Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:17, 29 December 2014

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept February 23, 2008 Articles for deletion Deleted March 7, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept April 23, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Ungrammatical passage in the article

Take a look at this sentence in the article:

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

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

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

???? Ideas, anyone? Famspear (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Creature from Jekyll Island

The Federal Reserve System and similar systems abroad were created not as a result of conspiracy, but as a result of wealth produced by the industrial revolution. The capitalists were wealthy, but they could not get much money because the supply of new gold and silver coins was much smaller than the new wealth of the capitalists. The fiat (paper) money was the solution of the problem. The solution has a flaw: an irresponsible FED can print too much money and thereby create hyperinflation.Quinacrine (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. This presumes something like Griffin's "reasoning", but it has a grain of truth. For the first "capitalists", read "people" in general, as the total wealth of the working class also exceeds the supply of gold and silver coins. The rest is opinion, probably Griffin's, although possibly some other "economist". Finally, this is probably more helpful toward the article gold standard or fiat money than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mandrake mechanism reserve requirement example

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

Inclusion of SPS material and SYNTH regarding laetrile

There are problems with the text which involves Griffin's promotion of laetrile:

1. 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.
2. In the 'Advocacy of fringe science and conspiracy theories' section, we see: "Griffin also advocates the use of Laetrile, a semi-synthetic derivative of amygdalin as a treatment for cancer, often referencing the work of Dean Burk to support the use of Laetrile. 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.
3. 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, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts us from presenting exceptional claims (I posit this means either directly or indirectly). WP:PRIMARY is another restriction, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is even more restrictive. WP:SOAPBOX says "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 WP:BURDEN is on those editors who want to present (or retain) the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

E. James Lieberman RS; Lieberman (then a professor at George Washington University) published the allegations about Griffin's advocacy of Laetrile as a 'cure' for cancer, and noted that this view is unsupported by science. Lieberman made both of these claims in an article written for the American Journal of Public Health. Are you disputing that is an RS? Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Lieberman is not in the footnotes listed above. And I certainly am not suggesting that he's anything other than RS! The difficulty is where we have Griffin's extraordinary claims about laetrile, supported by his SPS. The problem is compounded when the authors listed in the segments I posted do not specifically address what Griffin has said. E.g., "Scientist X says Griffin's ideas are ...." Instead, we only have them refuting laetrile in general. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We have an RS that has specifically made the connection between Griffin and laetrile and refuted laetrile as a 'cancer treatment.' So synthesis is not a problem at all, since (via that RS) the connection has already been made. The other RS complement the Lieberman one. Steeletrap (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent editing regarding Edward Griffin

User Steeletrap is repeatedly making slanderous edits regarding Edward Griffin. User Steeletrap has previously been banned from articles and pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, a school to which Edward Griffin adheres. Therefore, user Steeletrap edits regarding Edward Griffin should be best reverted, or at a minimum be viewed with great caution. User Steeletrap edits are not NPOV. Truthseeker1001 (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't find how Griffin is involved with the Austrian School of Economics. If he is, it seems to be in a very minor way. Your edit didn't even mention it. He isn't an economist even if he wrote a book on the Federal Reserve which sees it as a giant conspiracy. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed unacceptably pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had some discussion at User talk:Steeletrap on the issue of Austrian Economics. I haven't added the reference to the article because the bigger problem of SPS and RS is yet unresolved. – S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Clarified as to AE. 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

You have not identified anything in the article that constitutes any kind of defamation (libel or slander). Famspear (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, WP:NLT would seem to be an appropriate link for Truthseeker1001 to read. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok Famspear and Yobol, I have read WP:NLT and I understand. I have corrected myself and have striken out the word slanderous. I still think user Steeletrap's editing regarding Edward Griffin is is POV though, to say the least.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Amygdalin/Laetrile/vitamin B17

There a 4 problems with the sentence: "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, 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." Truthseeker1001 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want, you can find a politically correct euphemism for "quackery." But your version won't do, because it implies Griffin's view isn't fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

So, if you so clearly state that you think that Griffin's view is fringe, how can you then state that your own personal view is NPOV? I think you cannot.Truthseeker1001 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We clearly state what the reliable sources state. While those sources are old, the medical consensus on laetrile has not changed at all (see this high quality review for example). It was quackery then, still quackery now. Yobol (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent research re: amygdalin

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." Atsme☯ 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues: 1) The material added do not conform to WP:MEDRS, specifically using primary in vitro experiments to contradict secondary sources.

2) The material is phrased in such a way to give much more credence to the notion that laetrile/amygdalin works and is gross violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It is considered the canonical example of cancer quackery.

3) The material uses wording that is prejudicial, such as calling it "vitamin B17" even though it is not and has never been a vitamin. This is what I would expect from a promoter of laetrile, not a neutral explanation of what it is. (Note that calling it "vitamin B17" was a marketing ploy and has absolutely nothing to do with it as a chemical; that you would parrot this nonsense is concerning to me, and suggests you either are here to push a POV about laetrile/amygdalin or have not done the requisite basic research on the subject to write about it neutrally).

4) This material creates a WP:POVFORK for the laetrile material; the amygdalin page is clear about the lack of human clinical research supporting it the general lack of support in the medical community regarding this. Yobol (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have specific BLP issues you wish to address, I suggest you separate them out from the laetrile material; you appear to be using BLP as a bludgeon to push a specific POV about laetrile here, which is completely unacceptable. Yobol (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) very unhappy to see the edit warring going on here. Atsme, as far as I can see you made a huge bunch of changes, many of which violate WP:MEDRS, and have been edit warring to keep them in. One more revert and you are blockable per 3RR so please just stop. Drama boards are a big waste of time. In general it is better to make small edits rather than one big one, and you should never edit war to keep big changes you have made to existing content. If you are not familiar with WP:MEDRS, please do read it, and carefully, if you feel strongly about including content about health in WP. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is full of BLP violations, as well as NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues. Based on the comments I've read above, along with the edit history associated with this article, the POV pushing is quite obvious as is your refusal to acknowledge the advancements in scientific research. My only purpose here is to make an outdated article current, and eliminate BLP violations. See you at the BLPN. 186.159.98.72 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Was using a public computer and forgot to sign-in. My actual signed-in sig Atsme☯ 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

Template:BLP noticeboard

Atsme☯ 10:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:PSCI

Srich32977 made this edit, with edit note, "remove sources which discuss laetrile in general and not Griffin or specific claims by Griffin – WP:SYN prohibits their use unless they explicitly discuss Griffin; AIDS denial is not a proper noun". I reverted, per WP:PSCI - this is policy. We do not discuss pseudoscience in WP without calling it such; we cannot WP:COATRACK it in under BLP or any other policy - they do not contradict each other. Srich I don't know how much work you have done on WP:FRINGE-y topics but this is how we handle it, across the board. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ideally the ineffective nature of this treatment should be clearer in the body, then we can just summarize in the lede. Alexbrn 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

yes that should absolutely be the case. the lead should just summarize the body, oy. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The ineffectiveness of laetrile is properly discussed. 1. It is described as unscientific in the lede ("scientifically-unsupported view"). 2. The ineffectiveness of laetrile is discussed in the laetrile article. Griffin also has comments about AIDS, Noahs Ark, and the Federal Reserve – we do not and cannot debunk those ideas in the BLP. PSCI says "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." This has to be followed in conjunction with WP:SYN which requires explicit mention of Griffin's own material, not the ideas he holds. The topic of the article is Griffin and not the various ideas he expounds upon. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Srich, thanks for talking! Again I don't know how much you have worked on pseudoscience-type stuff. This kind of thing has been to Arbcom, so please be careful and consider. Would you please let me know if you are familiar with PSCI-related matters here in WP? (if not, please see Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases as a good starting place.) Sorry for asking but I just want to be sure we are working from the same foundation. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

and i do agree that we have to cautious in applying labels to Griffin per se; but to the extent that his notability depends on his advocacy for his ideas, and to the extent that we discuss his ideas, and to the extent that those are pseudoscience or FRINGE, the actual science does need to be brought to bear, there, via reliable sources of course. If we do not do that, we have WP:COATRACKed fringe material into WP, which we cannot do. Agreed? Or maybe not.. please do tell. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree that his ideas are nonsense. But the place for debunking them is in the particular topic-articles, not this BLP. We cannot say "Griffin says the moon is made of green cheese. Armstrong walked on the moon and determined it was made of rock. 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.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for talking, and in this nice way. I do hear what you are saying about SYN. I've not had pushback on this kind of thing before. I went looking in BLPN and WP:BLP for consensus of the community on this and there is a lot to go through. I will need some time which I will have tomorrow.... (but maybe Yobol or Alexbrn is aware of some place where the intersection between SYN/PSCI and maybe also with those two and BLP are discussed, that we can all stand on) I wonder if you would be OK, if we found sources that specifically address the pseudoscience nature of the relevant ideas he advocates - specifically addressing his advocacy of them. Would that resolve your concerns with SYN? I would be interested to see what the article would like if you had a free hand with it (and am very curious about what you would take out under UNDUE). How about making all your edits, and self reverting, so we can all see? Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

His advocacy of the different topics is the issue of concern. As for UNDUE, the lede has two paragraphs that contain the same info. It can be pared down. – S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

interested to see what you will do. thx. not sure i will agree, but interested to see! also please let me know if you hear my concern about PSCI (although the proof will be in the pudding) Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977 you done? Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. – S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is synthesis to use one source that says Griffin "promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment" and another that says the laetrile treatment is quackery and say that Griffin's view is quackery. Are they talking about the same thing? Was it considered quackery at the time? Don't ask editors to spend considerable time researching and discussing these issues, just stick with what relevant sources about Griffin say.

