Revision as of 03:51, 21 October 2024 edit81.96.117.150 (talk) →Regarding the opening paragraph to this article..: new sectionTags: Reverted New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:24, 21 October 2024 edit undoSqueakachu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,183 editsm Reverted edit by 81.96.117.150 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Concerning the claim from the introductory paragraph that Griffin's theories on the Federal Reseve have been debunked, I followed the (single) citation to a book called "Pranksters : making mischief in the modern world" and read the relevant chapters. It does '''nothing''' by way of "disproving" the claim, and no actual, fact-based argument is advanced. Instead, it's but a "claim against the claim", a simple statement in other words that what Griffin says is wrong and/or exaggerated, while shame is attributed to the otherwise respectable men who promoted his theories. It's a mark of hypocrisy to call a theory debunked by citing a reference that does not even try to debunk it factually. I believe that this entire claim must be removed from this article, or citations to actual proofs must be found. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) September 2024 (UTC)</small> | Concerning the claim from the introductory paragraph that Griffin's theories on the Federal Reseve have been debunked, I followed the (single) citation to a book called "Pranksters : making mischief in the modern world" and read the relevant chapters. It does '''nothing''' by way of "disproving" the claim, and no actual, fact-based argument is advanced. Instead, it's but a "claim against the claim", a simple statement in other words that what Griffin says is wrong and/or exaggerated, while shame is attributed to the otherwise respectable men who promoted his theories. It's a mark of hypocrisy to call a theory debunked by citing a reference that does not even try to debunk it factually. I believe that this entire claim must be removed from this article, or citations to actual proofs must be found. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) September 2024 (UTC)</small> | ||
:{{notdone}} The source is fine. ] (]) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC) | :{{notdone}} The source is fine. ] (]) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
== Regarding the opening paragraph to this article.. == | |||
Go fuck yourself, Misplaced Pages! You corrupted anti-human communist tool! ] (]) 03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 05:24, 21 October 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the G. Edward Griffin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, 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. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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. |
|
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- Not done The source is fine. Bon courage (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class biography articles
- B-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
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class Michigan articles
- Low-importance Michigan articles
- B-Class Detroit articles
- Detroit task force articles
- WikiProject Michigan articles