| Revision as of 17:58, 14 December 2014 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 editsm →Undue -- discussion of problems: ce← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:24, 21 October 2024 edit undoSqueakachu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,179 editsm Reverted edit by 81.96.117.150 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=ae|style=short}}<!-- Reason: Griffin's book on the Federal Reserve takes an Austrian Economics view of the topic. --> |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=cam|style=long}}<!-- Note that alerts issued under ARBPSUEDO remain current for these sanctions as they are closely related (per ]). -->{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=tpm}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
| action1 = AFD |
|
| action1 = AFD |
|
| action1date = 2006-09-09 |
|
| action1date = 2006-09-09 |
| Line 22: |
Line 23: |
|
| action4result = reviewed |
|
| action4result = reviewed |
|
| action4oldid = 152632406 |
|
| action4oldid = 152632406 |
|
|
|
|
|
| action5 = AFD |
|
|
| action5date = 2015-03-10 |
|
|
| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (4th nomination) |
|
|
| action5result = no consensus |
|
|
| action5oldid =650765168 |
|
|
|
|
|
| currentstatus = |
|
| currentstatus = |
| Line 29: |
Line 36: |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=start|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=low|old-peer-review=yes|listas=Griffin, G. Edward}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|living=yes|listas=Griffin, G. Edward|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=low|old-peer-review=yes}} |
|
{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Michigan|importance=Low|detroit=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
<!-- auto-archiving for sporadic discussions: archive 5 threads when 12 threads are reached --> |
|
<!-- auto-archiving for sporadic discussions: archive 5 threads when 12 threads are reached --> |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 5 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 48: |
Line 59: |
|
{{clear}} |
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Poor and/or biased references == |
|
==Ungrammatical passage in the article== |
|
|
|
Concerning the claim from the introductory paragraph that Griffin's theories on the Federal Reseve have been debunked, I followed the (single) citation to a book called "Pranksters : making mischief in the modern world" and read the relevant chapters. It does '''nothing''' by way of "disproving" the claim, and no actual, fact-based argument is advanced. Instead, it's but a "claim against the claim", a simple statement in other words that what Griffin says is wrong and/or exaggerated, while shame is attributed to the otherwise respectable men who promoted his theories. It's a mark of hypocrisy to call a theory debunked by citing a reference that does not even try to debunk it factually. I believe that this entire claim must be removed from this article, or citations to actual proofs must be found. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) September 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{notdone}} The source is fine. ] (]) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Take a look at this sentence in the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
::Griffin advocates a ], private-money system superior to the Fed caused economist ] to deploy such a system in 1998. |
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't make any grammatical sense, but I'm not sure how to correct it, as I don't know what meaning is intended. It is this? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Griffin advocates a ], private-money system superior to the Fed. His views caused economist ] to deploy such a private-money system in 1998. |
|
|
|
|
|
???? Ideas, anyone? ] (]) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:It sounds like your idea is probably the correct interpretation, but I cannot find the cited source, so cannot say for sure. Not exactly sure ] is exactly an "economist", though. ] (]) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Creature from Jekyll Island== |
|
|
The Federal Reserve System and similar systems abroad were created not as a result of conspiracy, but as a result of wealth produced by the industrial revolution. The capitalists were wealthy, but they could not get much money because the supply of new gold and silver coins was much smaller than the new wealth of the capitalists. The fiat (paper) money was the solution of the problem. The solution has a flaw: an irresponsible FED can print too much money and thereby create hyperinflation.] (]) 11:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ahem. This presumes something like Griffin's "reasoning", but it has a grain of truth. For the first "capitalists", read "people" in general, as the total wealth of the working class also exceeds the supply of gold and silver coins. The rest is opinion, probably Griffin's, although possibly some other "economist". Finally, this is probably more helpful toward the article ] or ] than here. — ] ] 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mandrake mechanism reserve requirement example == |
|
|
|
|
|