Then there is neutrality. Do we say in the leads of every person who believes in the Bible that the claims made about creation, the flood, the resurrection, etc., are not accepted by the scientific community?

This is an article about a main who promotes views outside the mainstream. We don't need to hammer away that they are not generally accepted. Ironically, that strident tone elicits sympathy for these views.

TFD (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say WP:PSCI is pretty straightforward here, "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." This either means calling the the view out as fringe directly, or at the very least immediately mentioning that it is a view not accepted by the scientific community. If someone is notable for something that's factually incorrect, etc. then it's undue weight to not include that additional qualifier on what is considered the mainstream view. That follows no matter what article you go to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

so far the edits are OK with PSCI as far as I am concerned. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, looks good to me, nice work. others? Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We need to remove "a view considered quackery by the medical community." from the lede because it is SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not giving undue weight to pseudoscience to say Griffin "has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment...." If we elaborated on his views by saying why he thinks that would be effective, then of course we would present the mainstream explanation why it is not. But then a reliable source that explained his theory would do that anyway so we would not need to be medical experts. TFD (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Also read WP:NPOV and WP:Coatrack. Griffin is an author, not a promoter, or a conspiracy theorist. Don King is a promoter. The label of "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term, and considered contentious labeling in a BLP. Stop treating it like it is Griffin's profession, or career. Griffin has written books on the highly debated topic of laetrile. He has written factual information, much of which has been the topic of controversy. If you want to include the opinions of critics, the sources have to be high quality, reliable sources, and the prose has to be written NEUTRALLY which includes correctly stating opinion as it applies; i.e., it is the opinion of, or that he has been referred to as, or that he has been described as...etc. Do not make factual statements which appear to be the views of Misplaced Pages. I consult editors to please read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and also pay close attention to the sanctions on this article - see the notice above - and stop reverting the BLP corrections. Atsme☯ 14:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that User:Atsme has not gained consensus at the BLP noticeboard, and that the editor has now breached 3RR- under the faux guise of reverting vandalism. _Fortuna 15:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that Atsme not go further down this road. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that Roxy not go further down this road because this BLP involves pseudoscience, and Roxy was recently warned about editing such topics. As for consensus, what some of you don't seem to understand is WP:BLP policy - Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. I have exercised GF by allowing my edits to be reverted in order to discuss these issues. Comments like you made above were not made in GF. If you are familiar with BLP policy, then you know The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. I have not seen anything in response to the removal of the BLP violations that satisfies the burden of evidence. I closed the BLPN because I thought we were making progress, but I may have been premature in that decision. Atsme☯ 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

John A. Richardson as RS?

The book cited in the lede is problematic, especially as has been presented ("independent research"). The co-author is Griffin's spouse and the publisher is Griffin's own company (American Media of Los Angeles). – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't rely on selfpublished, self-serving sources for controversial claims like that - especially medical claims. bobrayner (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep; better get rid of it. _Fortuna 16:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is why collaboration is a good thing. Thanks, Srich32977 If used, it would probably be best to cite the first edition which was published by Bantom Books (June 1977): . The following newspaper article will provide a secondary source - . With regards to WP:BLP issues, there are none. The book isn't about Griffin, therefore it isn't self-published, and I don't see any COI. Question for you - you stated above that Griffin owns American Media of Los Angeles. The book publisher of the July 2005 edition is American Media. Where is the information that points to Griffin's ownership of that company? Atsme☯ 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the book is not about Griffin the point is moot. But his wife is a co-author. As for American Media, I did not say he owns it. Per the PRWeb he is "President of American Media". Even so, this is not the American Media which you linked. I looked at their website and Griffin was not listed by them. He is president of some other American Media. In looking at the California Secretary of State business entity filings I saw numerous "American Media xyz/abc" corporations listed, but no "American Media" or "American Media of Los Angeles" listed. The LA County FBN search produced 3 similar names: American Media Artists, American Media Enterprises LLC, and American Media LLC. In comparing the results I see "American Media Artists" listed both with LA County and the Secretary. (The company is in Encino.) So the results are inconclusive. We do not have Verification/RS that says Griffin is the President of a California-based company called American Media. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: the American Media referred to in the above strike through is not the same publishing company owned by Griffin. See the reference to Griffin's American Media here: . Atsme☯ 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin as a CFP

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

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

Thanks for taking the additional step of the discipline search. If Griffin is not certified, then we cannot say he is. If he was certified, I think we need reliable independent sourcing that says so clearly. – S. Rich (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Srich32977, I have to differ with your position on this one for the following reasons:

1. It is not our responsibility to research the status or full extent of his credentials because that would be considered OR.
2. The information is perfectly acceptable, and in accordance with WP:BLP. Griffin publicly stated his academic credentials, and it is verifiable in published material, which in Griffin's case includes not only published book reviews, but it was also stated in several radio interviews, as well as printed in various press releases such as PR Web, , and on numerous websites which are probably considered minority views, but they qualify nonetheless.
3. It is not only included in numerous secondary and third party sources, it is also verifiable based on what Famspear pointed out.

We cannot single out Griffin by requiring higher standards for him than what BLP allows regarding academic accreditation. His CFP designation is quite relevant because he obtained it specifically for the purpose of writing The Creature...., and that is what makes it noteworthy. This is a biography, and educational background is biographical material. Review the following GA , which demonstrates how a controversial issue was handled in the biography, and also FA as a model for layout, section titles, and content. Atsme☯ 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, I was more concerned about RS to support the info. Given that we have evidence from the CFP board and the source you've provided I think we can add that he received his CFP in 1989. The source you provided (and Griffin's own webpages) also mentions a Telly Award. Is this ? The Telly Award website does not provide search capacity, so I wonder how else we might confirm the award. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In taking a closer look at PRWeb, I see that people can create accounts for themselves. I presume they can then publish press releases. If this is the case, then the PRWeb material we see likely came from Griffin or an associate. Accordingly, PRWeb would not be stand-alone RS. – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think perhaps you misunderstood Avoid self-published sources in WP:BLP which states: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The policy further states: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Hypothetical example: Sen Harry Reid publishes his own book - 113th Congress - and includes a chapter on Sen Mitch McConnell. You're writing a Wiki article about McConnell, and want to use something Reid said in his book about things McConnell had done. Nope, you can't use it in the WP BLP on McConnell because Reid's book is a self-published source. However, if the book had been published by Time Life, different story. Therefore you can cite Griffin's books, press releases, and information from his website about himself in Griffin's WP bio. Atsme☯ 19:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The on-point policy is at WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSELFPUB. (Interestingly these two policies vary a bit from one another.) Also, we have WP:PRIMARY source concerns. I am not saying we should keep the CFP info out, only that we use it with care. I do not think saying "I was a CFP." is an extraordinary claim or unduly self-serving. But if said "I was a CFP and therefore I know everything there is to know about the Fed," we could not use this tid-bit. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNDUE tag by Srich32977

Srich32977 please explain, precisely and calmly (as I know you will :) ) the reason for the UNDUE tag you placed here and which I reverted, as I don't understand what the issue is. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)

As you predicted correctly, I have explained the tag below. And I have restored the tag. And I requested PP some time ago, but some else had already beaten me to the punch . Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks, we will discuss below. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

page protection request by Atsme

just a heads up, Atsme requested page protection here. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

it is just a courtesy to notify folks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 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. – S. Rich (talk) 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. Jytdog (talk) 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 Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Section headings must follow guidelines for article titles and article titles must be NPOV (see: WP:POVTITLE). While Griffin's laetrile promotion is based on WP:FRINGE, we do not have RS in the article that says so explicitly. Even so, we cannot use the term Fringe in the section heading. I had revised the headings in this edit. I propose to do so again. Perhaps we can use the section heading "Views" rather than "Advocacy". Subsections should read "Political advocacy", "Creature", "Cancer and Laetrile", "HIV/AIDS", and "Noah's Ark search". – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Conspiracy theories" (plural) in section header – discussion

