Revision as of 15:43, 20 September 2024 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,556,692 editsm Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 17:57, 20 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,063 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 10) (botNext edit → |
Line 58: |
Line 58: |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{clear}} |
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
|
|
== As several of the alleged "conspiracy theories" have now been proved to be true... == |
|
|
|
|
|
... should we not revisit this, and remove the inappropriate language, and obviously political labelling? ] (]) 07:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your sources? Per ]: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." ] (]) 10:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Careful, you'll get banned for a week like I did. ] (]) 21:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Jim's response is more to the point. --] (]) 06:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:This entire article is radical communist leftist nonsense with no references or facts to support any claims. ] (]) 22:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Wow, unsupported statement, following by bizarre ''ad hominem'', followed by '''''"COMMIES!"''''', and not a single actual source or reference, just abuse. --] | ] 00:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Poor and/or biased references == |
|
== Poor and/or biased references == |
Concerning the claim from the introductory paragraph that Griffin's theories on the Federal Reseve have been debunked, I followed the (single) citation to a book called "Pranksters : making mischief in the modern world" and read the relevant chapters. It does nothing by way of "disproving" the claim, and no actual, fact-based argument is advanced. Instead, it's but a "claim against the claim", a simple statement in other words that what Griffin says is wrong and/or exaggerated, while shame is attributed to the otherwise respectable men who promoted his theories. It's a mark of hypocrisy to call a theory debunked by citing a reference that does not even try to debunk it factually. I believe that this entire claim must be removed from this article, or citations to actual proofs must be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.254.1820 (talk • contribs) September 2024 (UTC)