a reliable source explicitly says that, which I doubt.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have parsed the 5 sources: McLeod is duplicated, so that leaves 4; I commented on McLeod above, so he is not that strong; the other Salon.com source is partisan, as is Media Matters. That leaves London. Arthur, I don't object to calling him a CT in the lede paragraphs; rather, I am urging that we use the simple, unadorned London description in the first sentence. And I urge that CT be used as "known for" in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of biographies of notable people that I may personally think are nuts, kooks, cranks, charlatans, fanatics and even conspiracy theorists, based on what the reliable sources say about them. Of course, BLP policy does not require that we describe them in glowing terms, as if they are likely to win Nobel Prizes in 2015. On the other hand, banging them over the head with a sledgehammer in the opening sentences of their biography is unwise and may well be counterproductive. Editorial judgement calls for some subtlety and restraint. Conspiracy theorist is not a job title. An article written with the tact and restraint that BLP and NPOV asks of us is likely to be much more effective and persuasive than something that reads like a "hit piece" from sentence #1. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you proposing on the lead? I am interested in hearing - sounds like we might have something there. (and btw, I am fine with your suggestion about the infobox - that's great) Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [From the section above]: The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

sources for 'conspiracy theorist'
Those objecting to the "conspiracy theorist" label don't seem to be dealing with the sources in our article. Here they are.
 * ref 1 Pranksters. see ref 4 below.
 * Ref 2 : Quote: "On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck presented author G. Edward Griffin as a credible authority on the Federal Reserve. But Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories, including the notions that HIV does not exist and that cancer is a dietary deficiency that can be cured with "an essential food compound."" followed by a long list of examples.
 * ref 3 Quote: "Watch his conversation with noted conspiracy theorist  G. Edward Griffin."
 * ref 4  (note, this is an exerpt from Prankster and is redudant to ref 1)  Quote: "Paul’s endorsement of G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve”—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin’s book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul’s blurb for “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” he calls it “a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.” It sure is. "  (NB:  the book is all about conspiracy theorists.  when the author says "standard issue". he clearly means standard issue conspiracy theories)
 * ref 5:  Quote: "Conspiracy-theorist G. Edward Griffin also asserts that doctors aren’t taught about “natural cures” or nutrition in medical school."
 * ref 8 is from Kenn Thomas's magazine Steamshovel Press, which is a magazine devoted to conspiracy theories and parapolitics. The sourced content is "He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism"


 * Other sources not cited in our article:
 * Griffin spoke at Conspiracy Con in 2007 on "THE QUIGLY FORMULA (A Conspiratorial View of History)" . Conspiracy Con is what it sounds like.
 * ] quote: "To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.” Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order.”"
 * Griffin is featured as the key example in the chapter on Fed conspiracy theories here, in a book called "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, the Illmuniati, Skull & Bones, Black Helicopters, teh New World Order, and Many, Many More".
 * and griffin himself talks about the "conspiracy theory" he is advocating in his own book here


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


 * , I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand a policy that is stated unambiguously, and that provides examples for further clarification., I agree with (1) and (3) regarding relevant policy, but (2) needs to be qualified.  We can say so-and-so considers him a conspiracy theorist, or so-and-so referred to him as a conspiracy theorist, or he is considered by many to be a conspiracy theorist.  We cannot/must not make it a statement of fact that he is a conspiracy theorist because it is still an opinion.  Griffin does not consider himself a conspiracy theorist, nor did he choose it as his occupation.  See WP:NPOV (my bold) which is one of the three core content policies in a BLP:  Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."  A BLP must be handled with even more care, so if we say so-and-so referred to him as, we need to have several high quality reliable sources that states it, and not just as trivial mention. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see people arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned in some form in the lead. I see people arguing that it is a mistake to hammer it so aggressively in the opening sentences, in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * [From the section above]: The article is in Category:Conspiracy theorists. (I have no objection to this.) I suggest the following compromise: Use "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker" in the lede sentence and infobox for "Occupation". Add "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion" as a "known for" parameter in the infobox. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AGREE with S. Rich. BLPs are supposed to be NPOV, dispassionate in tone, verifiable, no OR, no undue weight, balanced, no synth.  The 3 core content policies must be followed.  The sources Jytdog referenced above are not even close to RS. Another problem is "trivial mention" which should not even be considered for inclusion in a BLP.  #2 ref is so trivial it is in parentheses.  Then there is the problem of WP:SYNTH.  References #1, #3, #4, #5 are partisan, and totally unacceptable. #8 is a joke, and shameful to even include it.  These sources are a slap in the face to BLP policy.   <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  04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, if you will agree I will edit the first line as per my suggestion. London will be the reference for it. The infobox "known for" will contain the remaining 3 refs (McLeod's being a duplicate). Then I'll redo the redundant laetrile description. Say yes and I will post the edit request for PP removal. (Or Arthur can remove the PP.) Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - please be a little more specific regarding what you are proposing. When rereading the above, I saw where you agreed to keeping CT in the infobox, and want to include an "unadorned" what in the lede??  Atsme (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * first sentence: "GEG (dob) is an American author, lecturer, and filmaker.[London]"
 * Infobox 'Occupation': "Author, lecturer, and filmaker"
 * Infobox 'Known for': "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion[the other 3 refs now in the lede first sentence]"
 * Jeez, trust me on this. You can object to my edits after they are done. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to include the statement that he is a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can include that his critics refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, but it is not Wikipedia's position that he IS one. He is an author who writes about controversial subjects, and some have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist. I included the exact terminology from policy above. <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  06:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second sentence will remain the same. "He is perhaps best known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System." And he will remain in the CT category. Double jeez, I'm stepping away from this till tomorrow, which is, after all another day. – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My computer's Internet connection is flakey, so I cannot access my guideline list, but, for a person's article to be in a category, the fact that he is in the category must be in the article and, if controversial, sourced. Hence the article must state that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, a "trivial mention" is acceptable for a fact, such as that he is a conspiracy theorist. It's difficult for me to check references on such a small screen, so I have not confirmed that any references state that he is a conspiracy theorist.  I suppose the reference stating that he supports conspiracy theories would be adequate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