As you acknowledge, two of the four paragraphs are about conspiracy theories. This accurately reflects the contents. So what is the issue? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment above, section headings must be NPOV. As "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term, we can't use in the heading. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory, is NPOV. PSCI is part of the NPOV. Right? (sorry to ask but you have read PSCI, haven't you?) Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we can say Griffin promotes the idea that the Fed is result of some sort of conspiracy, but when we use the derogatory terms "Conspiracy_theory#Term_of_ridicule" and "conspiracy theorist" we are violating policy by letting WP become a platform for those who wish to criticize him. We need RS that says "According to 'author X', Griffin is a conspiracy theorist." At that point we can use it in the text, but not the section heading. (You've read WP:POVTITLE, haven't you?) – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not inclusion of what reliable sources have said about him, the problem is in the way it is stated. You cannot simply call it a conspiracy theory because that is NOT NPOV, that is the opinion of someone else. If Griffin said, "I have a conspiracy theory I'd like to share..." then you can use it. If Joe Blow said, "He is a conspiracy theorist...", then you have to say something to the effect of "Joe Blow contends..., or Joe Blow alleged..., or Joe Blow believes...." Misplaced Pages cannot express a view, or opinion as stated fact. Atsme☯ 20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per PSCI we can just call a spade a spade and say, something like, "In the book, Griffin lays out conspiracy theories regarding the Federal Reserve System. It is not a genre he invented. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple. (And the link you provide does not mention Griffin.) We can say "in the book Griffin lays out his version of the History of the Federal Reserve System. According to ... his view of the origin presents a conspiratorial view of the history. We cannot use Misplaced Pages's voice to say what you propose because NPOV and BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Conspiracy theory" in lead – discussion

This we could maybe reduce to one. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment immediately above, we need RS that says "according to so-and-so ...." Then we can use the term in the text, and once would be enough. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

about this dif, that was a great catch that the quote was about Rand, not Griffin. But the source is very clear that Griffin is "standard-issue" conspiracy stuff, and the author actually uses Rand's citing of Griffin as evidence that Rand is also a conspiracy theorist. In my view it really validates the label. I reverted the deletion and removed the quote. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (WP:SYN) McLeod is not making any statement about Griffin, much less an explicit one. Including McLeod as a reference to assert the derogatory statement that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist violates policy. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a great example of a specific issue that we can (after we hear from more participants on here) take through a dispute resolution process. We have a very specific question - is McLeod a good enough source for a statement, either in WP's voice or attributed to McLeod, that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist"? In my view it is. Let's see what others see. We have to really try to talk this out here before we can go to any DR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll bite specifically on the source, but I'm mainly lurking from afar on this one for now. Jytdog, if this were a source from a scientist stating one specific view of Griffin's is fringy, etc. it would be pretty clear cut. This source though is from a communications professor. If you summarize what he said about Griffin (based on your post below), Griffin is adored by conspiracy theorists as sort of role model and expounds conspiracy theory/fringe ideas. That latter part is a textbook definition of a conspiracy theorist and it would be almost impossible to argue otherwise. However, what exactly elevates the source above the opinion of just some random person (just being a professor doesn't always cut it)? If that question is satisfied, seems like we'd have a decent source in this context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That said, srich let me ask you. Here is the quote: "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin's book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council of Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschilds, the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln) . Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. ...However, when this congressman ... endorses Bircher books about a Federal Reserve conspiracy... it shows how the fringe ideas discussed throughout this book have infilitrated substantial parts of the political mainstream." And i note that McLeod discusses the fringey/conspiracy theory nature of all the ideas he mentions about Griffin's book, elsewhere in his own book. It is clear as day to me that he is calling Griffin's ideas both "fringe" and "conspiracy theories". But it seems that you are unhappy that he doesn't directly say "Griffin's ideas are conspiracy theories." Which is a bit too narrow of a reading to be reasonable, to me. But let me ask you this. - "standard-issue" is an adjective. McLeod elided something in the phrase "standard-issue references". What do you reckon he elided? To me it is pretty obvious that it is "conspiracy theory". What do you say? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

To say he is a conspiracy theorist in the same manner you say he is an author is contentious labeling and a BLP violation. I'm not quite sure why you WP:DONTGETIT. The opinions of others should not be the opinion of Misplaced Pages, and that is exactly what you're doing. Critics consider him a conspiracy theorist, others consider him an author who presents facts. I've explained how the term can be included without violating BLP. Please read my comments. Atsme☯ 20:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McLeod doesn't even say Paul is a conspiracy theorist, only that he's an icon for them. (And he does not say Griffin thinks of Paul as an icon.) At most we can say "According to McLeod, Griffin writes about the 'nutty' idea that the Fed is the result of a conspiracy." (Going beyond to what else Paul has done goes off-topic.) As this is a BLP "pretty obvious" is not enough because SYN policy uses the term "explicit". And as conspiracy theory is a term of ridicule we must "adhere strictly" to BLP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If the characterisation of conspiracy theorist is widespread enough, then it should be presented not as (mere) opinion but as fact. If there is a significant minority view disputing it, then things might be different. But the fact that some call him an "author" does not amount to disputing the view that he is a conspiracy theorist; one can be a conspiracy theorist *and* an author. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

^^Are you proposing to rewrite BLP policy, NPOV, and MOS? Atsme☯ 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If & when I become interested in doing that, I'll be sure to post to the appropriate talk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the event you've lost your way, this is not the appropriate talk page for discussing policy changes. To even suggest that Misplaced Pages is positioned to accept opinion as fact is ludicrous at best. Whose opinion do you propose makes it fact, or are you proposing WP:SYNTH to make it so? The most his critics can hope for is to include in the prose that a reliable source referred to him as a conspiracy theorist. Atsme☯ 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

debunking of laetrile in article body – discussion

Don't agree, per WP:PSCI. 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? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

PSCI pertains to pseudoscience topics. Griffin is not such a topic. Per PSCI, see: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, Category:Pseudoscience, and WP:FRINGE/PS. Individuals are not listed in these resources. Accordingly, we cannot use stand-alone RS in the article to debunk what Griffin is promoting. By stand-alone, I mean material which does not mention Griffin. Per comments from other editors above, adding in stand-alone RS to debunk Griffin is improper SYN. That said, a one-line footnote to explain what laetrile is would be pushing the envelope. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Srich32977 for the most part, but at the same time, if we are looking to include an overview of Griffin's book, it is perfectly acceptable as well as expected to write about the key elements which have been noted by RS on both sides. Perhaps a quick review of some GAs and FAs will provide a basis to model after for those of you who have lost direction with regards to what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like. The tabloid sensationalism needs to disappear. The way this article is currently written, it wouldn't pass scrutiny in a DYK review. Atsme☯ 21:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

quick note here. of course Griffin himself is not pseudoscience. that makes no sense. The ideas are. The content needs to be very careful to discuss the ideas, not him, as FRINGE or pseudoscience. Still looking for the precedental discussions on the intersection of BLP and PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

While your efforts are noble, Jytdog, they are not necessary to correct the BLP violations which still exists in the lead. There is no possible explanation to justify the contentious labeling of conspiracy theorist as fact other than to describe it as a BLP violation. Further, if prior discussions actually failed to recognize it as a BLP violation, the latter is surely cause for concern, but not cause to repeat the same mistake again. I do hope you understand what I'm trying to relay. Atsme☯ 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

this subsection is about laetrile, not conspiracy theories. Please comment in appropriate sections so the discussion can stay on track. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

debunking of laetrile in article lead – discussion

Not sure what you mean by "too much". Do you mean "at all"? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think my comments immediately above address the question. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McLeod source

McLeod mentions Griffin once in the text. He says "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists." It is clear that McLeod is referring to Ron Paul. That said, McLeod is not a proper source for this article. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I had already commented on this above, in the "conspiracy theory in lead" section, please do reply here or there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich, we are not limited to such literalistic use of secondary sources. When a passage admits of only one reasonable interpretation--that is the case here, as it is implausible to infer from the context that McLeod does not think Griffin promotes conspiracy theories--we are free to use this interpretation, even if it is not drawn literally from the text. For example, if a secondary source says that "Tom's scientific ideas were on the fringe of academia and contradicted by overwhelming evidence," it is acceptable to label those ideas as "fringe science," even though that was not literally stated by the secondary source, because it is not reasonable to interpret the primary source in any other way. Steeletrap (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC) If you think that one could come away from the passage and reasonably believe that the author does not think Griffin is promoting conspiracy theories, let's hear your argument for that. If not we need to revert your changes. Steeletrap (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs we must remember that SYN policy uses the term "explicit". And since conspiracy theory is a term of ridicule we must "adhere strictly" to BLP policy. These mandates compel us to avoid "beliefs" and "interpretations" . In other words, we are limited to what the sources say, not what we read into them or what we think or hope they say. The sources do not say "Griffin's ... ideas were on the fringe ... and contradicted by overwhelming evidence...." If they did, we could use them with proper citations. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart as RS – for an opinion

