Talk:Jeremy Griffith

Controversal content
I removed the content from this article that obviously violates WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE, and User:Divinecomedy666 (the author of the content added) undid my edits. After reviewing his/her contributions, I realized that he/she had done similar edits in 2011, which got my attention even more. Bbb23 advised me to get the discussion here without starting an editing war. --BiH (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I vote that this whole article by tagged as violating WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. It is not a neutral point-of-view and relies too much on Griffith's own words about himself. ProfGiles (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a Wikipedia user, but I agree with ProfGiles. How can this be done?  I've just been looking up various things about Griffith and the World Transformation Movement, which has been advertising heavily on sites I use at the moment, and it all seems pretty dodgy...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.158.3 (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is still at it, now appearing on YT ads. All of which seems to indicate that he has become the patsy (useful fool... something along such lines) of a bunch of rich people. It is the old fallacy of social darwinism, in that a biological explanation of how we came to be as we are can be parlayed into a justification for the rich getting richer. Quite apart from the merits of the explanation (and volumes can be written about this alone), it can never become a justification. That's a categorical error. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:30A1:F00A:F51:6ADE (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.155.189 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Bestseller"
The claim is made that the book "A Species in Denial" was a "bestseller" in Australia and New Zealand and the reference is simply a link to U.S. Amazon. This shows nothing about how many sales the book had in Australia and New Zealand. It's release was well publicised and it seemed to be in most large bookshops I visited at that time, but surely the claim that it was a "bestseller" requires some sales figures or a listing on a newspaper's Bestseller list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiescribbler (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
Okay lads, this whole article is laudatory in tone. I am going to add the POV template and start trying to figure out what to do with it. I will also add a section in WP:COIN to alert more experienced editor to this.

I cought drift on it in WP:COIN where the article was mentioned with regards to newly caught sockpuppets of ErnestCarrot. It seems that this sockpuppet master was hired by Griffith's organization to push POV material into this article.

Then we have a problem of WP:N: a quick online search reveals that most sources on Griffith are from his own websites or various other promotional material. Non-affiliated sites usually speak of other Jeremy Graffifths. It seems that Mister Griffith and his organization sunk lots of money into advertising, including hiring the said sockpuppet master.

He might be also related to a fringe pseudoscience theory called "Human Thermodynamics". I am pretty sure his own (rather bogus sounding) theory about the "Human Condition" is pseudoscience, as he seems to pass it off as legitimate biological research.

Av &#61; λv (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The page now seems fine to me, so I’ve removed the WP:POV template. A quick search on ProQuest revealed quite a lot of material on Griffith and have drawn on it to reinclude some of the unsourced content you removed.Cabrils (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Quadrant Magazine unreliable source
Jlevi has removed the 2 citations to Quadrant Magazine based on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269, which states that "Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting by this community. As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible". Please note the specific terminology: "generally unreliable...should be avoided wherever possible" (emphasis added). In this case, the source is used to support 2 factual statements: that Griffith was the subject of a Four Corners program; and that the NSW Court of Appeal found what was said of him was untrue. The author of the cited Quadrant article is Geoffrey Luck, a respected Australian journalist; and the article was a detailed review of the Four Corners franchise. Accordingly the article is clearly independent, verifiable, substantial and reliable. While Quadrant may be "considered generally unreliable", this is an example where it's use as a source is appropriate given the limited and uncontroversial nature of the facts it is citing and the credibility of the author, Geoffrey Luck (who himself was a journalist at the ABC for 26 years. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