The explanation of the reserve fraction seems to be different than ] that states that the money multiplier is effectively much greater than the example given in this section of this article. Basically that 10% must be on deposit so that amount X can be put out on loan, and this fraction differs for different countries and categories of banking. Suppose that amount X is $10. 10% of $10 is $1. This differs completely with the example given in this article section--Or am I wrong? ] (]) 11:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Inclusion of SPS material and SYNTH regarding laetrile == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are problems with the text which involves Griffin's promotion of laetrile: |
|
|
# This sentence in the lede: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." has problems. First, it uses Griffin's SPS video as the reference. As the video is about an extraordinary claim, and not about himself, we cannot say "laetrile as a cancer treatment". Doing so goes beyond Griffin. Footnote 4 mentions Griffin in passing, but is not actually about Griffin or his promotion of laetrile. Footnote 5 does not mention Griffin at all. Thus we have SYNTH in play because the scientists do not directly and explicitly refer to Griffin or his claims. |
|
|
# In the 'Advocacy of fringe science and conspiracy theories' section, we see: "Griffin also advocates the use of Laetrile, a semi-synthetic derivative of amygdalin as a treatment for cancer, often referencing the work of Dean Burk to support the use of Laetrile. Since the 1970s, the use of Laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer." Footnote 21 is Griffin's material. Footnote 22 does not mention him. |
|
|
# Same section: "Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments, ...." Footnote 25 is his curecancer website. As SPS, it is improper because it refers to third parties. |
|
|
I raise these simply as a RS/DUE issue. I am not interested in white-washing Griffin's claims. But he is not an expert in the relevant field of either oncology or alternative medicine. So, ] restricts us from presenting exceptional claims (I posit this means either directly or indirectly). ] is another restriction, and ] is even more restrictive. ] says "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, ''or a vehicle'' for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." If the article says "Griffin says he thinks laetrile cures cancer ,,,," then WP is being used as a vehicle to present his views. Because this is a BLP, the ] is on those editors who want to present (or retain) the material. |
|
|
: E. James Lieberman RS; Lieberman (then a professor at George Washington University) published the allegations about Griffin's advocacy of Laetrile as a 'cure' for cancer, and noted that this view is unsupported by science. Lieberman made both of these claims in an article written for the '']''. Are you disputing that is an RS? ] (]) 04:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Lieberman is not in the footnotes listed above. And I certainly am ''not'' suggesting that he's anything other than RS! The difficulty is where we have Griffin's extraordinary claims about laetrile, supported by his SPS. The problem is compounded when the authors listed in the segments I posted do ''not'' specifically address what Griffin has said. E.g., "Scientist X says Griffin's ideas are ...." Instead, we only have them refuting laetrile in general. – ] (]) 05:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: We have an RS that has specifically made the connection between Griffin and laetrile and refuted laetrile as a 'cancer treatment.' So synthesis is not a problem at all, since (via that RS) the connection has already been made. The other RS complement the Lieberman one. ] (]) 06:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent editing regarding Edward Griffin == |
|
|
|
|
|
User Steeletrap is repeatedly making <s>slanderous</s> edits regarding Edward Griffin. |
|
|
User Steeletrap has previously been banned from articles and pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, a school to which Edward Griffin adheres. Therefore, user Steeletrap edits regarding Edward Griffin should be best reverted, or at a minimum be viewed with great caution. User Steeletrap edits are not NPOV. ] (]) 09:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I can't find how Griffin is involved with the Austrian School of Economics. If he is, it seems to be in a very minor way. Your edit didn't even mention it. He isn't an economist even if he wrote a book on the Federal Reserve which sees it as a giant conspiracy. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed unacceptably pov. ] (]) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have had some discussion at ] on the issue of Austrian Economics. I haven't added the reference to the article because the bigger problem of SPS and RS is yet unresolved. – ] (]) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Clarified as to AE. 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Dear Truthseeker1001: It is impossible to "slander" someone with written or printed words. The term "slander" refers to a particular kind of speech, not to something that is written or printed. Slander, by definition, is a form of "defamation." Using the definition of defamation and as applied to the type known as "slander," the term "slander" can be defined, roughly, as a ''false oral statement'' (not an opinion, and not something written down) about someone that holds that person "to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a respectable and considerable part of the community... that which tends to injure reputation..." -- Black's Law Dictionary, p. 375 (5th ed. 1979). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The correct term for the kind of defamation that is written or printed is "libel," not "slander." |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You have not identified anything in the article that constitutes any kind of defamation (libel or slander). ] (]) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And while we're on the subject, ] would seem to be an appropriate link for Truthseeker1001 to read. ] (]) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Ok Famspear and Yobol, I have read ] and I understand. I have corrected myself and have striken out the word slanderous. I still think user Steeletrap's editing regarding Edward Griffin is is POV though, to say the least.] (]) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Amygdalin/Laetrile/vitamin B17 == |
|
|
|
|
|
There a 4 problems with the sentence: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." |
|
|
First, in Edward Griffin's own words: "A controle for cancer is known, and it comes from nature. But it is not widely available to the public, because it cannot be patented. And therefore is not commercially attactive to the pharmaceutical industry." |
|
|
Therefore, critique from the corner from the pharmaceutical industry, also in the form of written papers, must be viewed with care. |
|
|
Second, these footnotes from Herbert (1979) and Lerner (1984) are ancient. Seriously, 1979 and 1984? That just won't do. You cannot refer to articles that are 30 years old or more, and then say that this is a view that represents the medical community. |
|
|
Third, the use of the word quackery is inflammatory. To use one word, and especially such an inflammatory word which is mentioned in just one article, and then saying that this represents the view of the medical community is not NPOV. |
|
|
Forth, Edward Griffin lays out the case for amygdalin/laetrile explicitly and specifically. Nothing in the critique of this views address his points. |
|
|
Fifth, there are articles that do support the view that amygdalin/laetrile could be beneficial, so there there is no conclusion that it does not work in cancer-treatment. |
|
|
|
|
|
In conclusion, it is true that there is a controversy regarding if the effects of amygdalin/laetrile in cancer-treatment. It is disputed that if these effects are positive, negative or neutral, but there is no conclusion in this controversy. It depends on who you ask. Anyway, there are too many problems with this sentence and the footnotes to leave it unaltered. I will keep the sentence, but I will moderate it to "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view that is unsupported by a large segment of the medical community." ] (]) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: If you want, you can find a politically correct euphemism for "quackery." But your version won't do, because it implies Griffin's view isn't fringe. ] (]) 15:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: So, if you so clearly state that you think that Griffin's view is fringe, how can you then state that your own personal view is NPOV? I think you cannot.] (]) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: We clearly state what the reliable sources state. While those sources are old, the medical consensus on laetrile has not changed at all (see for example). It was quackery then, still quackery now. ] (]) 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent research re: amygdalin == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Yobol}} you need to read the sources cited the updates I made to the article regarding the positive results of amygdalin. Quote: "Amygdalin, a naturally occurring substance, has been suggested to be efficacious as an anticancer substance. The effect of amygdalin on cervical cancer cells has never been studied. In this study, we found that the viability of human cervical cancer HeLa cell line was significantly inhibited by amygdalin." <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Issues: 1) The material added do not conform to ], specifically using primary in vitro experiments to contradict secondary sources. |
|
|
:2) The material is phrased in such a way to give much more credence to the notion that laetrile/amygdalin works and is gross violation of ] and ]. It is considered ''the'' canonical example of cancer quackery. |
|
|
:3) The material uses wording that is prejudicial, such as calling it "vitamin B17" even though it is not and has never been a ]. This is what I would expect from a promoter of laetrile, not a neutral explanation of what it is. (Note that calling it "vitamin B17" was a marketing ploy and has absolutely nothing to do with it as a chemical; that you would parrot this nonsense is concerning to me, and suggests you either are here to push a POV about laetrile/amygdalin or have not done the requisite basic research on the subject to write about it neutrally). |
|
|