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issue. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Before the page got protection, we had (and lost) a citation to Breitbart.com that used the term "conspiracy theory" when commenting on Griffin's book. I submit that the citation is a proper source (for the opinion) and actually supports the contention that Griffin engages in conspiracy theory. Editors will please note that Breitbart.com is "notable" in Misplaced Pages, and that the source was not being used for factual contentions. (Also, they might note that Breitbart.com has been brought up on the WP:RSN at times.) Comments are welcome: 1. Is the particular citation RS? and 2. Is the particular citation WP:NOTEWORTHY? – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Breitbart editor holds WP:Fringe economic views. He favors the gold standard, for example. We don't want to devote Griffin's precious article space to fringe theorists (other than, of course, Griffin). Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGENOT may be helpful to you. Also, please consider that Breitbart has a current (global/US) Alexa rank of 1,481/498. Another source in the article is Media Matters for America. Their Alexa rank is currently 18,204/4,723. In terms of significance Breitbart is much more important and noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: Publiceye.org/Political Research Associates (which is Flaherty's organization) has an Alexa ranking of 414,892/114,633. – S. Rich (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See my reverted edits for proper use of the term "conspiracy theory" without it being contentious labeling. It has already been established that he has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist, and that some of his writings have been referred to as conspiracy theories whereas other RS have suggested otherwise. WP:DEADHORSE. It's okay to summarize his most notable books and use reference to conspiracy theories properly sourced as long as BOTH SIDES of the prevailing views are being presented without ignoring WP:UNDUE. Breitbart is a RS, and perhaps closer to being neutral, or at least as neutral as Media Matters for America which is considered to be a politically progressive media watchdog group that is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation. Unfortunately, the days of Walter Cronkite's fair and balanced reporting are long gone, so we use what we have to use. Regardless, a contentious label is a contentious label regardless of RS, and it's still an opinion, not a statement of fact. FACT: The man writes books about controversial topics that are highly debated. FACT: He has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist. FACT: His profession is not "American conspiracy theorist". He is an author, researcher, documentary filmmaker, and lecturer. There is no such profession as "American conspiracy theorist", which sounds more like the title to a book than a career designation. To what length should each book in his biography be reviewed, and labeled conspiracy theories while still maintaining NPOV? In other words, each claim of conspiracy theory must be balanced with the facts that were presented in the book as well as RS references to opposing views. Keep in mind, Misplaced Pages already has separate articles for most of the controversial topics Griffin has written about, including the History of the Federal Reserve System, Laetrile, etc. Atsme☯ 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"other RS have suggested otherwise" -- @Atsme: which sources dispute the view that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've already surmised, Griffin disputes it, so that clarifies any confusion there may have been about him being an "American conspiracy theorist". The dispute is realized by the fact such contentious labeling is missing from the articles and interviews in nearly all of the other sources. You can start here.... , , , , , , , Atsme☯ 03:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So the term is absent from some sources. Okay, but do any of those sources dispute it? I gather not -- otherwise you'd have said... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some actually do condemn the labeling. You obviously haven't read any of the references, or you would not have asked that question, and that appears to be part of the problem rather than a solution. Regardless, disputes are not required to justify or dispel contentious labels and/or pejorative terminology. Responsible writers avoid qualifying their use by simply not mentioning them. GF editors adhere strictly to BLP policy, and avoid them all together. I consult you to read what the Encyclopedia Britannica has written on a few of these highly debated topics. It appears some editors have lost their way with regards to neutrality, fact, and opinion. Atsme☯ 14:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme I will caution you again to limit your comments to content and sources, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog Please stop the unnecessary posts of caution because you are actually doing what you are cautioning me to not do. Atsme☯ 14:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

please just follow WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Atsme, let's try again. Which sources dispute the characterisation of conspiracy theory? I asked that question above and you provided 10 references -- and it's apparent that not all of them dispute the characterization. I'm not going to consult all of them to determine which ones do dispute it; if you're interested in answering my question, then you can indicate the ones that do dispute it -- which after all is the question I actually asked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

They all do, which is the answer I actually provided. Atsme☯ 23:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I clicked on this one. It doesn't include the term "conspiracy theorist" (or theory) -- so in what respect does it dispute the view that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist? Next I tried this one -- same story. I'm not sure what impact you're trying to have here, but whatever it is the impact you're actually achieving is not in keeping with your stated goal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:DONTGETIT, and I mean that in GF. The absence of contentious labeling is testament to the fact that Griffin is actually highly respected, and not considered a CT by all. Contentious labels and pejorative statements are symbolic of the kind of sensationalism that is prevalent in tabloids. I will further surmise that the majority of GF editors, highly qualified journalists, historians, researchers, and reputable documentarians who understand and respect neutrality will confirm same. If you are still dissatisfied with my response, and need to read something in black and white, then read: . I apologize for not providing more detail, but the tips of my fingers are hoarse from typing. Atsme☯ 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked which sources dispute the characterization. Failing to say anything about the characterization is not disputing the characterisation. You said that all the sources you provided dispute the characterisation. It's now quite evident that this statement was untrue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a divergence from what I asked at the top of the section. (Is the source RS for an opinion and is it noteworthy.) Asking for sources which explicitly deny that Griffin is a "conspiracy theorist" doesn't help build consensus. We can assume that those sources which praise or cite Griffin endorse him to a greater or lesser extent do not endorse a conspiracy theory characterization. What is proper for us is to provide sources which balance the article. Some may present their explicit opinion that he is a conspiracy theorist (Easter), some may be less explicit (Breitbart.com), some may be neutral or simply descriptive in describing him (Who's Who), some may praise him. A variety of sources can be used so long as they are presented in accordance with guidelines and policy. I submit that Breitbart is one of those sources that can be and should be used. And what is BLP-improper is the description in the lead that says he is a conspiracy theorist (because of the very negative nature of the term). – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's untrue that negative terms are "BLP-improper". David Irving is a Holocaust denier; he isn't "considered by some to be a Holocaust denier" -- he just is one. David Duke is -- wait for it -- a conspiracy theorist. Care to try to argue otherwise? Why? As for Breitbart: my view is that it doesn't meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin: Council on Foreign Relations trying exterminate the elderly

On page 528 of The Creature From Jekyll Island, Griffin claims that the Council of Foreign Relations advocates "the deliberate killing of the old, the weak, and . . . the uncooperative." He provides no source for this remarkable claim, other than a paper by Bertrand Russell advocating reductions in population by *voluntary* use of contraception. I think it should be added to the article since so much of the book is devoted to rantings about the CFR, and because it illustrates the sort of CTs the book propounds. Is there any doubt that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist? Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article needs secondary sources which comment on the book, not WP:CHERRYPICKING by editors who do not like Griffin. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. I have no personal problem with Griffin. I just want his views to be portrayed neutrally and accurately. Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves....but only if it does not involve claims about third parties, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Your comment that "it illustrates the sort of CTs the book propounds" clearly indicates that you are not neutral. Atsme☯ 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