POV
I just found this article when looking up the World Transformation Movement and, at a glance I could see that it has serious POV issues. The subject advocates very controversial views about science and politics and yet there is barely a word about critical responses to this. Instead it mostly reads like a set of gushing quotations from his various admirers and attempts to inherit notability from the notability of some of those admirers. That's all good stuff for the dustjacket of his books but not so great for Wikipedia. Are we seriously meant to believe that there is not some more controversy here? If not, I would question whether the subject is notable at all? Anyway, I'll tag for POV. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have just looked into one aspect of the article (relating to the defamation proceedings) and found that it inaccurately categorised the court's decision. I have amended but suspect there is a great deal more work to be done here. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve worked on your edit because there were some serious problems with it. Your edit that "The court noted, in a decision that was upheld on appeal in 2010 by the NSW Court of Appeal, that his work had no support from the scientific community and was of a poor standard" is, respectfully, a simplistic and inaccurate summary of the Court of Appeal judgment. As you noted in your footnote, the Court of Appeal found that "the view of the primary judge that the work is of poor standard to be a view that could reasonably be reached" and "the finding of the primary judge that the appellant’s work had no support at all from the scientific community has not been shown to be in error". However, and this is key, the | Court of Appeal ruled that “the nature and scale”(89) of Griffith’s work was “not adequately considered by the primary judge”(90) and went on to find that while there were many unconventional aspects to Griffith’s work, such as Griffith “had no affiliation or association with a university or scientific establishment, had no recognition from a university or scientific establishment other than an undergraduate degree, had apparently not published in peer review publications, and had self-published the work under consideration, are not elements of the standard of the work itself, but are nevertheless factors counting heavily against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community. The circumstance that the work was a grand narrative explanation from a holistic approach, involving teleological elements, would also count against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community, without necessarily impacting on the standard of the work.”(91) Basically, it was ruled that unconventionality doesn’t in itself constitute poor standard. Consequently the defamatory meaning conveyed in the program was found to not be true: “I would give effect to my own view that causation (in the sense explained above) was not established; and on that basis, I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out.”(95) The wording that was on the page prior to your edit IMO was an accurate summation of the | cited article (which is a reporter’s critique of that court case in the context of other programs made by Four Corners). The Court of Appeal considered a number of issues but the relevant information for Griffith’s page is surely that (1) he didn’t win any money and (2) what Four Corners said wasn’t justified. In any event, that’s what the news report reported, so that’s what I included on the page. The cited article states: “While the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming Griffith’s book was of such poor scientific standard that it had no support at all from the scientific community, Four Corners avoided liability when the Court upheld a defence of comment. As a reading of the decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/257.html will confirm, that was an unusual outcome. What was interesting was the difficulty the judges created for such future cases with their comments on the imperatives of Rev. Millikan and the producers. The judgment found that Rev. Millikan considered Griffith’s activities highly undesirable in their impact on his followers and their families, and by inference, the purpose of the broadcast was to set back these activities. Rev. Millikan had also engaged in misrepresentation to obtain Griffith’s co-operation in making the broadcast. But the purpose of the broadcast, it said, was to inform the audience; setting back the activities was not the dominant purpose; the misrepresentation was engaged in to enable the giving of information, not for any other purpose. Therefore, the publication was not actuated by malice. Evidently the appeal judges failed to understand the motivations of some investigative journalism projects, which from time to time clearly attempt both to inform audiences and to exert social and political influence.” I also understood citing directly from court judgements was bad editing policy (isn’t a judgment a primary source?) so I kept my original edit strictly to what was published in the cited article, but if citing the judgment directly is OK, then hopefully the edit I have now made is OK. Cabrils (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when are scientific questions decided by lawyers? Most of that crap is irrelevant legal mumbo-jumbo. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing some serious problems here. There's at least one source cited which doesn't seem to exist, and the claim regarding the appeals court finding is directly contradicted by the source cited. Also, the appeals ruling (a primary source) is being cited to support text which is directly contradicted by the ruling. I altered both, but was reverted both time. I reverted the revert of the nonexistent source, as that's flatly unacceptable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your experience and goodwill, and I am certainly not wanting to engage in an editing war (which would be my first ever), but respectfully, what you’ve asserted here isn’t correct. Firstly, the Southland Times source does exist. I don’t know what access rights your ProQuest search has but I am seeing the article in full: https://imgur.com/a/qsBMB7F. I haven’t undone your removal of the content based on this Southland Times article but if you’re satisfied with this then you might reinstate it? Secondly, as I explained in my previous post, regarding the court judgment: the wording prior to Chocmilk03’s edit was based on a secondary source article (an independent, reliable, substantial report), and I have explained there my concerns about using a judgment (a primary source), but as I said, if other editors feel it’s OK to use the judgment, which ChocMilk03 did and introduced, then OK, but then please use the correct finding of the judgment, the relevant part being in both the summary at the start of the judgment at paragraph 11 (“The primary judge set the bar for the relevant finding of causation too low, and his reasons did not adequately support his conclusion. Causation was not established and on that basis the defence of truth was not made out.”) and in the main judgment 95 (“…I would give effect to my own view that causation (in the sense explained above) was not established; and on that basis, I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out”). Paragraphs 61 and 85 (which Chocmilk03 and you have referred to) are not determinative of the final ruling which, as cited above in paragraphs 11 and 95, held that the defence of truth was not successful. Chocmilk03’s edit misrepresents the judgment. Regarding the secondary source article (which I personally feel is the better source to use rather than the primary source judgment), please see the reporter’s summary of the case, which is consistent with what I’ve done in the current edit: “While the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming Griffith’s book was of such poor scientific standard that it had no support at all from the scientific community, Four Corners avoided liability when the Court upheld a defence of comment.”. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The screenshot of the article that you provided is good enough for me as far as verification goes: It might be a geographic thing that's available to you, but not to me. Before you revert me however, there's a question of WP:DUE. This is a shockingly obscure review, and I'm not sure it belongs in the article. However, if it's the only review of this book available, then I guess we can leave it in. However, if there are other, more prominent reviews available, I'd prefer to see one of those used, instead.
 * Regarding the judgement; I've read through the whole thing, and I was not referring to paragraphs 61 and 85, but to the summary of the appeals court's ruling near the beginning, where it states clearly that the appeals court judge upheld the lower court ruling on the overall truth of the statement. Paragraph 95 is as I described in my edit summary; the appeals court judge is disagreeing with one aspect of the trial court judge's ruling. It's saying that the defense of truth as rested upon the specific question being addressed in that paragraph is untenable. Of course, the defense of truth did not rest upon that specific question, but upon several, others.
 * I understand (and agree) that that criticism of the lower court's ruling is important to understanding the case, but as this is a primary source, we have to severely limit the ways we're using it. For the broad and simple statement that the finding was upheld, we can use it. To go further, into analysis by saying how and why the appeals court judge critiqued the lower court judge's ruling would be WP:OR.
 * I'd like you to note the wording that used; saying that the work was of poor quality and that it lacked scientific support. It's very precise, and probably the only way to communicate the detail that the appeals court did not agree that the lack of support was necessarily due to the quality of his work. It's probably the best possible way to say it in as much detail as possible without getting into OR or just quoting the whole ruling.
 * Regarding the secondary source over the ruling; it's entirely unacceptable; it's one of our perennially unreliable sources and is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting and highly biased and opinionated. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269, where editors also pointed out instances of pure fabrication. It's the sort of source that, generally speaking, if it agrees with you, you're probably wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * – Southland Times: Yes, maybe our geography is the reason ProQuest is not displaying it for you. To be fair, the Southland Times is a regional newspaper but it’s of higher readership than a lot of sources I see being used around the place. Re WP:UNDUE: This review is one of several on the page, including one from Australia’s national newspaper. It’s just the source for the statement that was included. That book is from 2003 also, so it’s pre-internet. If I can find a better source I will.
 * Judgement: OK, well again, respectfully, I suggest the judgment is not consistent with your interpretation. We are diving into some detail here but clearly it’s necessary.
 * I’m not sure how familiar you are with Australian defamation law, but in a nutshell if a defamatory meaning is conveyed by a publication then a person can complain to the court, and the publisher has the opportunity to defend that defamatory meaning (by for example proving that meaning is true—see the current Ben Roberts-Smith case). You would have read at the start of the judgment under the heading “Headnote” that the defamatory meaning in this case was “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community.” As the judgment states shortly below that at (ii): In order for the publisher to defend that defamatory meaning, it had to prove all 3 elements: (a) poor standard; (b) no support; and (c) causation, ie that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard. And on that crucial issue of a lack of support being caused by a poor standard, the Court of Appeal ruled, that a lack of support was not caused by a poor standard: it ruled that “the nature and scale” (89) of Griffith’s work was “not adequately considered by the primary judge” (90) and went on to find that while there were many unconventional aspects to Griffith’s work, such as Griffith “had no affiliation or association with a university or scientific establishment, had no recognition from a university or scientific establishment other than an undergraduate degree, had apparently not published in peer review publications, and had self-published the work under consideration, are not elements of the standard of the work itself, but are nevertheless factors counting heavily against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community. The circumstance that the work was a grand narrative explanation from a holistic approach, involving teleological elements, would also count against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community, without necessarily impacting on the standard of the work.” (91)
 * Essentially, the court of appeal ruled that unconventionality doesn’t in itself constitute poor standard; that it did was basically the logic that the primary judge used, and why the appeal court ultimately overturned the decision of the lower court on truth.
 * The publisher (the ABC) had to defend all 3 elements, which it did in the lower court, and that (amongst other things) was what the court of appeal reviewed. I agree the appeal court did not overturn the lower court’s finding regarding (a) poor standard; or (b) no support, but it did overturn the finding of (c) causation (that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard), and because of that, the overall defence of truth (that the meaning was true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community”) failed in the appeal court, ruling that “the defence of truth was not made out” (95).
 * The point is that the ABC tried but ultimately failed to prove that what they said about Griffith was true. Basically, it was not held to be true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community”. So any statement that in effect says the opposite is false, is a misrepresentation.
 * While the appeal court rejected and overturned the lower court decision on the defence of truth, it did not overturn the defence of comment, and it’s only on that basis the lower court’s judgment regarding the defence of comment stands. Your statement “clearly that the appeals court judge upheld the lower court ruling on the overall truth of the statement” is simply not correct.
 * I agree with your comment that “the appeals court judge is disagreeing with one aspect of the trial court judge's ruling” – the appeal judges only needed to disagree with 1 of the 3 elements for the defence of truth to fail, and that’s what they did, they said the third element, causation (that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard), wasn’t made out so the defamatory meaning wasn’t true so the defence of truth failed. You said “It's saying that the defense of truth as rested upon the specific question being addressed in that paragraph is untenable.” – yes correct. But where you say “Of course, the defense of truth did not rest upon that specific question, but upon several others”, that’s not right. The defence of truth rested upon all 3 elements and the defendant had to prove all three elements to succeed: (a) poor standard; (b) no support; and (c) causation (that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard). Again, in the final paragraph in the judgment regarding the defence of truth at (95), the appeal judges find: “…the primary judge set the bar for the relevant finding of causation too low, and his reasons did not adequately support his conclusion. On this element, I would give effect to my own view that causation (in the sense explained above) was not established; and on that basis, I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out.” Yes, “on this element” and therefore, because not all 3 elements were successfully defended, “the defence of truth was not made out.”.
 * The appeal court did overturn the lower court’s finding that the defamatory meaning was true. That is the accurate summary of what happened. I have noted Chocmilk03’s wording (which is included in the defamatory meaning) in the live version: “the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court ruling that found that a lack of scientific support for Griffith’s work was because of it being of a poor standard, and so found that the ABC’s defence of truth was not made out”, with ‘because’ being the key element in the Court of Appeal’s ruling against truth.
 * I personally don’t think, as you say “criticism of the lower court's ruling is important to understanding the case [and therefore is justified being included on the page]” and that’s not the point I’m making. I agree that using the judgment is problematic because it’s a primary source, and it’s also WP:OR. But if you want to use Chocmilk03’s wording, which says that the appeal court upheld the incidental (the one element) finding that (a) it was of a poor standard; and (b) (the element that it) had no support, then you have to say "but the court of appeal overturned the lower court’s finding that the lack of support was not (c) caused by the poor standard, and on that basis the whole defence failed (because to defend the defamatory meaning on the basis that it was true, all 3 elements of the meaning have to be proved true)". And that, IMO is obviously WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.
 * So that’s why I have worded it as it currently is, which does use Chocmilk03’s wording of “poor standard” and “lack of support” and doing so doesn’t rely on the judgment and so avoids the problems of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.
 * You don’t have to take my word for whether what I’ve said is an accurate summary (and as an independent editor you shouldn’t), but you should consider what Geoffrey Luck wrote in his article and how he summarised it. Which leads us to his article: Firstly, yes I’m aware of the issues you raise—please see my post above here on the Talk page from 2020 in which I specifically address the issue of Quadrant being a deprecated source. However, as the discussion about it that you refer to (and that I referred to in my 2020 post) notes, the consensus (not unanimous) was that it be rated 3 out of 4 on the crude scale of reliability, that it is “generally unreliable...should be avoided wherever possible” (not “4. Publishes false or fabricated information”). The article is written by a journalist (Geoffrey Luck) that worked for the ABC for 26 years as a senior reporter, it’s a highly informed article and a perfect example of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is exactly the point made by RP (with whom I agree incidentally when he said “This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest”). The article is a critique of a pattern of history of ABC Four Corners programs that were found to be defamatory, one of which was Griffith’s. (And remember that the ABC had to pay out over $1million to Macartney-Snape for this program, and the ABC didn’t challenge that in the appeal court). For clarity, the RfC discussion editors did not, as you say, point out “instances” of pure fabrication but rather just one instance, that as Adoring nanny noted “even the "hoax" contained mostly true information, and that Windschuttle [the editor] seems unhappy about the fact that he was tricked into accepting it. Looking at their website, I see opinionated statements, which leads me to be cautious with them for facts, but also no examples of anything clearly false. In general, their content ought to be treated like opinion pieces, without prejudice against deciding, on a case by case basis and using WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as a guide, that some pieces may be factual.” which is why he proposed it be rated “2. Unclear or additional considerations apply”. This article is exactly such a piece. Again, please see my comments in the post above. Cabrils (talk)
 * That is a big wall of text, and I haven't read it all, only skimmed it. Regarding the judgement, you're interpreting a primary source. The edit by Chocmilk03 simply repeats the summary of a primary source. Using a primary source is frowned upon, but interpreting it is downright prohibited. Which leaves me to wonder if the language sourced to a primary source and an unreliable one is even WP:DUE for inclusion. I'm leaning towards "no".
 * As for the quadrant source, there categorically was no discussion. There was you making an argument for including it and no-one else responding. That's not a consensus, which you would need to use a deprecated source. Your "3/4" scale comment is a major distortion: The RfC about Quadrant found that it was not reliable for claims of fact and highly biased, and as I pointed out, outright fabrications had been noted in their writing. You can talk about the writer's experience all you want, but none of that would refute the claim that maybe the author ended up writing for Quadrant because he got fired elsewhere, or quit because he was dissatisfied with their unwillingness to let him print falsehoods. There is a reason we look at the publishers when we judge reliability. Nothing you've said here gives me reason to trust that this particular article is reliable.
 * If you have touched upon any other topics, I didn't notice them. You may wish to keep your comments shorter in the future, as it helps keep discussions moving. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * –I appreciate your patience, however, and with the greatest respect, I still fear you are not understanding what I’m saying and are unintentionally misrepresenting my position. I am acutely aware of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WPs in general. I have been editing since 2018 and actively contributing on AfD discussions for 2+ years. I have attended Wikipedia meetups. If you haven’t already, please see my history of constructive, appropriate editing. Our discussion here began because you believed I had fabricated a source (the Southland Times article) and after further investigation you’ve agreed that I did not fabricate it. If you would kindly consider carefully what I’m saying because I believe it is in a similar vein.
 * I am absolutely not wanting to present WP:OR- I am arguing against presenting WP:OR; nor have I been wanting to rely on a primary source, which is why I have suggested using Quadrant (more about the Quadrant issue below). However, if a primary source i.e. the judgement, is to be used (which is what Chocmilk03 instigated), the critical point is that the edit by Chocmilk03 does not repeat or represent the summary of the judgment- her edit does quote from the judgment but the quoted section is not in context and, importantly, is not the ultimate finding of the judgment. The judgment found all sorts of incremental things but the relevant and ultimate finding of the judgment is the final 8 words of paragraph 95, which is the end of the judgment in relation to the defence of truth, and those words state “the defence of truth was not made out”. That is not an interpretation or original research, that is just the court’s ultimate conclusion as it is presented and as such surely would have to be included on the page.
 * Please bear in mind I didn’t create this issue- Chocmilk03 created it when she decided to use a primary source, and having done so, she then cherry picked two incidental findings in the judgment and failed to include the final and actual conclusion of the Court which is that “the defence of truth was not made out”. If Chocmilk03 is allowed to include her highly selective out-of-context references without the appeal court’s ultimate conclusion, wiki readers will be misled into thinking the defence of truth was upheld by the appeal court, when in fact it was overturned!
 * Again, I’m not advocating that we should be using a primary source but if you insist that we can’t use the secondary source Quadrant article, then we need to use a summary quote from the judgment and those final words “the defence of truth was not made out” are that summary. I can’t see how the current wording can be improved, made more accurate or more parsimonious.
 * Regarding Quadrant, I realise you are busy, but I do think it would be constructive to read my 2020 post re Quadrant and what I’ve posted above in this thread because it just seems there is a misunderstanding here. The “discussion” about Quadrant I am referring to is the RfC discussion (of course my 2020 post above is not a discussion). The "3/4" scale is expressly what that discussion was about, I didn’t create it, Bacondrum created that scale when he created the RfC. Cabrils (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of points:
 * Your defense of your editing experience is unnecessary; I have not suggested that you were a new editor.
 * I did read your comments above about Quadrant. They were not compelling.
 * You are still analyzing a primary source, and doing so in a way that runs counter to the source's layout and the normal readings of court rulings which I've seen and done numerous times, with rulings from a wide variety of English-speaking jurisdictions.
 * You seem to be misunderstanding the results of the RfC. The RfC did not conclude that Quadrant rated 3 out of 4 on a scale of reliability, but that the third option (that it's "Generally unreliable for factual reporting") was the result, with examples of option 4 (that it "Publishes false or fabricated information"). Note the final sentence of the close: As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * – Regarding “analyzing a primary source”: I haven’t drawn the following to your attention before but please see the final words of the headnote, immediately before the bold, left aligned text near the top of the judgment (a couple of feet down from the very top):
 * “In relation to (viii)—Costs
 * (Per Hodgson JA, Basten JA and McClellan CJ at CL agreeing)
 * (29) The appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth, but that issue is not readily severable from other issues in the case, and did not add substantially to the costs of the case; and it does not affect the appropriate order as to costs.”
 * And also the Conclusion at the very end of the judgement:
 * “Conclusion
 * 149 Thus it is my opinion that, while the appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment. The issue on which the appellant succeeded is not readily severable from other issues in the case, and did not add substantially to the costs of the case; and in my opinion, it would not affect the appropriate order as to costs. In my opinion the following order should be made: Appeal dismissed with costs.”
 * With respect, there’s no “analyzing a primary source” in recording the concluding statement of the headnote and judgement proper i.e. that “The appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth”. If there is to be any reference to the court of appeal judgment, it must state the conclusion that the court reached on the key issue of truth. I agree there shouldn’t be any analysis of a primary source so if we can’t agree on that conclusion material, maybe any reference to the court of appeal judgement should be left out, as you previously suggested. In which case the wording on the page would end with “Griffith was not awarded damages in relation to the Four Corners broadcast”. Possibly “damages” should be replaced with “costs” as that’s what the | Herald article (an IRS source) states.
 * Quadrant: This might be redundant now but I think we’re actually on the same page here. I agree that the community consensus of the RfC was that Quadrant should be considered “Generally unreliable for factual reporting”, and included examples of 4, as well as examples of 2. I agree with your reference to the final sentence - that is what I quoted in my 2020 post: “wherever possible”. I simply make the point that it did not state “in every single case and circumstance” but rather “wherever possible”; and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a point also made by others in that discussion. Cabrils (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ve now done a pretty thorough review of the page, removed anything inappropriate, checked sources, added a couple of new ones and done some clean up to the references. The page does contain criticism (from Clarke’s article), but I couldn’t find any new ones. I can’t see how the page can still be tagged POV. As far as I can see all the issues raised above have been addressed so I’ve removed the tag. Cabrils (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Biologist
According to Biologist A biologist is a scientist who conducts research in biology.

Can someone please provide citations to Griffith's publications in scientific journals? Also CV covering his research, where he publishes, academic or industry appointments, etc. I'm having trouble finding them.

Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Griffith clearly conducts research in biology— he’s written multiple books about human nature, as well as his early work on the thylacine. The Biologist page doesn’t say a requisite is publishing in scientific journals— nor does the | Scientist page, nor the | Independent scientist page (to the extent any of these pages are authoritative). There would be thousands of biologists, and scientists more generally, working in various fields who have never published a journal article. In any event, he is referred to as a biologist | here, | here, | here and | here. Cabrils (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All this does not matter. To call him a biologist in the article, we need a reliable source calling him that. Deducing it from "he’s written multiple books about human nature" or from "work on the thylacine" is not only WP:OR, it is ridiculous OR. Immanuel Velikovsky has written books about astronomy, mythology, and history, and he was neither an astronomer nor historian nor mythologist - he was a crackpot whose opinions on all those subjects are at odds with the experts. Griffith seems to be in a similar situation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling: I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not proposing WP:OR, I was merely making a common sense point. I completely agree with you regarding IRS which is why I included some above but you appear to have missed them so here’s another selection (all are on the main page). He’s described as a biologist in the IRSs (it’s not a deduction):
 * a | review of Griffith’s book in the Sydney Morning Herald is titled “Biologist Jeremy Griffith examines where the human race is headed”
 * a | book review in the Montreal Review states “…the work of Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith”
 * a | Sky News TV interview of Griffith regarding the 2020 Australian bushfires refers to him as “Biologist Jeremy Griffiths”
 * a | 2GB radio interview regarding the 2020 Australian bushfires states “Biologist Jeremy Griffith argues that the native tree is posing a threat to communities faced with fires.”
 * |The Irish Times published an article by him and has the byline “Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith offers a new biological understanding to the human condition”
 * Griffith has had 2 articles published in The Spectator (| here and | here) with the byline “Jeremy Griffith is an Australian biologist“
 * The page does not contain, nor have I been able to find, any IRS’s that dispute Griffith’s vocation as a biologist. Cabrils (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't ping me, let alone ping me twice. I have a watchlist.
 * As I explained, deducing that he is a biologist from things "he’s written multiple books about human nature" is OR. It is also not correct. "Common sense" seems to be wrong here. If you don't want to do OR, then don't do it.
 * OK, you have a source, so "biologist" is OK. All the rest of your contribution is unnecessary chitchat. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources that are general news articles, book reviews, interviews, are fine for establishing his views, why he's notable, what he has to say, etc. They are not WP:IRS for establishing his scientific qualifications, which as may be seen, they do not go into. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Writing books is not the same thing as doing research.
 * Scientists do research. One way we know they do research is they publish their work in refereed journals. Another way is they have appointments or jobs as scientists. Another is they have advanced degrees in their field. I am looking for reliable sources on Griffith's CV covering any of these three areas. Thanks. Cloudjpk (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cloudjpk: I think it’s helpful to clarify that you created this discussion here because I reverted your edit to the page in which you deleted the description of Griffith as a ‘biologist’, which you justified by saying “he's a biology graduate, not a practicing biologist”. As I understand you, in your view, to be described as a biologist requires academic or institutional appointments and/or journal article publications. I disputed your criteria because I think it’s a subjective personal view, and referred you to the Biologist, Scientist and Independent scientist pages to see how Wikipedia defines those terms, because I could not see any support there for your position, that those criteria are requisite for a descriptive term in Wikipedia.
 * Of course you are entitled and welcome to discuss here Griffith’s CV etc, but respectfully it is somewhat disingenuous without also being transparent that you chose to delete the biologist term from the page based on your personal view of what defines a biologist. My point is that you have not shown any evidence of any WP that justifies the deletion—respectfully, you are raising a specious argument in this particular case.
 * I agree with Hob Gadling that the criteria for such descriptive terms is WP:IRS, and there are numerous ones in the page, some of which I have listed above. Several IRS’s refer to Griffith as a biologist and accordingly it is an appropriate description.
 * Finally, I would note that just as you have a personal, subjective view about the qualities and requisites to be termed a biologist (or presumably scientist more generally), my personal view is what I stated in my previous post above, that there would be thousands of biologists, and scientists more generally, working in various fields who have never published a journal article. But my personal view is not relevant. Editors naturally have a range of personal views, but over time policies have developed to guide and define appropriate content, and it is those policies that are relevant.	Cabrils (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I thank you for your thoughtful discussion Cabrils. I'm happy to avoid personal definitions. According to Scientist "A scientist is a person who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest" What research has Griffith done? Scientist also mentions "common training requirements include specializing in an area of interest, publishing research findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presenting them at scientific conferences, giving lectures or teaching, and defending a thesis (or dissertation) during an oral examination." What is Griffith's record on these? And more important: where would I find sources on these? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk)


 * I imagine you could find answers to your questions in the sources on the page, or a basic google search, but I don’t agree that what you’ve cited from the Scientist page fairly represents that page— you’ve not included all the qualified references made in that passage, so for clarity I’m adding it here (with emphasis added):
 * “In modern times, many professional scientists are trained in an academic setting (e.g., universities and research institutes), mostly at the level of graduate schools. Upon completion, they would normally attain an academic degree, with the highest degree being a doctorate such as a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Although graduate education for scientists varies among institutions and countries, some common training requirements include specializing in an area of interest, publishing research findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presenting them at scientific conferences, giving lectures or teaching, and defending a thesis (or dissertation) during an oral examination.To aid them in this endeavor, graduate students often work under the guidance of a mentor, usually a senior scientist, which may continue after the completion of their doctorates whereby they work as postdoctoral researchers.”
 * The page also says:
 * “there is no formal process to determine who is a scientist and who is not a scientist. Anyone can be a scientist in some sense. Some professions have legal requirements for their practice (e.g. licensure) and some scientists are independent scientists meaning that they practice science on their own, but to practice science there are no known licensure requirements.”.
 * And the Independent scientist page states:
 * “An independent scientist (historically also known as gentleman scientist) is a financially independent scientist who pursues scientific study without direct affiliation to a public institution such as a university or government-run research and development body.”
 * So I think those pages refute, not support, your contention.
 * But again, respectfully, it is not relevant to the matter in issue here. The matter in issue is: Is it appropriate for the page to say “Griffith is an Australian biologist”, and given the multiple IRS articles that describe him as a biologist, the answer surely has to be yes. You (or me or any editor) may not personally agree that he should be described as a biologist, but our personal view is not relevant. Expressing a personal view is precisely what Hob Gadling was objecting to—that would be WP:OR. Our role as editors is to neutrally present content that is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, bound by the relevant policies as agreed to by the community, which in this case is WP:IRS. I did search for IRSs that dispute Griffith’s vocation or even question it, but I couldn’t find any, so in their absence the appropriate wording should be as it was ie “Griffith is an Australian biologist”.Cabrils (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I had also thought I could find answers to my questions in the sources on the page, or a basic google search. I was surprised at how little turned up. I would appreciate any help getting reliable sources on: what research has Griffith done; which peer-reviewed scientific journals does he publish in; what scientific conferences does he present at. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, he isn't a scientist in any recognisable sense, he's an author, afaik doesnt do any science, just speculation. -Roxy the dog . wooF 18:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Inductive reasoning is a legitimate form of science: “Like Darwin did with his theory of natural selection, Griffith puts forward a wide-ranging induction-derived synthesis. As Professor Scott Churchill, former Chair of Psychology at the University of Dallas, said in his review of Freedom, “Griffith’s perspective comes to us not as a simple opinion of one man, but rather as an inductive conclusion drawn from sifting through volumes of data representing what scientists have discovered.” (|Montreal Review) Cabrils (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Inductive reasoning says it's done in science, law, philosophy, and other endeavors. Sam doing inductive reasoning does not mean Sam is doing science, nor that Sam must be a scientist; he could be a lawyer.
 * Churchill concurs: he says Griffith is not doing science, but rather drawing conclusions based on scientific work done by others. That seems a fine thing to do, and indeed that's what he's known for. Accurate terms for this might include: thinker, author, essayist, thought leader, visionary. Do you have a preference? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Inductive reasoning is a legitimate form of science" it's indeed part of doing science, but it has to be done through a scientific process to be considered as such, this includes publishing in peer reviewed journals of the field. However, a degree in biology (the case here?) can also be a rason to use the term (I know that some would object by this criterion alone).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So Darwin, who Churchill referred to as being like Griffith, wasn’t a scientist!
 * The basic issue, as I’ve repeatedly explained, is whether it meets WPs to describe Griffith as a biologist, and there is consensus insofar as Had Gosling and I agree that multiple IRS’s describe him as one and therefore it meets WPs. You have so far not engaged in this fundamental point and simply are seeking to conduct your own investigation into whether Griffith meets your definition of a scientist-- which is fine-- but as I have explained, that does not entitle you to arbitrarily change the page. You justified your most recent reversion of my reinstatement of the original page’s wording by saying “There is no consensus on the Talk page on this. Please wait and work for consensus” yet when it was put to discussion here, no WP justification for removing the description of him as a biologist has been made, so it shouldn’t have been removed after it was reinstated. Removing the description (on the basis of not meeting WPs) is what requires consensus, and since no case at all has been made that it did breach WPs, the biologist description should not have been removed, so I’ve reinstated it, and caution you that reverting it again will breach WP:VD. Cabrils (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Darwin did research, published in scientific journals, and presented to scientific societies. Has Griffith done these things?

Hob Gadling and you agree; Roxy the dog and I disagree. Is that consensus?

The criteria in Scientist refer to these things; did I put that there?

I must warn you that you're near the WP:Edit_warring

Will you please stop WP:Edit_warring and work for consensus?

I have suggested other terms for consideration. Will you consider them? Work toward consensus? Cloudjpk (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I repeat: Don't ping me. What good is it to summon me here, just for saying that someone agrees with me? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please do not count me as agreeing with you. I am not for adding "biologist", I just don't care much about being against it anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a watchlist. -Roxy the dog . wooF 12:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I repeat, you have not shown that the ‘biologist’ description breaches any WPs. The current ‘biologist’ description sources from multiple IRSs and accordingly is the appropriate description. Cabrils (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone who’s got a degree in biology and writes books about human biology, and is described in IRSs as a biologist, is a biologist. For example, he was interviewed about the biology of trees and bushfires. Schnitzelking (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the emerging consensus, so I'll go with it. If anyone can help find sources for any of his publications in scientific journals, or any peer reviewed publications, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed your overly-narrow interpretation of Scientist of having to have published peer reviewed articles, and hold academic or industry appointments, and how that page is replete with qualifying riders: “mostly”, “normally”, “some”, “often”, “usually”, “may”-- not “always”, “every time”, “all”, “always”, “must”.
 * Given your contention that a credible biologist needs to have published papers subjected to peer review, I might point out that in Professor Harry Prosen’s Introduction to Griffith’s book Freedom, he does summarise the danger of an overly-narrow interpretation of what a scientist is:
 * “Thomas Kuhn was certainly right when…he said that ‘revolutions are often initiated by an outsider—someone not locked into the current model, which hampers vision almost as much as blinders would’. Kuhn also recognized that ‘When a field is pre-paradigmatic (introduces a new paradigm, as Jeremy’s work does)…progress is made with books, not with journal papers’”.
 * Relevantly, Prosen goes on to quote Geoffrey Miller’s point that Darwin was “a lone genius, working from his country home without any official academic position”. Cabrils (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I failed to make myself clear. When I wrote "That seems to be the emerging consensus, so I'll go with it" I meant I am going with the term "biologist" as per consensus. My question is merely about his publication in peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps that would be more clear under a separate section. I'll do that. Cloudjpk (talk)