:4) This material creates a ] for the laetrile material; the ] page is clear about the lack of human clinical research supporting it the general lack of support in the medical community regarding this. ] (]) 20:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you have specific BLP issues you wish to address, I suggest you separate them out from the laetrile material; you appear to be using BLP as a bludgeon to push a specific POV about laetrile here, which is completely unacceptable. ] (]) 20:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ec}} very unhappy to see the edit warring going on here. Atsme, as far as I can see you , many of which violate ], and have been edit warring to keep them in. One more revert and you are blockable per 3RR so please just stop. Drama boards are a big waste of time. In general it is better to make small edits rather than one big one, and you should never edit war to keep big changes you have made to existing content. If you are not familiar with ], please do read it, and carefully, if you feel strongly about including content about health in WP. Thank you. ] (]) 20:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::This article is full of BLP violations, as well as NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues. Based on the comments I've read above, along with the edit history associated with this article, the POV pushing is quite obvious as is your refusal to acknowledge the advancements in scientific research. My only purpose here is to make an outdated article current, and eliminate BLP violations. See you at the BLPN. ] (]) 02:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Was using a public computer and forgot to sign-in. My actual signed-in sig <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==BLPN== |
|
|
{{BLP noticeboard}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 10:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Checked box}} Thread closed per request of OP. – ] (]) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Srich32977}} made , with edit note, "remove sources which discuss laetrile in general and not Griffin or specific claims by Griffin – WP:SYN prohibits their use unless they explicitly discuss Griffin; AIDS denial is not a proper noun". I reverted, per ] - this is '''policy'''. We do not discuss pseudoscience in WP without calling it such; we cannot ] it in under BLP or any other policy - they do not contradict each other. Srich I don't know how much work you have done on ]-y topics but this is how we handle it, across the board. Happy to discuss. ] (]) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ideally the ineffective nature of this treatment should be clearer in the body, then we can just summarize in the lede. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::yes that should absolutely be the case. the lead should just summarize the body, oy. ] (]) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The ineffectiveness of laetrile ''is'' properly discussed. 1. It is described as unscientific in the lede ("scientifically-unsupported view"). 2. The ineffectiveness of laetrile is discussed ''in the laetrile article''. Griffin also has comments about AIDS, Noahs Ark, and the Federal Reserve – we do not and cannot debunk those ideas in the BLP. PSCI says "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." This has to be followed in conjunction with ] which requires explicit mention of Griffin's own material, not the ideas he holds. The topic of the article is Griffin and not the various ideas he expounds upon. – ] (]) 16:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hi Srich, thanks for talking! Again I don't know how much you have worked on pseudoscience-type stuff. This kind of thing has been to Arbcom, so please be careful and consider. Would you please let me know if you are familiar with PSCI-related matters here in WP? (if not, please see ] as a good starting place.) Sorry for asking but I just want to be sure we are working from the same foundation. Thanks. ] (]) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::and i do agree that we have to cautious in applying labels to Griffin per se; but to the extent that his notability depends on his advocacy for his ideas, and to the extent that we discuss his ideas, and to the extent that those are pseudoscience or FRINGE, the actual science does need to be brought to bear, there, via reliable sources of course. If we do not do that, we have ]ed fringe material into WP, which we cannot do. Agreed? Or maybe not.. please do tell. ] (]) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I quite agree that his ideas are nonsense. But the place for debunking them is in the particular topic-articles, not this BLP. We cannot say "Griffin says the moon is made of green cheese.<sup></sup> Armstrong walked on the moon and determined it was made of rock.