note on intersection of FRINGE and BLP

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

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

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

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

Well, we are making some progress. Per FRINGEBLP we don't give undue prominence to those views beyond what he is better known for. In this case Creature (a political opinion-based book, tinged with conspiracy theory), World w/o Cancer (fringe science), and Noah's Ark (fringe science) are the main "achievements or incidents". AIDS denial is certainly not prominent. The other topics are in between. For each topic we must take "care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." I submit that debunking laetrile or the criticism of the Fed or the existence/non-existence of the Ark are the main pitfalls and should not have much discussion in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI is policy though basically as a summary of WP:FRINGE, and it cites the guideline as further explanation. Just making sure to point out that the BLP and PSCI neither are are competing nor superseding the other. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Srich32977 for the most part, but I also believe we must avoid POV and UNDUE. If claims based on research dating back 20 to 35 years are included, then updated research must also be included in order to maintain NPOV. Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, is widely known for its promotion of alternative medicine. There are plenty of book reviews by reliable secondary sources we can draw from and properly include in the article. Griffin is not the place to advocate a cause for or against mainstream medicine or alternative medicine. It is not our job to establish opinion as Misplaced Pages's factual position about Griffin. The CT labels are still contentious, and the quackery claims are still pejorative for all of the reasons previously mentioned on this TP. I'm not saying we cannot quote a reliable source that considers him a conspiracy theorist rather I am saying we must strictly adhere to BLP and not label him a conspiracy theorist as was done in the lead. Atsme☯ 13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Srrich, would you help me explain your stance? You say that World w/o Cancer (which if focused on laetrile) is one of the main "achievements or incidents" but then you say we should not debunk it. But BLPFRINGE says that is exactly when we should debunk. Would you please explain? Maybe you meant to say "should have discussion" instead of "should not have much discussion"? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this carefully: "...debunking laetrile ... should not have much discussion...." (I did not say "no discussion".) We can debunk Griffin's ideas about cancer, etc. when we use sources which criticize Griffin and/or the specific views he expounds. Per SYN we do not say "A: Griffin expounds on laetrile. B: Scientist X says laetrile is bunk. Therefore C (implicit or explicit): What Griffin expounds upon is bunk." We can only use the material from scientist X that says "The stuff that Griffin expounds upon is bunk." – S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have an issue with "debunking" all together based on the following: , and also Debunk. It is not our job as editors to debunk anything in an article - it's POV - and therein the problem lies. WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NPOV Atsme☯ 14:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think laetrile is thoroughly debunked. And those who promote it are not the most admirable people in the world. I do not want the article to be a vehicle for those who like Griffin, nor a vehicle for those who condemn him. And WP policy says the article should summarize who he is and what he's known for. We say "Griffin is an author, lecturer, and film producer known for his description of early Fed history, promotion of laetrile as a cancer therapy, and for films depicting modern searches for Noah's Ark. He has been cited by .... who endorse is ideas about.... And he's been criticized by .... who condemn his ideas about ...." Those sources which criticize him will be the "debunking" element of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich I don't agree that in debunking laetrile, the sources we use need to explicitly refer to Griffin and I don't find basis for that anywhere in FRINGE nor in PSCI. We are debunking the claim about science tells us about laetrile, not Griffin per se. In my view, the current section on "Cancer and AIDS denial" is fine as is. (we can probably kill the brief 2nd paragraph). If you don't agree, I suggest that we post the current section to the Fringe notice board and get comments, to resolve that. We could point up the question, "does debunking of a fringe scientific claim of person X require that the source explicitly reference person X"? Jytdog (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile has been properly and explicitly debunked -- in the laetrile article. That is where PSCI & FRINGE apply. Here we must follow SYN and BLP. As for the cancer paragraph, the Nightingale citation violates SYN (and BLP) because Griffin is not explicitly mentioned. (The citation serves to imply a conclusion that Griffin is wrong about laetrile.) But it is not needed because Landau criticized the book and says the "scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it". (Perhaps a clearer quote from Landau can be had.) I am not going to post on the FNB as this is a BLP concern. When the page comes off PP someone will remove the Nightingale cite. Anyone who reinserts it does so with considerable risk because of the BLP sanctions. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

there is no need to repeat yourself, i understand where you are coming from and we disagree. There is "considerable risk" all around, with two policies at play and the AE sanctions about the economics issues, and the article already being protected once due to edit warring. So I suggest folks get consesnsus before making changes. I proposed a DR step to resolve our dispute and will go ahead and post there. Folks at FRINGE are very accustomed to dealing with the intersection issues, folks at BLP, not so much. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Cure Foundation

just FYI for when editing re-opens, Griffin was President of CCF as of 2012. See here which is linked from here. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another FYI - his publishing company is American Media which is noted in the front pages of his book as well as at the following website: The Reality Zone and American Media are the creations of G. Edward Griffin. Atsme☯ 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Griffin's American Media is not the American Media in Misplaced Pages. That company is a privately held corporation based in New York. See: . – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I'll do a strike-through of my reference to it above, and make a notation to avoid confusion. I just felt it was important to validate what you originally stated about Griffin owning the publishing company by providing a link. and making note that it is also stated in the book. Atsme☯ 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2014

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issue. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The lead contains the following BLP violations:

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

Proposed change for the lead

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

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

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

References

1. Griffin, G. Edward (June 1964). The Fearful Master, A Second Look At The United Nations. Western Islands. p. 244. ISBN 978-0882791029. Retrieved December 17, 2014.
2. Senator the Hon George Brandis (February 28, 2014). "Address at the opening of the G20 Anti-Corruption Roundtable". Department of the Attorney-General for Australia. Retrieved December 17, 2014.
3. Griffin, G. Edward (December 15, 2013). "Globalism, Collectivism and 'Right Principles'". Interviewed by Anthony Wile. The Daily Bell.com. Retrieved December 17, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)
4. Milbank, Dana (April 6, 2011). "Why Glen Beck Lost It". Opinions. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2014.
5. Jane W. D'Arista (1994). "4". The Evolution of U.S. Finance: Restructuring Institutions and Markets. M.E. Sharpe. p. 63. ISBN 9781563242311.
6. Nick Barisheff (April 3, 2013). "2". $10,000 Gold: Why Gold's Inevitable Rise Is the Investor's Safe Haven. John Wiley & Sons. p. np. ISBN 9781118443712. Retrieved December 16, 2014.
7. Who's Who in America 1994 (48th ed.). Marquis Who's Who. December 1993.

Atsme☯ 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I fixed the two minor citation errors and omissions. FYI - D'Arista is credited as the author, so I changed the link for clarity. Details belong in the body of the article, not in the lead. I appreciate you wanting to hone the citations. Atsme☯ 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • I don't have that much interest in the economic issues relating to Griffin, but I would hesitate to treat Barisheff as a reliable, maindtream source. I know that advocating for gold is part of the whole austrian school thing (per Gold_standard#Advocates) and that subject matter is directly subject to the AE sanctions. But again, I would stand back from relying on Barisheff too much for making claims about Griffin. It is the choir singing to itself and per WP:Controversial articles everybody should be reaching for the best, most neutral sources they can. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Barisheff's book serves as a reliable third-party source that further validates Griffin's accreditation in compliment to the self-published source(s) which will be cited in the body of the article. Standard protocol for verifiability without OR. Atsme☯ 20:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I do understand that you think that. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Following is why I think that: WP:Verifiability Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, and then go to WP:3PARTY must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, and further Secondary does not mean third-party, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but they are not always third-party sources. Nick Barisheff - President and CEO of Bullion Management Group Inc. Widely recognized as an international bullion expert, Nick has written numerous articles on bullion and current market trends that are published on various news and business websites. Compared to the sources currently in use and the many BLP violations in this article, well....let's just say we probably aren't going to agree on what Wiki considers RS.

• If you're trying to argue that he's not a conspiracy theorist, then I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Quibbling about the strength of sourcing does not really help because the fact is that he is a prominent advocate of conspiracy theories. The existence of the article relies, to no small extent, on the profile he gets form people like Beck, and that means the controversies go right along with it.

Griffin advocates laetrile as a cancer cure. That marks him out as a dangerous crank. So does his entry in the Encylopaedia of American Loons. And the existence of a page on whale.to., And his promotion by Natural News. These are not good things. They are very bad things. They indicate that Mr. Objectivity left the building some time ago. It's hard to refer to The Capitalist Conspiracy without being, you know, a conspiracy theorist. Guy (Help!) 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• • JzG what part of the proposed lead made you draw such conclusions? On what premise are you calling opinions "facts"? I never disputed the fact that Griffin has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by his critics, but to flat-out call him an American conspiracy theorist as a statement of fact is pejorative in every sense of the word. I disagree that the strength of sources in a BLP do not help because your position conflicts with policy which calls for high quality reliable sources, and strict adherence to all applicable laws in the United States, to BLP policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies. That is not the position you just supported. Even if the sources refer to Griffin as a conspiracy theorist, it is still just an opinion, not a fact. Experienced editors should know full well that citing sources which make only trivial mention of the subject is unacceptable, which is what you just did with the following: , , and . Two of the sources are POV, and one of them is clearly partisan - all have trivial mention and are unacceptable. There are just as many if not more RS that support completely opposite views and opinions from the POV you are advocating. You didn't even consider them. In fact, you did not come here with a NPOV as demonstrated here The article needs balance and neutrality, not more of the same POV advocacy. Facts are indisputable, and opinions are not facts. Your conclusion was not based on NPOV. Just curious - did you consult with Callanecc before making your edits here? Atsme☯ 04:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in the opinions of apologists, I am not American and have no dog in this fight but it is pretty clear that if he weren't a featured conspiracy theorist in popular media, we would not even have an article at all. More robust sourcing is always good, though. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep in the top three levels rather than contradiction please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." - Lewis Carroll. Atsme☯ 12:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC) This article may contain uninformed wingnut drivel. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Your argument is invalid. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC) You may not agree with my argument, but it is certainly not invalid. Unlike you, I have maintained NPOV, and have based my argument on strict adherence to WP:BLP policy. I admittedly am not well-versed in BLP sanctions, or how the process actually applies, but based on what I've gleaned so far, the BLP violations in the article as well as the reverts after the violations were removed appear to be highly inappropriate, much like the childish template you just added. I certainly hope you will act responsibly and remove it. Your ridicule is disruptive. Atsme☯ 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Popular Paranoia as RS