Peer reviewed publications
If anyone can find sources for any of his publications in scientific journals, or any peer reviewed publications, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * For clarity, this section has emerged from the discussion above regarding Cloudjpk’s desire to delete Griffith’s vocation as a “biologist”, so all that is said above is relevant. The definitions of biologist, scientist and independent scientist were reviewed, and I noted Cloudjpk’s overly-narrow interpretation of the scientist page, where he claimed elements including publishing peer reviewed articles were a requisite, and I noted that the scientist page was replete with important qualifying riders that he failed to include, which was a serious omission: “mostly”, “normally”, “some”, “often”, “usually”, “may”-- not “always”, “every time”, “all”, “always”, “must”.
 * The consensus above was to retain the description of Griffith as “biologist”, based in particular on the fact that he is described as a biologist in multiple IRSs, and has a degree in biology.
 * So regarding peer reviewed articles, the context of the above discussion is important, and for simplicity I’ll put here what I posted above:
 * Given Cloudjpk’s contention that a credible biologist needs to have published papers subjected to peer review, I might point out that in Professor Harry Prosen’s Introduction to Griffith’s book Freedom, he does summarise the danger of an overly-narrow interpretation of what a scientist is:
 * “Thomas Kuhn was certainly right when…he said that ‘revolutions are often initiated by an outsider—someone not locked into the current model, which hampers vision almost as much as blinders would’. Kuhn also recognized that ‘When a field is pre-paradigmatic (introduces a new paradigm, as Jeremy’s work does)…progress is made with books, not with journal papers’”.
 * Relevantly, Prosen goes on to quote Geoffrey Miller’s point that Darwin was “a lone genius, working from his country home without any official academic position”. Cabrils (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting quote and POV. If such an "independent scientist" has made a new significant discovery, wouldn't we expect other scientists to then verify it, build on it ? Like obviously happened with Darwin. Aesma (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ha ha, those were different times. In reality, Darwin was as embedded and respected in the academic community of his time as one could be. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B1C5:1E95:9E6:61B9 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * but since Darwin was a man of leisure working from his mansion, I can see that the lay person would fall for this... I think it goes a long way to illustrate how Prosen operates/d. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B1C5:1E95:9E6:61B9 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a much more mundane explanation for Kuhn's "books not papers" observation which is that the community, and especially handling editors and reviewers, have certain expectations about (and tolerance for) how much novelty is to be crammed into a single paper. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:30A1:F00A:F51:6ADE (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Result of legal cases needs clarification
The paragraph about the legal proceedings for defamation brought against several media outlets needs clarification. As it stands, it is impossible for a person without a law degree to even understand whether he won or lost the cases. 78.23.31.228 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that Griffith lost: see 2010 NSWCA 257. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, that’s not an accurate summary. The judgment concludes: “while the appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment.” The article that discusses the judgment certainly found it significant that what the ABC had said about Griffith was not true. There is a lengthy discussion above in the POV section about this. Cabrils (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Griffith sued and lost: 2008 NSWSC 764. The Judge stated: "In respect of the action for defamation by Mr Jeremy Griffith against the ABC and Dr Millikan, there should be a verdict for the defendants" (par. 1003). Someone else called Macartney-Snape won, but that's not relevant to Griffith. Griffith appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal and lost again: see the reference I already gave.
 * There were several issues: that's not unusual. Griffith won some and lost some, but the overall result was that he lost. The basic issue was whether it was true that "Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community." The Courts concluded that this was true. The trial judge stated: "I find the defendants have proved the second element of the imputation that Mr Griffith published work of such poor standard as science" (par. 649). The Court of Appeal stated: "I would not overturn the primary judge’s finding that the work was of a poor standard" (par. 62). I'm deliberately avoiding legal terms like "statutory qualified privilege" and "comment", so that a non-lawyer can understand.
 * These are all primary sources. I'll try to find secondary sources, preferably legal sources. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked around, and I didn't find much. The case is mentioned in a few scholarly publications, but not in any way that's helpful here. It's not a very interesting case, legally.
 * I did find this (sometimes pay-walled, but sometimes not) from the Sydney Morning Herald, which states first that "Four Corners [the television program] was found to have defamed Mr Griffith", and then that "a four-week hearing to determine defences and damages began on Wednesday". (This was in 2007, so it's talking about the trial decision.) This helps a non-expert see that the question of defamation is only the first step; the Court must then decide if there are any valid defences, and truth is the best defence of all. I don't know whether the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source.
 * I think that any analysis of the Court's reasoning would be original research, but saying which party won the case is simply a fact and should be acceptable, I think. So I think that the article should state merely that Griffith sued and lost, and then appealed and lost again, with a reference to the two Court decisions. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, what you say about the Court of Appeal judgment is fundamentally wrong. The finding as to truth in the lower Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal, the judgment from which you have selectively quoted.  You have referred only to paragraph 62, which is part way through the Court of Appeal's reasoning, focusing only on the “second element" of the imputation, but ignoring the subsequent reasoning and, more importantly, completely ignoring the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the defence of truth was not made out.
 * I have set out below the following extracts and the conclusion from the Court of Appeal judgment in Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2010] NSWCA 257.
 * In the headnote of the Court of Appeal judgment:
 * "(11) The primary judge set the bar for the relevant finding of causation too low, and his reasons did not adequately support his conclusion. Causation was not established and on that basis the defence of truth was not made out.
 * (29) The appellant [Griffith] succeeds on the issue of truth ...”
 * At paragraph 95 of the Court of Appeal judgment:
 * "... I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out."
 * At paragraph 149 of the Court of Appeal judgment:
 * “Conclusion
 * 149 Thus it is my opinion that, while the appellant [Griffith] succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment.”
 * So, contrary to your claim that “the Courts concluded that this was true”, the Court of Appeal in fact concluded that the defamatory imputation about Griffith was NOT true.
 * This critical finding in the Court of Appeal’s judgment as to truth is referred to in the | Quadrant article:
 * “In a subsequent case in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Jeremy Griffith failed to recover damages from his claim that the program had defamed him.
 * While the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming Griffith’s book was of such poor scientific standard that it had no support at all from the scientific community, Four Corners avoided liability when the Court upheld a defence of comment. As a reading of the decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/257.html will confirm, that was an unusual outcome. What was interesting was the difficulty the judges created for such future cases with their comments on the imperatives of Rev. Millikan and the producers. The judgment found that Rev. Millikan considered Griffith’s activities highly undesirable in their impact on his followers and their families, and by inference, the purpose of the broadcast was to set back these activities. Rev. Millikan had also engaged in misrepresentation to obtain Griffith’s co-operation in making the broadcast. But the purpose of the broadcast, it said, was to inform the audience; setting back the activities was not the dominant purpose; the misrepresentation was engaged in to enable the giving of information, not for any other purpose. Therefore, the publication was not actuated by malice. Evidently the appeal judges failed to understand the motivations of some investigative journalism projects, which from time to time clearly attempt both to inform audiences and to exert social and political influence.”
 * Again, this was all explained at length in the POV section above.
 * As you acknowledge, “truth is the best defence of all” and the fact is the ABC ultimately failed to establish that what they said about Griffith was true. People can draw their own conclusions from that Court finding, but that is what happened. Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Griffith sued the ABC, and the trial judge gave judgement in favour of the ABC. Do you agree or disagree?
 * Then Griffith appealed, and the appeal was dismissed (rejected). Do you agree or disagree?
 * And then Griffith asked permission ("leave") to appeal to the High Court of Australia, and permission was refused. Do you agree or disagree?
 * It really is as simple as that. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The essence of, and what everyone wants to know, in any controversial defamation case is: Was the allegation true or not? As you yourself said in your very first comment: “The basic issue was whether it was true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community.” ”  You again acknowledged how important proving the truth of an allegation is when you said “truth is the best defence of all”. And the Court’s ultimate answer to that question is that what the program alleged about Griffith was NOT TRUE.
 * So to strip out the substance of the judgment and simply write “appeal dismissed” would, by your own admission, not inform readers of the “basic issue” (your description) that the Court of Appeal found that what the ABC said was not true. To do that would give people the misleading impression that what the program said about Griffith was true, and that there was nothing wrong with the program.  Bear in mind the facts that the ABC also had to pay out $1 million (to Macartney-Snape) for the same program, and that the Sydney Morning Herald apologised for a related article by the same journalist – these are highly relevant to the credibility (or lack thereof) of the publications, a point made in the Quadrant article.  Geoffrey Luck, the author of that article was a well regarded Australian journalist and, ironically, worked for the ABC for 26 years.  He immediately recognised the significance that “the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified” in what it claimed.  The page just reflects the secondary source, as it should. Cabrils (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if your analysis were correct, it's WP:OR, and thus unusable. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve made an addition based on a detailed summary of the court of appeal judgment from an authoritive secondary source, and it is consistent with the Quadrant article. Cabrils (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve made an addition based on a detailed summary of the court of appeal judgment from an authoritive secondary source, and it is consistent with the Quadrant article. Cabrils (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Advice wanted: Lawsuit and OR
The article mentions Griffith's lawsuit against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It refers to the decisions and analyses them. It also refers to Quadrant Magazine, an unreliable source.

I believe the decisions themselves are primary sources and that the analysis is WP:OR, so that's not permitted. The references to Quadrant should also be removed.

Is it possible to refer to the decisions simply to indicate which party won in court, with no analysis? Some secondary sources mention that the lawsuits are pending, but I couldn't find any secondary source that mentions the results. A few scholarly sources mention the decisions, for example this, but only to discuss a specific point, without indicating the results. The relevant decisions are 2008 NSWSC 764 and 2010 NSWCA 257.

If it's proper to refer to the decisions this way, it's pretty obvious that Cabrils will attempt to revert the changes and restore the OR, so I'd like help with that also. 216.106.104.34 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 216.106.104.34’s summary is not an accurate description of the current wording on the page, which is discussed at length in the section above (Result of legal cases needs clarification). There is no analysis (WP:OR) of the court decisions, rather just a short factual summary of the Court of Appeal’s concluding judgment, based on a secondary source, Quadrant.
 * The | Quadrant article has been discussed above in the Quadrant Magazine unreliable source section.  The reliability of Quadrant as a source generally is discussed at: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269, which concluded "Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting by this community. As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible". Please note the specific terminology: "generally unreliable...should be avoided wherever possible" (emphasis added). In this instance, the source is used to support five factual statements on the page: that Griffith was the subject of an ABC TV Four Corners program; that Griffith sued the ABC; that he was not awarded damages; that he appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal; and that the Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court’s defence of comment, but overturned the lower court ruling regarding the ABC’s defence of truth, finding that what was said of Griffith was untrue. Each of those factual statements by the article’s author are accurate and can be verified in the primary source. They are not the author’s opinions. While the author does go on to analyse and express his opinions about the judgments and the ABC’s conduct, none of that material is referred to or relied upon.  The author is Geoffrey Luck, a respected Australian journalist who worked for the ABC for 26 years.
 * Like 216.106.104.34, I have been unable to locate any other RS about the outcome of the case, so in all the circumstances Quadrant is an appropriate source.
 * The current wording was effectively reached by consensus in the previous lengthy discussion above in the POV section and has been on the page since then (June 2021).
 * Nonetheless, in light of 216.106.104.34’s view, if the consensus is that the wording should be revisited, could I suggest the following revision to simplify things:
 * Griffith was not awarded damages in relation to the Four Corners broadcast and on appeal in 2010 the NSW Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s defence of comment and dismissed the appeal. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court ruling that found that a lack of scientific support for Griffith’s work was because of it being of a poor standard, and so found that the ABC’s defence of truth was not made out. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've modified the article to refer only to the Courts' decisions in favour or against a party, removed WP:OR, and remove references to   unreliable sources.
 * I'll request page protection if a user reverts to add WP:OR or unreliable sources. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC), formerly 216.106.104.34.
 * Primary sources should be avoided, particularly where the use is contentious. I’ve removed that material and added a description of the case from one of the existing RS.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzelking (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Defamatory" is a legal term of art. It merely means that the words would harm someone's reputation. It has to been proven before one examines any defence, including truth. Of course it's defamatory to say that someone "publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community". It can also be true.
 * I've added a short explanation of "defamatory", but the sentence is still misleading to a non-expert. The reason Griffith wasn't awarded costs is simply because the ABC was successful in its defence ("truth, qualified privilege and comment") and the lawsuit was rejected.
 * I'll have another look at the scholarly sources to see if I can find anything useful. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve reverted your edit where you removed a perfectly good RS and replaced it with a primary source. There is nothing wrong with the existing RS. I’ve removed your addition of the other primary source. Schnitzelking (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The source I've given is a secondary source. It's a summary of the decision on a Web site that's a reliable source for such matters. It's not the summary prepared by the Court itself; it's a different summary prepared by someone else, therefore it's a secondary source.
 * The summary is much longer that what I've quoted. I just gave the conclusion to avoid WP:CV. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t make sense. Sources need to be cited properly and verifiable: WP:CITE, WP:V. Schnitzelking (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Verifiable sources can be behind a paywall or require payment, that's well established, and LexisNexis is a reliable source for legal information.
 * If you think the sources are not cited properly, please suggest how to do so. I don't see anything specific at WP:CITE or WP:COPY. The full link was and is this, but the source can also be found by searching for [2008] NSWSC 764 on Lexis.
 * Edit: see this about Lexis's reliability. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no problem being behind a paywall. WP:CITE is very specific about how to cite: eg "Ritter, R. M. (2003). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-860564-5 " and "Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1." Schnitzelking (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Briane what are you doing? You removed an informative summary from a perfectly good RS. This is the second time you have done that: WP:DE. Schnitzelking (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article from the Sydney Morning Herald has a single sentence about Griffith, and it's confusing even for someone who knows the law. (I'm pretty sure that someone who doesn't know the law wouldn't understand it, and in that sense it isn't informative at all.) Lexis has a much better summary, and it's a secondary source. The reference to the Morning Herald can stay (even though it's not very good, at least it's free), but there should also be a reference to Lexis.
 * Cabrils did improve the reference to the Morning Herald by changing "did not award him costs" to "dismissed the case", which is clearer, I think, but now there's no source saying clearly "dismissed", unless Lexis is restored.
 * So referring to both the Morning Herald (poor but free) and Lexis (good but expensive) is best, I think. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I've added the citation to Lexis Schnitzelking (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit: in case it's not already clear, Lexis both a primary source (for the decision) and a reliable secondary source (for the summary). Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are a novice editor so I will give you the courtesy of cautioning you that your conduct is moving towards edit warring. It is completely inappropriate for you to impose your wording while it is still the subject of outstanding discussion. This matter was the subject of lengthy discussion above in the Talk page that you persistently ignore and have acted in complete disregard of. You clearly do not understand page protection. You should familiarise yourself with the relevant policies before doing anything further. Cabrils (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I note your edits. In relation to the appeal, I remain of the view that the Quadrant article is WP:RS in this instance. Cabrils (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve made an addition based on a detailed summary of the court of appeal judgment from an authoritative secondary source, and it is consistent with the Quadrant article. Cabrils (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In pursuit of consensus, I’ve added the trial case was dismissed. Cabrils (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I've found the reference to Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin you mentioned. It's only three paragraphs and doesn't support the statement that "what the ABC said about Griffith was not true". Is that the text you have?