i listed the sources at the top of this subsection and provided the relevant quotes there - no need to even click off this page. Jytdog (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please find a good computer connection Arthur because what you just stated will change the face of BLPs all over WP. Editors who are well-qualified in writing BLPs also need to be made aware, including  who gave a keynote address on this subject, and   who already posted here.  The numbers of editors who have weighed in so far also dispute what you're saying.  Such a bold statement needs verification because it does does not represent strict adherence to any of the policy I quoted above, including WP BLP policy, FRINGEBLP, NPOV, VERIFIABILITY, RS, and SYNTH.  It will also make a huge difference in the conspiracy theorist "statement of fact" in WP's voice on hundreds of other BLPs, including the ones  stated above and many, many more.  Also, please quote the policy wherein it states "trivial mention" that uses pejorative terminology is acceptable as fact to repeat in WP's voice.  <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  13:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Conspiracy theories category states: this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. For example, the article Area 51 appears under Category:Conspiracy theories (C:CT), so anyone who actively defends conspiracy theories mentioned in that article would be classified here as a Conspiracy theorist. Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. G. Edward Griffin does not fit this profile, therefore his BLP should not be listed in the Category. It doesn't appear that compromise is proving helpful.  A rough consensus shows there are more against the statement of fact, he IS a conspiracy theorists, and more who agree that it should be stated as the opinion it is...he HAS BEEN REFERRED TO as a conspiracy theorist.  <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  13:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, your perspective on this issue is not in line with policy. The sources above document the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist.  There is no source for the notion that various people "believe" he is a conspiracy theorist, or that it is someone's "opinion" that he is a conspiracy theorist.  If those words (believe, opinion) are in a reliable source of some sort, you are invited to produce those sources.  If not, you would run afoul of core policies such as WP:V if you used that language.  This would be highly inappropriate on a BLP.  You might want to leave these issues to more neutral editors.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity, I have asked you politely to please refrain from making spurious comments about me on my TP, and that includes everywhere else, too. Your innuendo that I am not a neutral editor are unfounded as are your requests for me to recuse myself for no other reason than my ability to cite policy that disputes your claims.  If you disagree with the policy I've cited, then please cite the policy that disputes what I've said. <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  14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Following are quotes from the relative policies that confirm why contentious material cannot be written as a statement of fact per BLP, including why Griffin should not be categorized as a Conspiracy theorist according to Categorization of people. Perhaps we can find a compromise that more closely adheres to BLP policy.
 * WP:Trivial mentions The guideline states that these sources need to provide "significant coverage" of the topic, and this coverage must consist of more than a "trivial mention". The guideline has long stated that a one sentence mention is plainly trivial. I confer that a parenthetical comment in an article that is not in anyway related to the BLP is trivial mention, does not even meet the least of the notability requirements, and does not belong in a BLP.  Several of the named references are not RS according to BLP policy and its requirements to follow the 3 core content policies.
 * Categorization of people Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes:
 * standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality
 * the reason(s) for the person's notability, a.k.a. the characteristics the person is best known for.
 * For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right and/or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly, none of the celebrities commercializing a fragrance are listed in the perfumers category: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.
 * Categorize by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article: The most common mistake of this type is adding an article to Category:Biography. That category may legitimately contain articles about biographical films or biographical books, but should not contain articles about individual people. The article is a biography; the person is not.
 * Identifying reliable sources also in WP:Verifiability (shortcut WP:QS) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. <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  15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no particular opinion on this question, but note the above wall of text refers to "BLP policy", and then starts with a user essay which is in fact about establishing notability in relation to WP:GNG, so is not in truth relevant to the question at hand. Alexbrn talk 16:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In regards "trivial mention": A trivial mention may notice support notability, but can support a fact; in this case, that he supports conspiracy theories. The sources need not explicitly state that he is a "conspiracy theorist", but that he supports (and, in fact, invented one) conspiracy theories.
 * In regard being an experienced editor, I recently got my 100,000 edit badge. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I do hope the editors here know that it is not my intention or desire to be argumentative but because this issue involves a BLP, and the high sensitivity of the imposed sanctions, I feel obligated to adhere strictly to policy, and believe doing so should be the basis on which we proceed. Arthur, per your statement above, "It is true that everything he is known for is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, or pseudohistory. However, we can't say that unless a reliable source explicitly says that, which I doubt."  While I don't agree 100% with the pejorative terminology, I do agree that critics have used it to express their opinions about Griffin which is unequivocally POV and unreliably sourced. Opinions are not "fact", regardless of whether or not such opinions made Griffin notable. A fact is not disputed, but here we are now in a dispute over what some are trying to portray as facts. Griffin himself has also disputed the contentious labels and pejorative terms as have many others. I provided the RS necessary to validate my position. If I may please remind editors of the following:
 * Describing points of view which is to be used as a supplement to the WP:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTOPINION pages, and to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between the pages. At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.

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

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

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

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

Precedents
not citing these as binding us (not doing WP:OSE - we have to make our own decision based on sources relevant to our subject), only to show that other articles about conspiracy theorists actually call them that in the first line of the lead (these are just from the 1st 20 results in an advanced search for "conspiracy theorist" (without quotes even) (here): I can find more if anybody likes.... not hard to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * John Todd (conspiracy theorist)
 * Alex Jones (radio host)
 * Bart Sibrel
 * Mark Dice
 * James H. Fetzer
 * Michael Collins Piper (found by Srich going through the category of conspiracy theorists)
 * The above is a defamatory categorization of this BLP. Did you even bother to check the sources in the articles you listed above?  I consult you to spend less time hunting spurious references and more time reading the policy quotes above which some have contentiously referred to as a "wall of text".  They explain why you cannot label Griffin a conspiracy theorist as a statement of fact.  Spend your time finding RS to validate your position as was previously suggested to you.  RS should state matter-of-factly that he is a conspiracy theorist, and such sources should not include the very unreliable sources you already provided, including opinion pieces, trivial mention, and/or partisan sources.  The fact that you lumped Griffin into the same category with the names you mentioned above is all the more reason to exclude the Conspiracy theorist category on this BLP and speedily delete it as a statement of fact per Srich's proposal, particularly because of its defamatory nature.    <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  17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources amply substantiate it as a fact. What they do not do is to verify that he is "considered" or "referred to" as a conspiracy theorist.  I made this latter point to you above; it's unfortunate and tendentious that you have ignored it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing more I can say to convince those of you who support a very contentious POV that what you are attempting to do to this BLP is in direct conflict with policy. Editors who are far more experinced than I have also tried to show you the correct way.  The rough consensus is that the "statement of fact" you support is a BLP violation, but it appears you simply WP:DONTGETIT.  I have asked  for advice regarding the next plausible step of DR to expedite review and hopefully removal of the violations, and put an end to this very frustrating debate.  The sensitivity of a BLP and the sanctions in place seem to require a review by neutral eyes that are also notably experienced with BLP matters. <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  18:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources make it clear that he supports, and probably invented, his Federal Reserve conspiracy theory. That should be adequate for the category, and for it to be explicitly mentioned in the lead.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur, please refer to Category: Conspiracy theorists which I previously stated above: Theories without corresponding C:CT articles will not count for inclusion here. The Federal Reserve is not in the list of Conspiracy theories which is required in order to list the BLP. Further, several sections in the BLP are being disputed because of poor sourcing, pejorative terminology and the like.  Don't you think it would be best to wait until those issues are resolved first? Thank you for your collaboration. <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  01:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP policy concerns

I have noticed that commentaries regarding WP:BLP policy, have not been properly addressed. Why? In my read of the policies, it's a violation to describe Griffin as a conspiracy theorist in WP voice. The contentious label "conspiracy theorist" in this BLP can not be used as a statement of fact when such terminology is always a matter of opinion. I agree with Carrite, Atsme, S. Rich, TheSwitzerdude, and Cullen that the correct use of the term would be "Griffin has been referred to as..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not certain that our existing sources are adequate to establish 7

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