I have a copy of Popular Paranoia: Pop Culture Conspiracies on my Kindle (a title a bit different than that cited as reference 5). My copy does not mention Griffin or Creature. With this in mind, a page number or/and quote would be nice. Also, my copy does not have references or footnotes. Is Kenn RS? – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

RS? Maybe after the notability tag on his Wiki page is removed. If you get a chance, listen to the opening segment at the following link , at least up to the point the interviewer talks about how he dislikes Misplaced Pages just before he reads Kenn's bio. Interesting take on how he handles the contentious label of "conspiracy theorist". Keep listening if you're into UFOs. Perhaps Kenn's encounter with Timothy Leary in 1992 is what gave him a leg-up on the notability bandwagon, yes? I did appreciate the way Leary's Wiki page was written. Perhaps Griffin lacks the respect of neutrality because he's been writing about the wrong drug. Atsme☯ 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of WP:NPOV and UNDUE.

An opinion stated numerous times does not make it fact. American conspiracy theorist in the lead is a descriptive term based on opinion. WP:NPOV states Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Griffin's view of the term "conspiracy" as quoted from a published interview: First of all, we need to define this horrible word, conspiracy. A lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to that. They talk about conspiracy theorists as though conspiracies weren’t real, and I feel sorry for these people because I know they have never read a history book because history is full of conspiracies. In fact, it’s hard to come up with a major event in history that wasn’t created to some large and significant extent by a conspiracy or more of them. Conspiracies are very real in history. They’re very real in our present day. If you doubt that just go to any courtroom and sit there and listen to the cases that come before the judge and before the jury, and a good percentage of them involve conspiracies of one kind or another. So when people talk about conspiracy theories, I have to laugh. It’s too bad they don’t know anything about history.

WP:Fringe theories - Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. References to laetrile and quackery in the article to describe Griffin's opinions and writings are POV and UNDUE as written, partly because the earlier claims are outdated by 35 years or so. There is no mention of the significant published results and/or recent scientific and academic research wherein the results either dispute or question the antiquated claims, and is still ongoing. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr., Dean Burk, and Kanematsu Sugiura, John A. Richardson, Philip E. Binzel, Jr., Hans Nieper of West Germany, N.R. Bouziane, M.D., from Canada, whistle blower Ralph Moss, and other highly reputable science writers, notable researchers and medical doctors, several of whom are included in Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, are not quacks, and their findings and actual clinical experiences/results are not quackery according to some RS. Where is the balance? Where is NPOV? Some of the theories Griffin pointed out in his book have been validated by factual information that was recently published, such as Ralph Moss' book, Second Opinion, and John A. Richardson's book, Laetrile Case Histories .

Further validation relative to the above is further evidenced here: ...(a reliable, published academic source which holds relevance as a source because Griffin is mentioned and cited in their research). Following are two excerpts from that published work:

The other major criticism made by Second Opinion has been corroborated by the New York Academy of Sciences through its official publication, The Sciences. According to a press release of the Academy, the recent Sloan-Kettering experiments were done on `the most drug resistant of experimental cancers, and that many drugs that are effective against cancer in human patients have never been tested on them. As a result of the Academy's investigative work, Sloan- Kettering had to alter its manuscript which was forthcoming in the Journal of Surgical Oncology.

AND....

Our position is impartial, or perhaps even agnostic: we are not directly concerned with whether or not Laetrile cures or controls cancer. Rather, as in an analysis of the Velikovsky conflict, our interest is in 'the methodological significance of the affair,'93 or 'the methods which are actually used to distinguish those knowledge claims which are "true" from the rest.'94 Both sides of the controversy warrant examination. Finally, by giving equal time to both sides of the controversy, we are not suggesting that both sides have similar legitimacy. Rather, our explanation of the phenomenon is symmetrical, meaning that the behaviours of both sides must be understood if the controversy is to be understood.

The same issues apply to The Creature.... It is not our job as editors to advocate for or against what is written in Griffin's books. Our job is to present in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. And therein the problem lies. The article simply does not meet the requirements for NPOV, and contains several BLP violations. Atsme☯ 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

everybody understands your position on this atsme and yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT is not helpful for resolving the dispute. We are discussing specific issues above, and we are making some slow progress. At some point, when we have identified specific core areas of disagreement we can perhaps take this to mediation, but a) we must have first thoroughly talked things out here; b) we must have sought outside input via postings at notice boards, (and we should consider an RfC that we all agree accurately identifies the issues). If we still fail to get resolution then, mediation may be our best final step. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess it was so slow I totally missed it, so please point out what you consider progress. So far, and I might be wrong, but all I recognize as your primary contribution is WP:SQS while the BLP violations remain unresolved. FYI, the above is not a statement of my position, rather it is a very specific summary of the BLP violations, complete with accompanying WP policy statements and reliable sources that validate my position. It would be refreshing to see those who dispute my claims actually cite policy explaining why the named BLP violations don't exist. Surely I haven't overlooked something that important. I also don't understand your interest in this article considering the fact you haven't made any attempt to expand or improve it. I've already made known my purpose here, and I see where Srich32977 and a few other editors have attempted collaboration for the sake of progress. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain yours. Atsme☯ 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have commented above on specific issues and briefly, which is generally the way that progress is made.Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of Atsme's claims in this section are new. The notion that there are BLP violations has been peddled extensively and has failed to gain consensus. I don't see the point of this new section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason I keep mentioning the BLP violations is because they still exist, and the editors who kept reverting and/or adding unreliable sources in an attempt to qualify the violations did not satisfy the NPOV requirement. And you wonder why I have to keep repeating myself. Ok, so I'll repeat what I stated a few lines above, and will also including the section title in the event you missed it...Summary of WP:NPOV and UNDUE - {{xt...it is a very specific summary of the BLP violations, complete with accompanying WP policy statements and reliable sources that validate my position. It would be refreshing to see those who dispute my claims actually cite policy explaining why the named BLP violations don't exist.}} Why did you think they were new claims? It is ludicrous to advance to new claims before the prominent BLP violations have been resolved. I'm still waiting for the editors who so boldly reverted the violations and caused PP to actually cite policy explaining why they think the named BLP violations don't exist. I haven't seen anything yet that qualifies as strict adherence to BLP policy. I do not see where any progress has been made, either, and I've actually read, re-read, and re-re-read all the comments. Atsme☯ 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that when the full protection ends you'll quickly begin repeating the same edits you were making before. The fact that this might not be a good idea probably won't give you pause, will it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, it would probably help if you work through the article section by section and solve the issues in each section rather than wanting to do it all at the same time. Others don't share your concern that there are BLP issues in the article which need to be addressed straight away, therefore you need to move on from that onto improving the article the usual (proposal, negotiation and compromise) way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, my focus has been on the lead section, and trying to make it policy compliant. I understand your point, and under normal circumstances, I would definitely agree and follow your advice. Actually, I wouldn't be in this position under normal circumstances, so please try to understand mine. JzG actually acknowledged the contentious label in the lead, . Unfortunately, he didn't come here as a proponent of NPOV, and tried to validate the violation by adding a few more unacceptable sources (trivial mention), holding true to his belief that "quibbling about the strength of sourcing does not really help." He's right to the extent that an RS will not magically convert an opinion into a statement of fact. In 2008, there was a collaboration of GF editors trying to get the Griffin article ready as a possible GA candidate. They kept the contentious labels and pejoratives out of the lead , which is unlike what I've tried to do. In June 2014 the contentious label was added back, , appearing as a statement of fact supported by WP. The article went downhill from there. I credit Srich for trying to negotiate and compromise like what you suggested - his patience is admirable - and his take on it may be quite different from mine, but his edits were also reverted before the PP. I think a few of his edits were "allowed" to remain, which begs the question, WP:OWN?? The pattern of responses in the section by section discussion above resembles WP:SQS. Is keeping Griffin a WP:Coatrack so important that it's worth all this disruption? Atsme☯ 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, others agree that it is a contentious statement not that it is a BLP violation, in fact the rough consensus here so far is that it isn't a BLP vio. So you need to move on from arguing that, and probably the lede as well and focus on other parts of the article. Once you have sorted out those other parts you can go back to the lede. Continuing to post walls of text about the same issue isn't going to lead to progress and just is going end up with someone getting blocked when the protection expires or the article getting protected again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, are you seriously suggesting Ralph Moss as a reliable source? A man who has consistently lied about the job he did at MSKCC and was sacked for misrepresenting his employers? I do hope not. He is a crank. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the man, JzG, but if you are referring to the quote I included above about Second Opinion, please be advised it came from Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed journal. It's actually a well-balanced, well-written paper, and a good read. I highly recommend it. I'm not quite sure why my work has been so heavily criticized, but it appears as though it is the result of misinterpretation. Please rest assured that the prose I write is balanced, dispassionate, NPOV, well cited, and follows policy to the best of my ability. I'm not perfect, so if another GF editor takes issue with something I've written, I am always ready and willing to discuss and collaborate if given half the chance to do so. If I've made a mistake, improperly cited a reference, etc., I have no problem correcting it, or having another editor correct it. My opinions about the subject are irrelevant, and the same applies to collaborators because our job is to be balanced and neutral. I don't factor in my personal opinions about anything I write unless I'm commissioned to write an opinion piece. If you haven't already, please read what I wrote, and tell me what's so wrong about it. .