As for Quadrant magazine, it's considered generally unreliable and "any use of it should be avoided wherever possible". Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You may not be aware, but in Australia and other Commonwealth countries, the defence of truth is often referred to as the defence of justification. For example, see | here and | here. Those terms are used interchangeably.  The second paragraph of the report in the Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin – March 2011 makes it absolutely clear that the lower court finding as to truth (or justification) was overturned by the Court of Appeal: “The Court set aside the justification finding”.  The Quadrant article says exactly the same thing “the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming …”.  As does the final paragraph of the actual Court of Appeal judgment (which is WP:PS) which states: “149. Thus it is my opinion that, while the appellant [Griffith] succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment.” Cabrils (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you're quoting only seven words from the sentence in Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin, perhaps I can quote a little more without violating copyright:
 * The Court set aside the justification finding, as it was not satisfied that, if the appellant’s [Griffith's] work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community
 * And I hope that it's not WP:OR to merely bold one word:
 * it was not satisfied that, if the appellant’s work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community
 * The trial judge decided that it was true that Griffith's work was "of such a poor standard" (par. 649), and the Court of Appeal did not disagree. The trial judge also decided that it was true that Griffith's work had no support (par. 744), and the Court of Appeal again did not disagree.
 * The trial judge then decided that the reason Griffith's work had no support was because it was of a poor standard (par. 676). The Court of Appeal disagreed on this point: it was not proven that, "if the appellant’s [Griffith's] work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community".
 * So both Courts agreed that Griffith's work had no support and that it was of a poor standard. To summarize this by saying flatly that "what the ABC said about Griffith was not true" is absurd. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, it’s not absurd at all. It’s an accurate summary of what the Court decided and what the RSs report.  Your analysis of the | Court of Appeal judgment is fundamentally flawed and, in any event, it’s WP:OR.  And obviously any analysis of your analysis of the judgment is also OR, but to respond to your query I need to refer to parts of the judgment.
 * For starters, by selectively focusing only on two sub-elements of the defamatory allegation and completely ignoring what the thrust or sting of the defamatory allegation actually was and the crux part of what the Court of Appeal judgment actually said (see in particular paragraphs 20, 50-51 and 86 to 95), you are misrepresenting the decision.
 * When the Court of Appeal says at paragraph 94 “Given the disadvantages referred to in par [88] above, I would not be satisfied that, if the appellant’s work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community; or that the lack of any support from the scientific community demonstrated that the work was of a poor standard”, the Court was acknowledging that any lack of support for Griffith’s work was likely to have been caused by the pre-existing “disadvantages” he faced such as those referred to in paragraphs 20, 88, 89, 90 and 91 of the judgment, rather than by the standard of his work. In its proper context, paragraph 94 reflects the finding in Griffith’s favour.
 * It’s obvious to any fair minded reader of the judgment that the Court of Appeal thought that the reasoning of the ABC and of the trial judge on the issue of truth was fundamentally wrong, which is why his decision was overturned.
 * Getting back to what is on the page, the key and indisputable point, as is crystal clear from the RSs, is that the ABC tried to prove that the particular defamatory allegation it made about Griffith was true, and it failed. I’ve edited the sentence to clarify that it’s the defamatory allegation that the Court found wasn’t justified. Cabrils (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That part of the article is now legalese gibberish. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be enough to say that Griffith sued the ABC and lost. (Macartney-Snape sued the ABC and won, but the article is about Griffith.) And then Griffith appealed and lost again. And one can refer to reliable secondary sources, none of which are free, unfortunately, and possibly also to the free primary sources because of this.
 * Anything more belongs in a legal textbook, not in an article about Griffith generally for a non-legal audience. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As you said yourself above on 31 March 2022: “The basic issue was whether it was true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community.” ” The same day, you again acknowledged how important and relevant the truth or falsity of an allegation is when you said “truth is the best defence of all”. That is just common sense.  Revealingly, at that time when you acknowledged this self-evident fact, you mistakenly thought that the Court had upheld the defence of truth when you said “The Courts concluded that this was true”.
 * However, the Court’s ultimate answer to that question is that what the program alleged about Griffith was NOT true. That is what the RSs report, and what the page should – in fact is required to – reflect: WP:V.  It was only once it was pointed out to you that Griffith actually won on truth that you did a complete about face and have been desperately trying to say that the defence of truth is not relevant.  For some reason, you seem to be on a personal crusade against Griffith.
 * To repeat: the Court of Appeal concluded that the defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true and that is what the RSs clearly report.
 * Your patent bias in wanting to disregard the RSs and impose your preferred personal interpretation of the cases on the page has been obvious from the beginning. Your initial editing via your  | IP address to your now-named account is essentially a WP:SPA pursuing a personal agenda in a manner which is not consistent with Wikipedia neutrality. Cabrils (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the article. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * However, the Court’s ultimate answer to that question is that what the program alleged about Griffith was NOT true. That is what the RSs report, and what the page should – in fact is required to – reflect: WP:V.  It was only once it was pointed out to you that Griffith actually won on truth that you did a complete about face and have been desperately trying to say that the defence of truth is not relevant.  For some reason, you seem to be on a personal crusade against Griffith.
 * To repeat: the Court of Appeal concluded that the defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true and that is what the RSs clearly report.
 * Your patent bias in wanting to disregard the RSs and impose your preferred personal interpretation of the cases on the page has been obvious from the beginning. Your initial editing via your  | IP address to your now-named account is essentially a WP:SPA pursuing a personal agenda in a manner which is not consistent with Wikipedia neutrality. Cabrils (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the article. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your patent bias in wanting to disregard the RSs and impose your preferred personal interpretation of the cases on the page has been obvious from the beginning. Your initial editing via your  | IP address to your now-named account is essentially a WP:SPA pursuing a personal agenda in a manner which is not consistent with Wikipedia neutrality. Cabrils (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the article. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the article. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new text
I'd like to ask for consensus for the following text to replace the second paragraph that appears under The World Transformation Movement. I make some comments after the text.


 * In 1995, Griffith, Macartney-Snape and the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood (the World Transformation Movement's name at the time) were the subject of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Four Corners program. The program became the subject of actions by Griffith and Macartney-Snape in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. With regards to Griffith's action, the Court gave a verdict for the defendants.  Griffith appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal.

Comments: The most basic information a reader would expect about a Court case is whether a lawsuit or appeal was successful or not. This should appear clearly. Technical words should be avoided (such as qualified privilege), as should words that have a common meaning and a different legal meaning (such as defamatory, justification, malice). Analysis of the decision is WP:OR and prohibited, unless the analysis appears in a reliable secondary source — the analysis Cabrils and I have been making have no place.

It's unfortunate that the sources are so limited. For the NSWSC, the secondary sources are merely summaries, with no explanation. The only exception is the Herald article, which isn't very helpful, but since it's the only source that attempts an explanation, it should be mentioned. For the NSWCA decision, the only secondary sources are summaries. Most of the secondary sources are behind pay-walls, so I've referred also to the free primary sources.