<sup></sup> Therefore Griffin is wrong about the moon. " Now if Armstrong had said "Tell Griffin the moon is made of rock!" then the Armstrong quote could be used in the article. BTW, I'm pretty good at spotting the issues in these policy discussions. In this case the overriding policy is SYN. (I removed the material because it does not talk about Griffin, and I'd like to continue to tone down Griffin's own material to avoid UNDUE.) – ] (]) 17:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks very much for talking, and in this nice way. I do hear what you are saying about SYN. I've not had pushback on this kind of thing before. I went looking in BLPN and ] for consensus of the community on this and there is a lot to go through. I will need some time which I will have tomorrow.... (but maybe Yobol or Alexbrn is aware of some place where the intersection between SYN/PSCI and maybe also with those two and BLP are discussed, that we can all stand on) I wonder if you would be OK, if we found sources that specifically address the pseudoscience nature of the relevant ideas he advocates - specifically addressing ''his'' advocacy of them. Would that resolve your concerns with SYN? I would be interested to see what the article would like if you had a free hand with it (and am very curious about what you would take out under UNDUE). How about making all your edits, and self reverting, so we can all see? Thanks again for talking. ] (]) 17:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::''His advocacy'' of the different topics is the issue of concern. As for UNDUE, the lede has two paragraphs that contain the same info. It can be pared down. – ] (]) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::interested to see what you will do. thx. not sure i will agree, but interested to see! also please let me know if you hear my concern about PSCI (although the proof will be in the pudding) ] (]) 18:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{u|Srich32977}} you done? ] (]) 04:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Nope. – ] (]) 04:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is synthesis to use one source that says Griffin "promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment" and another that says the laetrile treatment is quackery and say that Griffin's view is quackery. Are they talking about the same thing? Was it considered quackery at the time? Don't ask editors to spend considerable time researching and discussing these issues, just stick with what relevant sources about Griffin say. |
|
|
:Then there is neutrality. Do we say in the leads of every person who believes in the Bible that the claims made about creation, the flood, the resurrection, etc., are not accepted by the scientific community? |
|
|
:This is an article about a main who promotes views outside the mainstream. We don't need to hammer away that they are not generally accepted. Ironically, that strident tone elicits sympathy for these views. |
|
|
:] (]) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would say ] is pretty straightforward here, "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. '''The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such'''." This either means calling the the view out as fringe directly, or at the very least immediately mentioning that it is a view not accepted by the scientific community. If someone is notable for something that's factually incorrect, etc. then it's undue weight to not include that additional qualifier on what is considered the mainstream view. That follows no matter what article you go to. ] (]) 04:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::so far the edits are OK with PSCI as far as I am concerned. ] (]) 04:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{u|Srich32977}}, looks good to me, nice work. others? ] (]) 05:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes. We need to remove "a view considered quackery by the medical community.<sup></sup>" from the lede because it is SYN. – ] (]) 05:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It is not giving undue weight to pseudoscience to say Griffin "has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment...." If we elaborated on his views by saying why he thinks that would be effective, then of course we would present the mainstream explanation why it is not. But then a reliable source that explained his theory would do that anyway so we would not need to be medical experts. ] (]) 07:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{xt|Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.}} Also read ] and ]. Griffin is an author, not a promoter, or a conspiracy theorist. ] is a promoter. The label of "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term, and considered contentious labeling in a BLP. Stop treating it like it is Griffin's profession, or career. Griffin has written books on the highly debated topic of laetrile. He has written factual information, much of which has been the topic of controversy. If you want to include the opinions of critics, the sources have to be high quality, reliable sources, and the prose has to be written NEUTRALLY which includes correctly stating opinion as it applies; i.e., it is the opinion of, or that he has been referred to as, or that he has been described as...etc. Do not make factual statements which appear to be the views of Misplaced Pages. I consult editors to please read ] and ], and also pay close attention to the sanctions on this article - see the notice above - and stop reverting the BLP corrections. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 14:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I note that ] has not gained consensus at the BLP noticeboard, and that the editor has now breached ]- under the ''faux guise'' of reverting vandalism. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 15:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would suggest that Atsme not go further down this road. -] (]) 15:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== John A. Richardson as RS? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The book cited in the lede is problematic, especially as has been presented ("independent research"). The co-author is Griffin's spouse and the publisher is Griffin's own company (American Media of Los Angeles). – ] (]) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:We shouldn't rely on selfpublished, self-serving sources for controversial claims like that - especially ''medical'' claims. ] (]) 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yep; better get rid of it. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 16:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{done}} – ] (]) 16:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Griffin as a CFP== |
|
|
Griffin has been described as a Certified Financial Planner at times. This description is problematic. The latest source posted was radio.goldseek.com, which is not RS. (I'm guessing that the source simply accepted Griffin's self-description without independent checking.) Griffin's own listing with Who's Who does not list him as a CFP and the CFP organizational website does not list him. – ] (]) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== UNDUE tag by Srich32977 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Srich32977}} please explain, precisely and calmly (as I know you will :) ) the reason for the UNDUE tag you placed and which I reverted, as I don't understand what the issue is. Thanks. ] (]) |
|
|
:As you predicted correctly, I have explained the tag below. And I have restored the tag. And I requested PP some time ago, but some else had already beaten me to the punch . Thanks. – ] (]) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::thanks, we will discuss below. ] (]) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== page protection request by Atsme == |
|
|
|
|
|
just a heads up, {{u|Atsme}} requested page protection . ] (]) 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Undue -- discussion of problems == |
|
|
|
|
|
Different problems have arisen of late (and edit warring makes it difficult to track what problems exist at any particular time). First, too much of the article (particularly the lede) goes into the evils of laetrile. Necessary debunking of laetrile is properly done in the laetrile article. I submit that debunking should be placed in a short footnote. Next, too much of the article (particularly the lede, which uses the term 3 times) mentions conspiracy theory without sufficient explanation. As the term is derogatory, it should be used with more caution. These problems are evidenced by the section headings. For example "Fringe" is used as a heading without explanation. "Conspiracy theories" (plural) is used in a section heading when only two of the four topics have a conspiracy bent to them. – ] (]) 17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:above I asked you to be precise. you raise a bunch of issues here which are difficult to discuss ''en masse''. May i suggest that you create separate sections for each issue, so we can discuss each of them clearly? Thanks. ] (]) 17:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Use of "Fringe" as section heading – discussion=== |
|
|
In my view, the section header accurately reflects the section contents. I honestly don't understand your objection. Please explain. Thanks ] (]) 17:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Use of "Conspiracy theory" in section header – discussion=== |
|
|
As you acknowledge, two of the four paragraphs are about conspiracy theories. This accurately reflects the contents. ] (]) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Use of "Conspiracy theory" in lead – discussion=== |
|
|
This we could maybe reduce to one. Thoughts? ] (]) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===debunking of laetrile in article body – discussion=== |
|
|
Don't agree, per ]. Looks like I am going to have go find the precedental discussions I mentioned earlier. I will go do that. I will say that doing it in a footnote is an interesting compromise, though. Thoughts on that by others? ] (]) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
Concerning the claim from the introductory paragraph that Griffin's theories on the Federal Reseve have been debunked, I followed the (single) citation to a book called "Pranksters : making mischief in the modern world" and read the relevant chapters. It does nothing by way of "disproving" the claim, and no actual, fact-based argument is advanced. Instead, it's but a "claim against the claim", a simple statement in other words that what Griffin says is wrong and/or exaggerated, while shame is attributed to the otherwise respectable men who promoted his theories. It's a mark of hypocrisy to call a theory debunked by citing a reference that does not even try to debunk it factually. I believe that this entire claim must be removed from this article, or citations to actual proofs must be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.254.1820 (talk • contribs) September 2024 (UTC)
Not done The source is fine. Bon courage (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)