Atsme, please see WP:MEDRS. Our content on laetrile needs to be sourced from independent sources: statements by major medical and scientific bodies, and the most recent reviews we can find. Those sources are already used in the article. Please especially see the "respect secondary sources" section of MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? What are you referring to? Atsme☯ 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You only reference one-health related matter in this section - laetrile, and you discuss sources for material on laetrile. Those sources fail MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific - I truly don't know what you're referencing. Are you talking about the diff? Are you talking about something I referenced in this discussion? Just tell me what source please. Atsme☯ 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

none of the sources you bring above, about laetrile, can be used to trump the MEDRS sources we already have; and there are yet more. Please do read MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If Guy is referring to Moss' book, Second Opinion, as mentioned above, then please refer to the source I actually cited. I did not cite Second Opinion. The excerpt that referenced Moss' book was published in Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed academic journal - May, 1979 - Vol 9, pgs 139-166, , chapter title=Politics and Science in the Laetrile Controversy - and I quote: "the other major criticism made by Second Opinion has been corroborated by the New York Academy of Sciences through its official publication, The Sciences." Our personal opinions about Moss are irrelevant.

Jytdog, surely you're not suggesting that the American Cancer Society, and The New York Academy of Sciences are not reliable sources, are you? I'm confused over your repeated references to WP:MEDRS when its application is context dependent. Griffin is not an article about laetrile, therefore citing sources that don't meet the standards of MEDRS is not an attempt by me to "trump" anything. Different RS will be cited in order to validate what we write about a particular opinion or passage in Griffin's book. In fact, Griffin's book fails MEDRS, but we can still refer to it. Regardless, we should not be conducting a scientific debate in Griffin's BLP regarding the use of laetrile. We must avoid UNDUE by keeping mention of laetrile proportionate to its prominence in Griffin's body of work. Also keep in mind that we cannot exclude the information that inspired Griffin to write, World Without Cancer, which may include information Griffin refers to in John A. Richardson's book. Atsme☯ 19:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

that was just a note about your wall of text and subsequent comments, generally. we are discussing specific content above. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Moss, and reasonably familiar with Second Opinion since it is the source of a laetrile propaganda film made by Eric Merola, who also produced the two propaganda films promoting the execrable Burzynski Clinic and whose only past feature-length work is on his brother's Zeitgeist Truther-fests. Moss specifically and laetrile generally are good litmus tests for credulous reporting. Any acceptance of the claims of laetrile quacks is prima facie evidence of lack of proper critical analysis, because laetrile, once the most profitable scam in America, is refuted. Not unproven, refuted.

World Without Cancer is billed as the story of vitamin B17. It is, therefore, fiction. There is no such thing as vitamin B17. Laetrile is not a vitamin, neither is amygdalin. The term "vitamin B17" was coined ins a cynical attempt to evade drug regulations and capitalise on the lax regulation of supplements in the US, itself a result of industry lobbying and legislation promoted by congressmen with extensive financial interests in the supplement industry. The name "vitamin B17" is simply fraudulent.

Yes, we do, and absolutely should, have a position on laetrile: it is a quack cancer "cure" that does not work. That is the scientific consensus, unambiguously established from every single reliable independent source that discusses it. WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS apply. You may choose to quote mine sources that superficially meet MEDRS in order to imply support for Griffin's book, but that is cherry-picking and quote mining and a violation of policy. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you'd share what you really think. If you would please provide a link or two with some updated research (21st Century if you don't mind) that confirms your stated position, or are we supposed to maintain the status quo of results that date back to 70s and 80s? Just curious. Atsme☯ 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a very thorough Cochrane review from 2011, PMID 22071824, which concludes: "The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative." Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, you forgot to click on the update link in that review which dramatically changes the landscape, and why updating Griffin is necessary - - (bold underline for emphasis): AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The claim that Laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by data from controlled clinical trials. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for randomised or controlled clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of Laetrile or amygdalin for cancer treatment. Looks like Moss' Second Opinion may have awakened some of the sleeping dogs, maybe even stepped on the tails of a few. GF collaboration is a good thing if for no other reason than to keep us on our toes. Oh, and please take a look at the following update from Sloan-Kettering: With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment. . It really is better to pay closer attention to the updated, rather than the outdated information. I also strongly recommend reading the October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories). Read the Nacci's Curriculum vitae on pg 3 before attaching any labels to him. He is a specialist in nuclear medicine, and published the book, Diventa Medico di Te stesso (Become your own doctor), which was awarded "Best Scientific Book of Year 2006". And yes, his work passes the acid test for MEDRS. Alrighty then, since JzG stated that "we do, and absolutely should, have a position on laetrile", I agree. In light of the updated information, the only violation of policy I can see at this point would be the continued used of pejorative terminology and contentious labeling, so we must be careful how the prose is written. Updating antiquated information is a long way from "cherry picking", and more like getting the article right. NPOV requires the inclusion of updated information. I think the impact is even greater when it comes from world renowned authorities who have provided (and performed) the scientific research including numerous clinical trials that corroborate Griffin's book. Finally, I know we're all busy, and I realize the following 2007 doctoral dissertation doesn't qualify as a MEDRS. However, it is archived in the University of Western Sydney's Thesis Collection (with a citation on Google Scholar), and truly an enlightening read. It's titled, "Changes in Direction of Cancer Research Over the 20th Century: What Prompted Change: Research Results, Economics, Philosophy", authored by Jeannie Burke, Master of Science (Honours).. Atsme☯ 12:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The "update link" is to an earlier (2006) version of the 2011 Cochrane review Jytdog cited. Brunton (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Did a strike-thru, rest remains as is. Thank you. Atsme☯ 14:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

now that atsme has understood how pubmed works, I see nothing else in the walloftext to respond to.Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose not, Jytdog, considering Dr. Nacci's documentation on the whole laetrile thing, and all the sources he cited. Sometimes we get too focused on U.S. based policy and decisions, completely forgetting that Misplaced Pages is world-wide. Maybe you could start writing prose and helping to expand the article, maybe work on correcting the UNDUE issues, and help make it NPOV friendly. A good place to start would be changing the section titles so they reflect NPOV. We can't just leave the article looking like a WP:Coatrack. Atsme☯ 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to address the "ideally from the 21st Century" point, as I have seen similar for several forms of quackery. For example, HCG diet hucksters claim that the research refuting the HCG diet is no longer relevant because it dates back to the 1970s.

Medical trials are governed by the Declaration of Helsinki. Under that declaration, it would be nigh on impossible to get ethical approval for a new human trial of a refuted treatment like laetrile. The existing evidence is so strongly against it, and the purported mechanism of action so far out of line with current understanding, that no institutional review board would approve it.