Quadrant is an unreliable source, as has been mentioned several times. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For the following reasons I disagree:
 * 1. Your personal agenda
 * Your actions over the last month show that you are pursuing a personal agenda in a manner which is not consistent with Wikipedia neutrality: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:TE etc. As noted above, for some reason you seem to be on a personal crusade. Your bias in wanting to disregard the RSs and impose your preferred personal interpretation of the cases on the page has been obvious from the beginning of your edits, which began using an | IP account, prior to creating your named account, both accounts being essentially WP:SPA. Your suggested wording further evidences your bias.
 * Your “Comments” also reveal bias in that they assert, without reference to any Wikipedia policies, what “a reader would expect” and what words “should be avoided” in order to justify the omission of relevant material that is reported in RSs. The current description on the main page is not misleading or overly technical and it accurately reflects the RSs. Your description of the RSs is inaccurate (for example “the only secondary sources are summaries” is untrue and irrelevant).
 * 2. Your proposed wording improperly omits that the Court of Appeal found the ABC’s defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true
 * The proposed wording removes from the existing page the fact that the Court of Appeal found that the ABC’s defamatory allegation about Griffith was not justified (not true), which is a highly relevant factual matter referred to in two RSs as well as the judgment which is WP:PRIMARY.
 * Evidence of your bias was noted in the discussion above. You said yourself on 31 March 2022: “The basic issue was whether it was true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community.” ” On the same day, you again acknowledged how important and relevant the truth or falsity of an allegation is when you said “truth is the best defence of all”. Revealingly, at that time when you acknowledged this self-evident fact, you mistakenly thought that the Court had upheld the defence of truth when you said “The Courts concluded that this was true”.
 * It was only once it was pointed out to you that Griffith actually won on truth that you did a complete about face and then adopted the position that the defence of truth was not relevant.
 * The page should – and in fact is required to – reflect what is in the RSs: WP:V.
 * 3. Quadrant article is RS and appropriate in this specific instance
 * One RS is an article in Quadrant Magazine that reported that the Court of Appeal found that the defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true. As is noted several times in the discussion above, the reliability of Quadrant as a source generally is discussed at: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269, which concluded "Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting by this community. As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible". Please note the specific terminology: "generally unreliable...should be avoided wherever possible" (emphasis added). It did not state “in every single case and circumstance” but rather “wherever possible”. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS was a point also made by some in that discussion.
 * In this instance, the source is used to support five factual statements on the page: that Griffith was the subject of an ABC TV Four Corners program; that Griffith sued the ABC; that he was not awarded damages; that he appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal; and that the Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court’s defence of comment, but overturned the lower court ruling regarding the ABC’s defence of truth, finding that what was said of Griffith was untrue. Each of those factual statements by the article’s author are accurate and can be verified in the primary source. They are not the author’s opinions. While the author does go on to analyse and express his opinions about the judgments and the ABC’s conduct, none of that material is referred to or relied upon. The author is Geoffrey Luck, a respected Australian journalist who worked for the ABC for 26 years.
 * Importantly, there is also the report in the Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin – March 2011, which is an impeccable RS, which says the same thing as the Quadrant article: “The Court set aside the justification finding.”
 * 4. Your proposed wording improperly omits Macartney-Snape won and was awarded $1 million
 * The proposed wording omits any reference to Tim Macartney-Snape winning his part of that same case Griffith was involved in and being awarded $1 million. The ABC alleged that Macartney-Snape used speaking appearances at schools to promote the Foundation (an organisation founded by Griffith), which was described as a cult, so the ruling in favour of Macartney-Snape is relevant to Griffith and it reflects on the substance, or lack thereof, of the program. The outcome of that part of the case was reported in numerous RSs.
 * 5. Your proposed wording improperly omits Sydney Morning Herald case and that Herald apologised
 * The proposed new wording omits any reference to the defamation action against the Sydney Morning Herald, (which stemmed from a full-page article authored by the same journalist who produced the ABC program and featured Griffith and Macartney-Snape) which was resolved when the Sydney Morning Herald published an apology.
 * Summary
 * Your proposed wording would deliberately omit a whole range of relevant material set out in numerous RSs, including that the defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true (which you acknowledged is the basic issue); that Macartney-Snape won and was awarded $1 million; and that the Sydney Morning Herald apologised for publishing defamatory material. In addition to your previous conduct, your proposed wording shows you are attempting to impose your personal interpretation of the cases, ignoring the RSs and disregarding the requirements set out in WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, WP:TE and WP:BLP. Cabrils (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I only think it necessary to reply about Macartney-Snape's lawsuit.
 * The article is about Griffith, not Macartney-Snape. It's true that both sued the ABC together, but the basis of the suits were quite different: in Griffith's case, that his work was of poor quality; in Macartney-Snape's case, that he deceived schools and abused his position of influence (see the Herald article). Whether or not Macartney-Snape's deceived schools is irrelevant to the quality of Griffith's work.
 * I think that the text I wrote strikes a reasonable balance, but I'm not opposed to saying more about Macartney-Snape's lawsuit, or saying nothing at all about it. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Macartney-Snape is a highly notable Australian and his support of Griffith, including in the defamation actions, is entirely relevant and reported in numerous RSs over many years. Specifically, it is self-evident that the defamatory allegations against Macartney-Snape directly concerned Griffith: it was alleged that Macartney-Snape’s deception was to “promote Griffith” and “recruit for Griffith”. Thus, that Macartney-Snape was found by the court NOT to be deceiving schools or abusing his position of influence to inappropriately promote Griffith and his ideas, is axiomatically relevant to Griffith. There is no plausible reason to exclude Macartney-Snape’s successful result in the case with Griffith, and good reason to include it: WP:NOTPAPER.
 * I would note again that your proposed wording to omit Macartney-Snape, as well as the Sydney Morning Herald apology, and most significantly the Court of Appeal’s finding that the ABC’s defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true -- all highly relevant matters reported in RSs -- shows your clear bias. Cabrils (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your proposed wording would deliberately omit a whole range of relevant material set out in numerous RSs, including that the defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true (which you acknowledged is the basic issue); that Macartney-Snape won and was awarded $1 million; and that the Sydney Morning Herald apologised for publishing defamatory material. In addition to your previous conduct, your proposed wording shows you are attempting to impose your personal interpretation of the cases, ignoring the RSs and disregarding the requirements set out in WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, WP:TE and WP:BLP. Cabrils (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I only think it necessary to reply about Macartney-Snape's lawsuit.
 * The article is about Griffith, not Macartney-Snape. It's true that both sued the ABC together, but the basis of the suits were quite different: in Griffith's case, that his work was of poor quality; in Macartney-Snape's case, that he deceived schools and abused his position of influence (see the Herald article). Whether or not Macartney-Snape's deceived schools is irrelevant to the quality of Griffith's work.
 * I think that the text I wrote strikes a reasonable balance, but I'm not opposed to saying more about Macartney-Snape's lawsuit, or saying nothing at all about it. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Macartney-Snape is a highly notable Australian and his support of Griffith, including in the defamation actions, is entirely relevant and reported in numerous RSs over many years. Specifically, it is self-evident that the defamatory allegations against Macartney-Snape directly concerned Griffith: it was alleged that Macartney-Snape’s deception was to “promote Griffith” and “recruit for Griffith”. Thus, that Macartney-Snape was found by the court NOT to be deceiving schools or abusing his position of influence to inappropriately promote Griffith and his ideas, is axiomatically relevant to Griffith. There is no plausible reason to exclude Macartney-Snape’s successful result in the case with Griffith, and good reason to include it: WP:NOTPAPER.
 * I would note again that your proposed wording to omit Macartney-Snape, as well as the Sydney Morning Herald apology, and most significantly the Court of Appeal’s finding that the ABC’s defamatory allegation about Griffith was not true -- all highly relevant matters reported in RSs -- shows your clear bias. Cabrils (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The current version omits this piece of information that I'm sure readers would be interested to know: that all 3 judges agreed "that the appellant’s work had no support at all from the scientific community" Netanyahuserious (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that last post wasn't really relative to the thread. I agree with the proposed new text as it is a vast improvement over the current legal gibberish (thanks Bob). Netanyahuserious (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The existing wording seems fine to me and is supported by reliable sources. Truth, comment and privilege are the main defences in defamation lawsuits. I don’t see how the proposed new text possibly meets WP:NPOV. You can’t just remove relevant material you don’t like. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that Griffith's work was "of a poor standard" (par. 62 of the decision) and that Griffith's work "had no support at all from the scientific community" (par. 85). It disagreed that "if the appellant’s [Griffith's] work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community" (par. 94). It dismissed the appeal (par. 149, 150 and 151).
 * I think that this is WP:OR, but if not, it can certainly be added. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely WP:OR. You can't put up your own commentary using selective bits and pieces from a primary source. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So I suggested just giving the result (allowed/dismissed) and leaving it at that. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see any issue with what's there now. It's not a personal commentary, if that's what you're suggesting. It's all verified from decent secondary sources. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the article reads now it seems in lay terms that the abc program was justified in its allegations (case was dismissed) as well as unjustified (it was defamatory). Netanyahuserious (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The critical issue (which Briane referred to as the “basic issue”) that people want to know in any defamation case is whether the defamatory allegation made about the plaintiff was true or not true. For example, if a media outlet says Joe Blow is a murderer, which is obviously an extremely defamatory allegation, what people ultimately want to know is whether Mr Blow was actually a murderer, or not.  If Mr Blow sues and loses the case because the Court found that the publisher was entitled to a defence of comment or qualified privilege, that is very different to Mr Blow losing because the Court found he was in fact a murderer.  The point is that a person who loses a defamation case can still vindicate his reputation if he wins on truth.
 * What the page says is pretty straight forward. The ABC made a defamatory allegation about Griffith.  Griffith took the ABC to court and they defended the case.  Ultimately, the ABC avoided liability because they established defences of comment and qualified privilege, but critically to Griffith they failed on truth.  That is what both the RSs reported. Cabrils (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If directly quoting from the judgment is OR (and I agree it is), surely a synthesis such as "the NSW Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis of qualified privilege and comment being upheld" is also OR.
 * But the bigger problem is that the text is incomprehensible to a general reader. What the heck does "qualified privilege" mean? Or "comment"? I'm sure the average reader will think: "Of course what the ABC said is a comment; why is this going to Court?" Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If it comes from a secondary source it’s not WP:OR. The defences of truth, comment and qualified privilege are all referred to in this Sydney Morning Herald | article and it doesn’t define them. That’s what the source says and given the SMH is "the most widely-read masthead in the country", most people obviously have an understanding of what those terms mean. I don’t see any issue in using them on Wikipedia. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Herald article is about the Supreme Court decision, not the Court of Appeal decision! The Herald is no reference at all for the Court of Appeal. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just using the SMH article to show how truth, comment and privilege are used in the general media without being defined. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So do you agree that, for the Court of Appeal, the text should simply say that the appeal was dismissed, and leave it at that? Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, didn’t you read what I posted? The existing wording seems fine to me and is supported by reliable sources. The ruling that the allegation was not true has to be included to meet NPOV. You can’t just remove relevant material you don’t like. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So I'm confused. Do you perhaps believe that Quadrant is a reliable source? Maybe I should have more clearly mentioned the | 2019 consensus that Quadrant is "generally unreliable for factual reporting". See also WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources.
 * If there's any secondary source other than Quadrant saying that the Court of Appeal decided on the basis of qualified privilege and comment, and that it found that the defamatory allegation the ABC made about Griffith was not justified, then I don't see it. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Quadrant can be relied on here. There’s quite a bit of discussion about it above including reference to that 2019 discussion.
 * I can’t access the other source (Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin) but you and Cabrils both say it says “The Court set aside the justification finding”. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the report from the Australian Defamation Law and Practice Bulletin - March 2011: https://imgur.com/a/Y5T1qiN. Cabrils (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely that's WP:COPYVIO. Briane from Chilliwack (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting a link on a Talk page to a small portion of a publication for these purposes is permissible under fair use/fair dealing. Cabrils (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is replete with pages containing various levels of technical information (like complex surgery, engineering, chemistry, quantum physics etc) and it’s up to readers to inform themselves of things that they don’t know about. An accurate summary of the relevant matters is appropriate and in the case of biographies of living persons, is required: WP:BLP. Cabrils (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly would be WP:OR and would also breach WP:NPOV and WP:BLP at least. At the risk of repetition, as I stated above:
 * For starters, by selectively focusing only on two sub-elements of the defamatory allegation and completely ignoring what the thrust or sting of the defamatory allegation actually was and the crux part of what the Court of Appeal judgment actually said (see in particular paragraphs 20, 50-51 and 86 to 95), you are misrepresenting the decision.
 * When the Court of Appeal says at paragraph 94 “Given the disadvantages referred to in par [88] above, I would not be satisfied that, if the appellant’s work had been of a materially better standard, it would have received some support from the scientific community; or that the lack of any support from the scientific community demonstrated that the work was of a poor standard”, the Court was acknowledging that any lack of support for Griffith’s work was likely to have been caused by the pre-existing “disadvantages” he faced such as those referred to in paragraphs 20, 88, 89, 90 and 91 of the judgment, rather than by the standard of his work. In its proper context, paragraph 94 reflects the finding in Griffith’s favour.
 * It’s obvious to any fair minded reader of the judgment that the Court of Appeal thought that the reasoning of the ABC and of the trial judge on the issue of truth was fundamentally wrong, which is why his decision was overturned.
 * I realise what I’ve restated above is all OR too, but your deliberate misrepresentation of the judgment shouldn’t go uncorrected. For example, in the part you quoted from paragraph 94 of the judgment, you’ve implied that it was Griffith’s argument that the Court disagreed with, when it was actually the ABC’s argument the Court rejected.  The ABC tried to prove, but couldn’t, that any lack of support for Griffith work at the time was caused by the standard of his work.  What the Court said was that it was likely caused by the various “disadvantages” he faced.  So it’s extremely misleading how you’re trying to spin paragraph 94.
 * It’s obvious you are attempting to create a biased article that suits your personal interpretation of the cases by proposing to remove all the content that shows that the media publications were discredited, or when that doesn’t work for you, wanting to add your own spin by cherry picking elements from the judgment even though it is OR. All of which is in flagrant breach of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Cabrils (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s obvious you are attempting to create a biased article that suits your personal interpretation of the cases by proposing to remove all the content that shows that the media publications were discredited, or when that doesn’t work for you, wanting to add your own spin by cherry picking elements from the judgment even though it is OR. All of which is in flagrant breach of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Cabrils (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s obvious you are attempting to create a biased article that suits your personal interpretation of the cases by proposing to remove all the content that shows that the media publications were discredited, or when that doesn’t work for you, wanting to add your own spin by cherry picking elements from the judgment even though it is OR. All of which is in flagrant breach of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Cabrils (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In all this, Cabrils’s Joe Blow example is compelling. Griffith won on truth, in the Joe Blow example he’s not a murderer. Leaving out the truth finding would not only be extremely unfair but incredibly defamatory. It would plain misrepresent what happened and what the RSs reported. WP:BLP is very clear that biographies of living persons need to be edited with particular care and a high degree of sensitivity. Where a public figure is accused of an allegation, their denial of it should be included (WP:BLPPUBLIC), so where a court finds an allegation is untrue it most definitely should be included: “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures”: WP:NPF. Schnitzelking (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

[Editors] actively "clean" edits that are based in fact
Jeremy Griffith is a (BLP violation removed) and (Personal attack removed).

Or how else would you explain that adding to the article, the fact - which is of encyclopedic value- that the animal he tried finding living specimen of, at the time was widely regarded as, and to this day still is regarded as, EXTINCT.

Or the fact that edits correcting the false notion Griffith has "theories" for the correct fact he has "hypotheses", become reverted with no basis in Wikipedia standards.

Or the fact that asking for a source BY WHOM for a dubious claim that seem to be in the ECONOMIC INTEREST of Griffith to be on this page, is labelled as "biased". It would indeed seem that a (Personal attack removed) is keeping this article under strict review. 85.226.142.134 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The extinction status of the Tasmanian tiger is noted in the body of the article; it does not need restated in the intro. You may have a point about the motive for his founding the WTM. However, the egregious BLP violation that you also added with regard to climate change required the rollback of the edit and, frankly, called into question your motives. Your attacks in the message above do as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Word choice in the intro
He later became noted for his writings on the human condition and theories about human progress. [emphasis added]

The 85.226.* IP user has suggested changing this from "theories" to "hypotheses" to avoid the scientific denotations of what a theory is. Should we change it thusly? Should we go with "concepts" to finesse our way around that issue? —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably worth noting that this article (already used on the page) refers to Griffith’s work as a “theory”, twice. —Schnitzelking (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we should keep to what the RS say, then. —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me Schnitzelking (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * there is the colloquial sense of theory which is largely coextensive with things like hunch or even prejudice. Yeah, I agree that in science we think of a theory as a coherent intermeshing of observations, axioms, and deductions/predictions, and that this tosh is, well, not so much... 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B1C5:1E95:9E6:61B9 (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

context
This really is an ancient debate that is being presented as something ground-breaking, and to which nothing of substance is being added. What is being added is rather questionable: paid-for youtube ads in which various people declare that watching the guy talk "changes everything" - without context, we are at risk of losing the encyclopaedic and getting lost in mass hysteria. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B1C5:1E95:9E6:61B9 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Please, Wikipedia really should be so much more careful with it's content: this is such an obvious pseudoscience presented as a ground-breaking discovery that I can't wrap my head around the fact that Wikipedia has "lurking around" stupid content about "scientific theories" like the content about Jeremy Griffith or his stupid hypotheses. I mean - even it it's own page it admits that the vast majority of the scientific community is not in agreement with his "theories": check Full History of Rejection of Jeremy Griffith’s Treatise | World Transformation Movement (humancondition.com).
 * I love science, I've been in scientific research (now I'm in IT) and I quite hate lack of coherence to any extent in any system, including the fallacies in his theories (promoting negative entropy - contrary to the accepted theories in physics... et caetera).
 * These paid ads by his pointless organization gave me headaches.
 * Everyone reading this: please help keep Wikipedia clean(er)!... :)
 * My biggest issue with this article?... Not respecting NPOV (Neutral Point Of View)!... I keep wondering if Wikipedia can ever be neutral - as it can easily be "attacked" by various activists giving here their misinformation! At least, if people could easily vote an article to be marked as "DISPUTABLE"!... :) (and if a number of people voted this, to give big alerts to the user of the potential arguability of the content :) ...)
 * PS here you can see quite a number of people pissed of by those paid ads (and the fallacies within his "theories" :) ... ): https://www.quora.com/How-good-is-the-science-in-Jeremy-Griffiths-s-treatise-on-the-human-condition

GodIsBlessing (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. These comments are so wrong, and frankly verging on abuse. In particular, your ridiculous assertions that Griffith’s work is “stupid” and “pointless” and “pseudoscience”. You claim to “love science”, but then effectively insist that your unsubstantiated opinions should be taken as fact by everyone else. Have you even read Griffith’s books? My opinion on Griffith’s work is that it’s the complete opposite of pseudoscience. If you’re interested in having a rationale debate about it, I’d recommend you to look at FAQ 1.10 at https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-faq-is-this-theory-testable/, because it’s an in-depth treatment of all these questions about pseudoscience and the truth about Griffith’s treatise. In essence, science’s discovery of natural selection and genes allows us to understand that instincts are only orientations; science’s discovery of how the nervous system works, in particular that nerves are able to remember events, allows us to understand that the intellect operates from a basis of understanding cause and effect. These are two of biology’s fundamental tenets. What Griffith postulates is that because instincts are only orientations they must have resisted the intellect’s experiments in self-management, causing a psychologically upsetting clash.
 * Certainly Griffith’s insights are a product of inductive rather than deductive reasoning, but to claim that is not “real” science is absurd. As Professor Scott Churchill, a former Chair of the Psychology Department at the University of Dallas, writes in FAQ 1.10, “Griffith’s ideas have been criticized for not presenting the field of science with “new data” and “testable hypotheses.” But such a complaint is disingenuous since evolutionary processes are not subjectable to the same kind of “hypothesis testing” that one finds in the other sciences. An hypothesis is a “smaller, more compact thesis” that is “deduced” from a larger idea or thesis in such a way that one can test that larger idea piece by piece. Whereas, the kind of synthesis offered in Griffith’s book is presented both conceptually and metaphorically with an aim to tie together existing data, while correcting and expanding upon the more limited existing interpretations of those data…Such a perspective comes to us not as a simple opinion of one man, but rather as an inductive conclusion drawn from sifting through volumes of data representing what scientists have discovered”.
 * And in the introduction to Griffith’s main book Freedom, Professor Harry Prosen similarly points out that “Jeremy, like Darwin did with his theory of natural selection, puts forward a wide-ranging, induction-derived synthesis, a “grand narrative explanation” for behavior—which, incidentally, very wrongly led to both Darwin’s and Jeremy’s work being criticized by some for not presenting “new data” and a “testable hypothesis”; even for “not being science at all”!’. The www.humancondition.com website lists support from many other scientists. I appreciate these questions are contentious scientific issues and reasonable minds can differ, but to say Griffith’s ideas are not scientific is just resorting to personal abuse.
 * As is further explained in FAQ 1.10, “Beyond its logic, we can know the ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation of the human condition is the real explanation of the human condition because we can test it through our own experience as well as witness its extraordinary power to explain all aspects of human life. We also have history’s confirmation of the ‘instinct vs intellect’ elements involved in producing the human condition, to which Jeremy has added the all-important redeeming explanation of WHY the clash between those elements produced the psychologically upset state of the human condition. This critical clarification by Jeremy has been made possible by science’s recent understanding of the difference in the way the gene-based, naturally selected, instinctive learning system and the nerve-based, conscious mind’s learning system work, further confirms.”
 * Incidentally, Griffith’s recognition of negative entropy is far from unique to him. Erwin Schrödinger, who first proposed the concept of negative entropy, was a Nobel Prize recipient for his work in physics, and the concept is widely acknowledged in the scientific world.
 * Wikipedia articles are based on rules. If your suggestion was adopted, the validity of every article would become a popularity contest about the subject rather than an encylopedia, which is why Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources and not people’s unsubstantiated opinions and abuse. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Griffith's ideas are pseudoscience. You can like them, but they are. His 'interview' with multiple minutes of hyping it up is a textbook example of trying to prime an audience rather than give the actual evidence, and when he gets to the actual 'research' it is severely lacking. The claim that people teach that human ancestors are inherently violent is just wrong - it's been understood for ages, well before Griffith, that humans are social creatures and as such developed compassion and love. Rather than acknowledge that, Griffith ignores it, constructs a straw man of the actual worldview, then criticises his made-up enemy for being incoherent, to then push his narrative with no examination of the actual theory. Not looking to get into that on a talk page, but to assert that his ideas have any substantive backing simply because he can criticise a straw man is absurd.
 * I'm not opposed to Griffith having a page, but including as much fluff as this page does feels more like advertising than Wikipedia should. It treats him like an actually significant figure when the reality is that he's a ten-a-penny self-help guru whose brand is in appearing significant. How much of this page actually meets Wikipedia's standards for notability?
 * NPOV matters. Quoting his political views and cherrypicked reviews of his books and supporters is not that. Wikipedia has standards
 * At a bare minimum I propose we cut out half of the the sections "Writings on human condition," and "World Transformation Movement," and merge them together as they cover similar ground with a lot of content unnecessary to an understanding of the man. I know, I know, I have no account, I'm a random IP etc etc, but it is really egregious to have such a thoroughly one-sided page for a figure that a lot of people are going to google due to his incessant advertising. 86.164.128.245 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you vehemently dislike Griffith's work is not a legitimate basis to attack and manipulate the content of the page.
 * Please see my comments above refuting the claim that Griffith's work is not real science. Inductive reasoning is a recognised, legitimate form of scientific enquiry.
 * Ironically, your criticisms and abuse are based on a complete misrepresentation of Griffith's analysis and position on existing theories of the duality of human behavior. Griffith does not say that we are not taught that we have a cooperative aspect to our genetic inheritance - what Griffith in fact argues is that the main scientific theories (eg Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and Self-Domestication) maintain, in his view incorrectly, that human selfishness is the result of selfish instincts (see | chapter 2 of Griffith's book Freedom]), even if there are cooperative instincts in the mix. The only one creating a straw man to attack is you.
 * Professor Scott Churchhill, who I quoted in my post above, a former Chair of the Psychology Department as the University of Dallas, said "I have recommended his [Griffith's] more recent work to my students precisely for his razor-sharp clarifications of positions of contemporary authors like Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Robert Wright".
 * I agree Wikipedia is governed by rules, which Griffith's page evidently meets.
 * Your proposal to cut half of the sections "Writings on human condition" and "World Transformation Movement" and merge them altogether because "they cover similar ground" makes no sense, they don't cover similar ground at all. The Writings section is about his work, and the World Transformation Movement section is about the history of the organisation he founded and the defamation cases.
 * Again, the fact that you personally dislike Griffith's work is not a valid reason to manipulate the content of the page.
 * The real issue, clearly, is that the subject matter of the human condition is highly contentious. As Professor Harry Prosen wrote in his introduction to Freedom: "as my profession has taught me only too well, for most people, trying to think about this ultimate of questions of whether humans are fundamentally good or not has been an unbearably self-confronting exercise ... while Jeremy's work has drawn praise and garnered impressive commendations from some exceptional thinkers able to acknowledge his insights, he has, as mentioned, also had to withstand the enormous cynicism, indifference and even persecution that humans' historical resistance to engaging the subject of the human condition produces."
 * As I posted above, Wikipedia articles are based on rules. If your suggestion was adopted, the content of every page would become a popularity contest about the subject rather than an encyclopedia, which is why Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources and not on individual people's unsubstantiated opinions and abuse. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you vehemently dislike This straw man in the first sentence will make people ignore the rest of your wall of text; the rest is probably just as invalid. The other IP is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aside - you'll note that at no point did I feel the need to attack your clear bias in Griffith's favour nor did I criticise inductive reasoning - let's focus on the two points of import.
 * A) Condensing the sections. The WTM exists to push Griffith's view on the 'human condition.' The defamation cases were against the ideas that Griffith pushes. When you cut the fluff (ie, repeated quotes more at home in an ad than an encyclopedia) there is very little actual content across both sections. Lists of people who support him are irrelevant. Tim Macartney-Snape for example founded the WTM with Griffith - surely it is sufficient to just mention that rather than trying to use him to buff up Griffith's credibility separately? And is it necessary to list the biographies of individuals whose own pages are literally linked?
 * B) "The content of every page would become a popularity contest about the subject rather than an encyclopedia, which is why Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources and not on individual people's unsubstantiated opinions and abuse." There is an unavoidable element of popularity contest to wikipedia - notability is the watchword here. Random articles that happen to have been posted one time and forgotten about by everyone outside of people especially focused on the one issue are not notable. People that did one thing and got forgotten about are not notable. Sustained importance matters. I am not convinced that the bulk of this article meets that criteria. Griffith is arguably notable for the WTM, but that doesn't make his every opinion and acquaintance significant enough to include. I am discussing paring down the article to focus on what actually matters as it is currently unnecessarily padded.
 * Yes, I have my own opinions on the guy, just as you do, but that doesn't make me incapable of gauging the adequacy of a wikipedia article. Is this a discussion you would actually like to have or will you respond to any and all criticism of the article with the insistence that it's just 'abuse' directed at Griffith because we're all too ~afraid~ to engage with him? 86.164.128.245 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The page well establishes that the subject meets the notability criteria, supported by reliable sources. The basis of your argument to trim the article, which are assertions of “pseudoscience” and “ten-a-penny self-help guru”, are not evidenced by reliable sources. And even if they were, they would have to be handled with special care to meet WP:BLP.
 * There is no practical limit to the length of an article as long as the content is based on  reliable sources. What you’ve said about certain sources being “random articles” does not align with the guidelines.
 * You clearly have an adverse view of Griffith, which you are of course entitled to, however Wikipedia is not a soapbox and I would respectfully encourage you to be mindful of WP:BLP. Cabrils (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Those were not the basis of my issue with the article, merely a response to the other user. As I said, the article repeats itself and contains a number of claims that don't seem to be notable. Yes, I'm going to be critical of Griffiths in the talk page, but I have not proposed adding those statements to the article, merely paring down the unnecessary fluff. In line with BLPSELFPUB, BLP1E,
 * WP:BLPFRINGE, WPSOAPBOX, I am emphasising the fact that A) Griffiths is known primarily for his work, which is of the self-help genre (you can say it's based in science if you believe that, but so is a lot of purported self-help, his work is explicitly geared towards "the psychological rehabilitation of the human race" and is hardly a scientific journal. The purpose is clearly 'self-improvement'). This covers his books and the WTM. Until such time as an actual peer-reviewed scientific publication comes to light, I will treat Griffiths works as he himself does and as Wikipedia rules would have me - as self-help books and nothing more. B) There are people that follow Griffiths' beliefs but a list of every one of them would not meet Wikipedia's standards.
 * Specifically, then, I'm saying:
 * -It is not meaningful that Birch, Morton, Snape, Prosen etc happen to follow his work, on its own merits. Snape's inclusion is justified later given that he helped found the WTM, but the rest reads like advertising text taken from Griffith's own website. Like you say, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ditto, WP:UNDUE. It very much sticks out how much credence is given to pushing the credentials of select supporters and giving their words, while the one criticism given doesn't do the same legwork of quoting the even the minimal article (eg: "In Griffith's mind, such disagreement with Van der Post is magically transformed into evidence of a malicious desire to persecute him.")
 * -Random political musings ("Griffith argues that the ideology of the Left is regressive and might lead to extinction" and subsequent paragraph) from Griffiths are not notable and at the very least don't belong in the same category as his human condition writing given that the rest of the section focused on his books. A political category could be included if he's done more of significance in this area
 * -Some basic summary of his beliefs makes sense, but the article is not adopting WP:NPOV with the laudatory quoting of the same advertising hooks Griffiths uses on his site, while also quoting Griffith's false statements in regards to the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. Again, WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. (While you could argue this would count as original research - a fair statement - I would draw your attention to WP:UNDUE again, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I am granting you that this article ought to exist despite my own reservations but to give weight to Griffith's fringe theories on the basis of 'Most scientists have barely heard of him and those that have can't be bothered to write a direct response' goes against Wikipedia policy. Even if you take the point of view that he is correct, everything he states including his claims about evolution are his opinion and should be treated as such).
 * Again, while I may have an unflattering opinion of Griffiths the man, and am not going to pretend otherwise in this discussion, I am condemning the messy nature of the article. 86.164.128.245 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All pages are perpetually open to improvement, however this page has a history of disruptive editing, including vandalism, hence my caution when I see proposals that are clearly motivated by a dislike of the subject rather than by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. As I noted above, your arguments to pare back the article are based on your highly subjective and adverse opinions, which you are entitled to hold but not to impose as though they were facts (e.g. that Griffith is a pseudoscientist), especially where there are no reliable sources supporting them. Such reliable sources would be necessary to evidence breaches of policies (WP:BLPFRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc), otherwise such accusations are purely WP:OR.
 * Conversely, the present content on the page appears to me to be supported by reliable sources and reads neutrally and cogently, includes criticism about “the empirical veracity of his anthropological writings”, and has meaningful sections that are relatively concise and on point. I’m not seeing any “fluff” or “mess”.
 * Essentially, you are wanting to impose your highly dismissive view of the merit of his work (for example, to strip out 4 named notable proponents of Griffith’s work despite there being RSs), by misusing policies which you evidently either do not understand or are intent on selectively misrepresenting. I would again caution you against such misuse and encourage you to carefully re-read the relevant policies. Cabrils (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that personal attacks shouldn’t be made, and that’s not my intention, but I do think it is important and relevant to highlight your animosity towards Griffith because it obviously is affecting your criticism of the page. So I’m not putting any weight in your characterisation of Griffith and his theories, I much prefer to trust in the opinions of qualified scholars like Churchill and Prosen.
 * Regarding your particular points:
 * -Peer review is not the arbiter of whether something is scientific or not (see the lengthy discussions above including about independent scientists like Darwin, who was an outsider despite being a brilliant biologist).
 * -Psychological implications and political views. Griffith’s work is focused on explaining the human condition, and he argues that psychological rehabilitation is just the important consequence of presenting that explanation (the article by Harry Prosen in the Montreal Review is titled “The psychological rehabilitation of the human race through understanding the human condition”). It does not mean that Griffith is a “self-help guru” or that his theories are not scientific. Similarly, Griffith’s political writings are not “random political musings” at all. They appear in the section titled “Writings on human condition” and if there are political implications of a theory about human behaviour, as Griffith argues there is, then surely such implications should be included. And they are sourced.
 * -Birch, Morton, Snape, Prosen. Making mention of notable proponents, or critics, and their relevant qualifications surely makes sense to include.
 * -I've read that article you refer to that criticises Griffith’s interpretation of anthropological writings, but the quote you suggest including is incredibly tangential and hard to comprehend. I don’t see how that helps the reader understand what that article is trying to convey beyond the summary of the criticism that is already included.
 * -Basic summary of Griffith’s theories. The existing summary seems comprehendible and pretty brief for an explanation of the human condition. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it obviously is affecting your criticism Don't do that. If the other IP's criticism does not hold water, then refute it, period. The addition of snootily looking down on your opponent and saying "yuck, you have an opinion, keep it away from me" is neither necessary nor helpful to improving the article. It also raises alarm bells from experienced debaters who know that such things are primarily used by people who have nothing else.
 * Peer review is not the arbiter Nowadays, yes, it is. Darwin lived in another age when the methods of science were not as well-developed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * “Looking down on your opponent” has nothing to do with it, it’s about the need for objectivity. And I would suggest that the need for an independent thinking scientist like Darwin, has never been greater than now. Peer review points out that “innovative projects” or “radical or unorthodox projects” are discouraged by the peer review system, so it is wrong to say that only peer reviewed work is science; clearly the peer review system struggles with “innovative” science. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it’s about the need for objectivity. Just accept the fact that you are not allowed to attack you opponent, only their reasoning. Your excuses do not matter.
 * clearly the peer review system struggles with Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and what is reliable is not decided by your fiat. You want to revolutionize science by replacing peer review, go do it where it actually happens. Do not start on Wikipedia, Wikipedia just follows. And you are misusing a Wikipedia Talk page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Every potential editor to this article has a bias. WP:NOOBJECTIVITY I am upfront about mine rather than trying to hide it - both for the sake of honesty, and to demonstrate the frankly excessive amount of leeway I am giving Griffith. I am quoting wikipedia rules for each proposal I am making. The following are simple objective facts independent of your or my personal opinion:
 * -Griffith's work is in self-improvement. Again, pretty much every self-help author is going to base their work in what they would argue is some sort of scientific understanding, but any underpinning is not the same as the text itself. I did not say to remove Griffith's qualification as a biologist, just to not misrepresent his text. His work as presented is self-help, based in his personal understanding of science, but still self-help.
 * -Griffith's work is fringe and does not represent a majority viewpoint. As such, his work falls under WP:UNDUE WP:NFRINGE WP:PROFRINGE. Whatever our personal opinions, wikipedia rules demand he be analysed through that lens.
 * I did not say to strip out four proponents of Griffith's work - for one, I said Snape was relevant due to his presence in the WTM. The fact Griffith has famous friends however does not seem to me to be in itself notable, especially in a section primarily focused on quoting glowing reviews. There is a clear imbalance in how the two sides are treated, with the pro side featuring glowing quotes often ripped from Griffith's own ads, while the anti offering one unquoted minor objection and not the fact Griffith was accused of dismissing objections as 'evidence of a malicious desire to persecute [Van Der Post].' WP:UNDUE seems very relevant. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement..."
 * My issue is that his work is given very clearly one-sided treatment. His straw man of the theory of evolution is left to stand, not as 'Griffith states that evolution implies...' but as 'Griffith rejects the [false claim].' Meanwhile, beliefs that would potentially paint Griffith in an unflattering light, such as the 'Deaf Effect' in which he states that anyone who rejects his work is just closed-minded and that no one could therefore have reasonable criticism, goes unmentioned. Meanwhile political beliefs whose sources are a) an article he wrote, and b) a now-deleted podcast get put up. My criticism is that this article feels like an advertisement that pads itself out with glowing testimonials from Griffith's own site where fully half of that section is dedicated to quoting his ads. Explaining his ideas and marketing them are not the same thing. WP:SOAPBOX 86.164.128.245 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, as I pointed out above, you misunderstand WP:UNDUE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NFRINGE. If the page was solely about competing theories of the human condition, then yes those policies may be more relevant. However, this is a biography about Griffith himself, so those policies are far less relevant (please carefully read the policies, and see my comments below). In this instance, WP:RS and WP:BLP are more relevant and so a reasonable summary of his theories may, and should, be included.
 * WP:UNDUE applies to articles about particular issues and subjects on which differing theories exist to ensure that "fringe" theories are not given undue weight compared with more established theories. In particular, WP:UNDUE states: “For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.” Griffith’s page is not about a subject on which differing theories exist, it is a biographical page about Griffith.
 * WP:PROFRINGE relates to articles that are solely about a "fringe" theory, and the need for reliable sources: “the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources”. Griffith’s page isn’t a page that is solely about a "fringe" theory, it’s a biography of Griffith the person. The next section in this policy, WP:ONEWAY, discusses the inclusion of "fringe" views in other articles: “Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.” So Griffith’s theories (whether they are "fringe" or not) may be included in his page as long as "independent reliable sources connect the topics [in this case, Griffith’s theories and himself] in a serious and prominent way", which the current page plainly does.
 * WP:NFRINGE relates to articles about a "fringe" theory, not to articles about the theorist whose notability is independently established, as Griffith’s notability is on this page, so this policy does not apply in the way you contend either.
 * The salient point is that Griffith’s article is a biography about Griffith. It is completely appropriate, in fact necessary, for it to include a reasonable summary of his theories about the human condition, as long as it is sourced from reliable sources, which it is: WP:RS, WP:BLP. Griffith has also expressed public views on a wide range of topics (such as political ideology and Australian eucalyptus trees) which have been recorded in reliable sources, and there is no reason why such matters shouldn’t also be noted on a biographical page.
 * In relation to your assertion that there is a “clear imbalance” on the page evidenced by what material is used from the Sydney Morning Herald article, on my reading that piece contains a lot of positive commentary about Griffith’s research that has not been included in the page, but arguably could be, so it seems to me that the current selection strikes a sensible balance. Cabrils (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, as I pointed out above, you misunderstand WP:UNDUE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NFRINGE. If the page was solely about competing theories of the human condition, then yes those policies may be more relevant. However, this is a biography about Griffith himself, so those policies are far less relevant (please carefully read the policies, and see my comments below). In this instance, WP:RS and WP:BLP are more relevant and so a reasonable summary of his theories may, and should, be included.
 * WP:UNDUE applies to articles about particular issues and subjects on which differing theories exist to ensure that "fringe" theories are not given undue weight compared with more established theories. In particular, WP:UNDUE states: “For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.” Griffith’s page is not about a subject on which differing theories exist, it is a biographical page about Griffith.
 * WP:PROFRINGE relates to articles that are solely about a "fringe" theory, and the need for reliable sources: “the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources”. Griffith’s page isn’t a page that is solely about a "fringe" theory, it’s a biography of Griffith the person. The next section in this policy, WP:ONEWAY, discusses the inclusion of "fringe" views in other articles: “Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.” So Griffith’s theories (whether they are "fringe" or not) may be included in his page as long as "independent reliable sources connect the topics [in this case, Griffith’s theories and himself] in a serious and prominent way", which the current page plainly does.
 * WP:NFRINGE relates to articles about a "fringe" theory, not to articles about the theorist whose notability is independently established, as Griffith’s notability is on this page, so this policy does not apply in the way you contend either.
 * The salient point is that Griffith’s article is a biography about Griffith. It is completely appropriate, in fact necessary, for it to include a reasonable summary of his theories about the human condition, as long as it is sourced from reliable sources, which it is: WP:RS, WP:BLP. Griffith has also expressed public views on a wide range of topics (such as political ideology and Australian eucalyptus trees) which have been recorded in reliable sources, and there is no reason why such matters shouldn’t also be noted on a biographical page.
 * In relation to your assertion that there is a “clear imbalance” on the page evidenced by what material is used from the Sydney Morning Herald article, on my reading that piece contains a lot of positive commentary about Griffith’s research that has not been included in the page, but arguably could be, so it seems to me that the current selection strikes a sensible balance. Cabrils (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

World Transformation Movement
How is the World Transformation Movement funded and does the author of the Griffith article have financial ties? They seem to be advertising heavily on social media.


 * Beats me but I second your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:30A1:F00A:F51:6ADE (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Prophet?
"Unhappy at being portrayed as some sort of diety he is nevertheless quite comfertable with being called a prophet..." In the bulletin article https://images.wtmfiles.com/1998-05-21-TheBulletin-HigherGround_WEB_909x600.jpg

Him being noted as being a self styled prophet and his explicit denial of founding a cult would make the rest of the article more sensicle and makes quotes like "…I have no doubt Griffith’s explanation of the human condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychological rehabilitation of the human race." more understandible from a certain perspective.

But "Jeremy Griffith (born 1945) is an Australian biologist, self-styled prophet and author." sounds mildly defamatory. So I'm unsure how to intergrate it properly.

2A02:A457:558:1:841C:AB9D:D0A6:4D2D (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * In the circumstances, I think the use of a contentious polysemous term like “prophet” needs to be handled very carefully, as you say, given the attendant risk of it being defamatory. WP:BLP is very clear that biographies of living persons need to be edited with particular care and a high degree of sensitivity: “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures”: WP:NPF. Where a public figure is accused of an allegation, their denial of it should be included (WP:BLPPUBLIC).
 * And so, where a word like “prophet” is proposed to be added to a biography of a living person, it is necessary that the subject’s views about that be included. Many, probably most, people would consider a prophet to be a deity or figure of reverence or a religious figure, which tends to connotate delusions of grandeur etc, as your draft (“self-styled prophet”) unavoidably infers. As is clear in the Bulletin article, Griffith does not consider himself such a figure at all, so any use of prophet has to fairly and accurately context and reflect Griffith’s secular usage. With that in mind, based on the Bulletin article source, I’ve added what I think is a fair, acceptable, non-defamatory reference to prophet.
 * Finally, I note that “prophet” seems to be almost absent in the RSs, so the guidelines around undue weight [WP:UNDUE] limit how much material should be included in the article about prophet (but, as explained above, what is included must adhere to WP:BLP). Schnitzelking (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explanation. 2A02:A457:558:1:90B7:627B:4A18:CAB5 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Harry Prosen
I recently saw a string of YouTube ads and this website page https://www.humancondition.com/professor-harry-prosen/ which prominently show Harry Prosen as a supporter. Is this legit? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * More relevant here: Does anyone have WP:RS on it? Does not look like it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Prosen’s support of Griffith is evidenced in (at least) the |Sydney Morning Herald, and the | Montreal Review, which are both in the article. He also wrote the foreword to Griffith’s book Freedom. Cabrils (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Relief hunting"
Never heard of it, and couldn't find a definition on the net. This needs explaining. 77Mike77 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)