Put simply, when science finds an answer, it tends to stop asking - whereas quacks will always keep asking until they get the answer they want. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile is refuted everywhere. See this from the UK, for example. Your problem here would be WP:TRUTH if it weren't for the fact that the claims for laetrile are not actually true. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence quoted from Sloan-Kettering isn't an update either. It is a single sentence cherry-picked from a page that clearly says that amygdalin has not been found to be effective as a cancer treatment. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And the conclusion of the 2011 Cochrane review is: The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative. Which is how Misplaced Pages will represent it, because we're a project of the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, Griffin is a BLP not an article on fringe science or pseudoscience. The topic is not laetrile, and it is not our job to advocate, debunk, promote or criticize laetrile in this BLP. Misplaced Pages editors are obliged to follow policy and guidelines, particularly NPOV which requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Perhaps a refresher will help remind everyone what is required in WP:FRINGE under the heading Evaluating Claims - Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. The latter is what is being ignored, and what my edits have tried to correct, all of which have been reverted. Atsme☯ 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue tag

I think the Undue tag can go, as it gives undue weight to a single opinion (that of Atsme) and it is abundantly clear by now that this is motivated in no small part by desire to advance a WP:FRINGE idea, the quack cancer treatment known as laetrile. Nobody else here seems to support the idea that the article gives undue weight to anything. The subject is known for his advocacy of crank ideas, and we reflect that dispassionately. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree so much that I'll do it myself. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to wait until after the holidays to express my concerns because I can see it's going to require a great deal of my time. Lucky for me, I have plenty of it. My main concern is how this article is being used as a WP:Coatrack even after I've provided reliable sources that dispute the prominent POV. Atsme☯ 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a well known fact about Misplaced Pages that those advancing a fringe view have vastly greater motivation to press their point than other Wikipedians typically have to resist it. Don't be that person. The basis of the dispute as stated at the fringe theory noticeboard is that you dispute the categorisation of laetrile as pseudoscience, on the basis that this is a biography so should merely report the claims and not address their validity. Feel free to set me right if that is not your actual position (but do try to do it in terms that don't fail the TL;DR test, as many of your comments above do).

Whatever your personal view, the consensus of reliable independent sources is that laetrile is quackery. It's been identified as the most profitable quackery of its day. The only provable and repeatable effect of laetrile is cyanide toxicity. Asserting that laetrile is legitimate would be very unwise, as there is simply no way it is going to fly. It is one of the most widely discussed and best documented forms of health fraud in the world.

So, feel free to discuss the issues you have with this specific article, but don't even try to propose that Griffin's views on laetrile are defensible, because that will fail and it will piss off those of us who are here to keep the peace. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Let's start with the following: WP:PROFRINGE - specifically The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Have you even read the prose I wrote that was reverted? WP policy states that opinions cannot be represented as statements of fact.
• It is neither my desire nor intention to get into a debate with you or anyone else over the pros and cons of pseudoscience and/or fringe theories - but just a sidebar note: "Radiation therapy can damage normal cells as well as cancer cells." , or "Radiation has potentially excess risk of death from heart disease seen after some past breast cancer RT regimens.", and "Chemotherapy does not always work, and even when it is useful, it may not completely destroy the cancer." How about some actual results and survival rates after conventional treatments:
• Regardless, that isn't what the Griffin biography is about, so I will reply matter-of-factly in a dispassionate tone. Read my UP to understand my motives, and please dispense with the conspiracy theories and insinuations that I have a "vastly greater motivation." Sorry to disappoint, but I have no other motivation than to get the article right, expand it 5x per DYK, make it a GA, and potential candidate for FA promotion. I wish more editors would edit with the same goals in mind.
• Why are you and a handful of other editors placing so much emphasis on pseudoscience in this BLP, and wanting to maintain it as a WP:Coatrack? Perhaps the answer is here, , and in your comments above. How can you believe the criticisms launched against me are not exactly what I'm being falsely accused of doing? The consensus of independent reliable sources is that Griffin has a Top 50 best seller on Amazon (in its 5th edition, 38th printing) about the Federal Reserve, not that he is a conspiracy theorist. The POV pushers, like Media Matters refer to him as a conspiracy theorist - not RS - but even if RS are cited that's fine with me as long as it is stated as their opinion, and not a statement of fact that represents WP's position.
• The article is riddled with other issues as well, including UNDUE and RS. I did not try to diffuse the claims that were reliably sourced. I simply tried to provide balance, and eliminate UNDUE in the article. I am suggesting (and you could call it "insisting") that certain statements in the article be changed to follow MOS as well as WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS, and WP:BLPFRINGE. Atsme☯ 22:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not persuaded by any of these concerns; they rehash arguments above that failed to gain traction, and I think we're well into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. If the tag is re-added, I will support its removal again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears we've exhausted all reasonable channels of discussion. I'll take it to DR. Atsme☯ 20:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've let Atsme take the laboring oar on these discussion, but the recent change to the Infobox (along with the lede) warrants the tag. As Atsme said, there is no such occupation as "Promoter of CT". At most Griffin is a writer who promotes kooky ideas, but using WP to tarnish him in this fashion is improper. This article was stable until August. But then we had a series of edits come in to slant the article. Sadly they have not let up and sadly editors have failed to describe Griffin and his ideas with NPOV in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

please TALK

Atsme and Srich32977 it is silly that you are resorting to edit warring instead of talking. Let's try to identify the specific things you are objecting to, so we can consider taking them to mediation or crafting a series of RfCs to address them (in other words, do dispute resolution.

• I think both of you disagree with characterizing Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" at all. Is that accurate?
• I think Atsme alone, objects to the description of laetrile in the article. Is that accurate?
• if not, please define exactly and concisely (no walls of text please) what the issues are. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't characterize the edits as EW. Who was it that added the ersatz "occupation" to the infobox before PP was instituted? (And why not direct your EW admonition to that editor?) What discussion has there been about the "occupation"? The edit was boldly made, it was reverted, and now it should be discussed. (Instead we see accusations of edit warring.) As for your question to me, I do think he is a CT, but the sourcing for that description is poor and thus the description does not belong in the lede. (And certainly not the infobox.) Instead of using WP as the vehicle to describe Griffin as a CT, the article should say "Some have described him as ....." Finally, without adding a wall of text (because I have commented earlier), this article should not be used as the vehicle to debunk laetrile. The SYN we have seen in this regard is shameful. – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have not/do not disagree with the fact that Griffin has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist. We cannot label him as such to make it appear as WP's position. We cannot call CT his "occupation" because such a statement is worse than ridiculous. It is an opinion, and considered to be a pejorative term.
• I have not/do not object to including the views of government agency supported descriptions and/or conclusions of laetrile, etc. My objection is to the use of this article as a WP:Coatrack to advocate, debunk, and/or promote. This article is about Griffin, and laetrile happens to be the topic of ONE of his books. If one view of laetrile is included as the prevalent view of government supported agencies, then the prevalent views of notable experts should also be included to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. FACT: there is/has been widespread use, its use is controversial, there are opposing opinions expressed by renowned experts on both sides, there is recent research, numerous results from clinical trials, new information has come forward in 2013 & 2014, and the sources meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP, WP:BLPFRINGE, 2nd party and 3rd party reliability/verifiability. The term quackery is pejorative, and we must be careful how it used to not create a BLP violation. The subject needs brief dispassionate mention from a NPOV.
• Bottomline - fix the section titles, fix all of the issues in each section that create WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, correct, then avoid WP:BLP violations. All sections have the same issues. Atsme☯ 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious, unhelpful and untrue in regard to laetrile. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is a BLP about Griffin, not a fringe article about laetrile. Atsme☯ 00:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• with regard to "conspiracy theorist" in the infobox. I think this is not precedented and should go.

* I don't intend to address Atsme's issues with regard to laetrile per se; that is a settled matter and there is no debating it. Laetrile is not effective for treating cancer and has a high risk of harming people. That is settled medical science.

• with regard to concerns stated about SYN with regard to laetrile.... I posted at the Fringe Noticeboard here (and please note that the discretionary sanctions now in effect concern FRINGE/pseudoscience). That attracted comments there, and here from two new editors (Kingofaces43 and admin Guy), and both of them - both there and here - have supported the current way we address the intersection between BLP and PSCI - namely addressing Griffin's claims about laetrile. Neither found that we are committed SYNs and instead found that the text complies with PSCI and BLP. :) In my reading of the discussion at BLPN by Atsme here, from what I can see only Atsme and Srich found a problem, and Alexbrn, Elaqueate, and Nat Gertler found no problems. Nomoskedasticity seems to have started participating here due to the BLPN posting. Yobol sounded in there too, but he has been here for a while. At some point TFD jumped in and noted that he finds a problem with SYN but it seems to me that TFD, Atsme and Srich are alone in finding a problem with SYN. We have been to two notice boards already. Pursuing this further seems like forum shopping to me. I would be interesting in hearing a next DR step that would not be forum shopping.
• with regard to naming "conspiracy theorist" in the lead and in WP's voice, there is boatloads of precedent for doing that (have a scroll/click through this search to see what I mean). In our article, there are five sources for that description of him in the lead, and more in the body. I don't see how S Rich can say there is insufficient sourcing for that. Please explain. Thanks. Note on this one: w have not taken this aspect in particular to boards yet, and I would be open to us working together to draft an RfC that we all find acceptable, on this issue.
• if there are other specific issues (i.e. exact bits of content) that S Rich and Atsme are objecting to, please state them. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whys of Cancer Quackery

has a dead link tag. the full article is here if anybody wants to read it now... and we can fix the link when the article opens again. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles